Hello everyone and welcome to the fifth installment of our continuing series of Rules Roundtables! This project is an effort to demystify what the rules of the subreddit are, to explain the reasoning behind why each rule came into being, provide examples and explanation why a rule will be applicable in one case and not in another. Finally, this project is here to get your feedback, so that we can hear from the community what rules are working, what ones aren't, and what ones are unclear.

Today's topic is addressing the rules concerning "No Current Events", also known as the "20 Year Rule". So first, the rule. As stated, it is quite brief and to the point:

To discourage off-topic discussions of current events, questions, answers and all other comments must be confined to events that happened 20 years ago or more, inclusively (e.g. 1996 and older).

While it might seem to be pretty straightforward, I'm here to break it down, and provide some explanation as to why this rule exists, and why it is an important one!

##Why Does History Only Start 20 Years in the Past!?

First things first. We freely admit that the use of 20 years as a cut-off date is a mostly arbitrary one. We very well could have gone with 15 years, or we could have gone with 25 years. I'm sure there is at least someone who wishes we had gone with a hard date of 1888 to prevent any Hitler questions from being allowed on the sub. By at least one definition, yesterday could be construed as history, or even what happened a few minutes ago, but we firmly believe, for reasons that will be laid out here, that using the widest interpretation of what constitutes "History" is not only problematic for us from a moderation perspective, but also a disservice to you, the readers, and your experience here. In the end, 20 Years serves as a good balance for the various reasonings behind this rule, which we will now get into!

##The Reasonings

###Personal Experience

As already covered in a previous Roundtable, we do not allow responses which are substantially based off of the personal experience of the poster in question, as as we like to say, "You are not a source". This can be complicated enough as it is, since there are plenty of older redditors who remember the '50s or '60s, and personally (sorry) one of the hardest moderation decisions I have had to make was removing a very nice, very heartfelt response about growing up in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. But imagine if we take off the 20 Year limit, or substantially role it back to, perhaps, 5 years. We already are dreading when 9/11 becomes fair game, and that is still 5 years away. I'm sure plenty of us will have moving stories of how we experienced that day to share, but /r/AskHistorians is not the place for it. So basically, what the 20 Year cut-off does in this case is help discourage those responses. Especially since the largest reddit demographic is in their 20s, the cut-off date works nicely to keep out topics and events which would most likely solicit those personal responses, or be otherwise based on recent connection to them. This subreddit is not /r/AskReddit, and for people who want those personal responses (even for topics which are >20 Years Old), we recommend that as a good subreddit to post in.

###Modern Politics

This is especially timely as the US Presidential election goes into full-swing. I think it goes without saying that politics can be contentious. The legacy of politicians long out of office, such as Thatcher or Adenauer, not to mention dead for more than a century, such as Lincoln, are still hotly debated, and those alone can be tough topics to deal with fairly and objectively (A Roundtable on the Soapboxing and Political Agenda rule will be forthcoming!), even though they are of course fair, historical game. But the Obama administration? The GWB years? This takes the personal experience and personal opinions factor previously elucidated, and throws in the clear possibility of quite acrimonious arguments and debate on topics which there might not really even be a clear answer. If someone were to ask, perhaps, about the passage of Obamacare in the absence of a 20 Year Rule, we are of the firm belief that it simply couldn't be fairly moderated to the standards we expect here, as it may take decades before we can even begin to analyze its passage and effects with remove. For political questions which are likely to fall on the near side of 20 Years, we recommend users try /r/Ask_Politics of /r/NeutralPolitics.

###Historical Remove

This brings us to the third 'prong' on which the 20 Year Rule stands. When talking about events that happened only in the past few years, it is hard to have the proper perspective. There are enough debates raging out there on the finer points of 12th Century basket weaving technique, or the rules for hide-and-seek in 1st Century Parthia, and we have had a fair bit of time for matters to settle there. Absolute, true objectivity may be a pipe-dream, but the further back in time we go, it is at least easier to agree on basic, underlying facts, even if interpretations might differ greatly at times. You need to only look at news reporting on recent events to get a sense of just how problematic questions on, perhaps, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the Arab Spring, or the Invasion of Iraq might be, even discounting people throwing their opinions into the fray. We can see this from past events, such as World War II, where immediate reporting was often wildly off-base, and in some cases it would take many decades for real, solid understanding of certain events to materialize. To borrow from /u/restricteddata who eloquently answered once before on this topic:

It is comparatively straightforward (though there is always room for interpretation) to talk about historical trends. But the closer you get to the present, the less we know about where things are going, what really went on, what really mattered. We usually lack deep knowledge of sources, as well, and are reliant on journalistic accounts — the "first draft" of history that is not really history at all, and in retrospect is often severely lacking in the "whole story."

In truth, there are no doubt some events that, with that metric, we would prefer to limit even beyond the 20 Year mark, but as noted at the beginning, it is a pragmatic choice which we feel offers the best balance.

##The Grey Zone

Now, even though you would think "20 Years, Yes/No?" is a pretty objective line to moderate, there is always going to be that middle-zone where maybe a question is OK, and maybe it isn't. So there are a few caveats that are worth mentioning.

###Comparisons:

Putting things into modern terms can often help contemporary audiences better understand a topic (although it is a double-edged sword, with the specter of presentism sharpening the other blade), and we get a fair number of questions that ask if "[Modern Thing] is like [Historical Thing]" (and likewise even if the question isn't phrased that way, some answers will use an analogy of that sort to explain). The rule of thumb to follow here is that while using a modern event or person as a frame of reference is generally fine, the answer sought should be firmly historical. Questions where the phrasing invites, or even requires, discussion of that event to establish the baseline, will be removed. Similarly with answers, using something modern (and uncontroversial please!) as an analogy won't result in removal, but focusing on it as a real part of the answer likely will. As in all cases, if you have any doubts, we welcome you to reach out to us and ask.

To provide some examples, "Who is more faithful to the doctrine of orthodox Marxism, Bernie "Red" Sanders or Stalin?" is going to get removed, since it both relates to a highly contentious current issue, as well as calls for considerable discussion to establish the baseline for comparison of the modern figure (and of course if this wasn't a joke example, it also violates the Soapboxing rule, and maybe Poll-type Questions to boot). Another example, and one which has been posted (and removed) a few times already, "How does the current Syrian refugee crisis compare to the refugee situation post-World War II?" would similarly come up against the 20 Year Rule, since it would not only require discussion of the Crisis to a great degree, but also may very well require debate to establish just how series the Crisis is!

However, a question which relates to something relatively uncontroversial, and doesn't require any actual <20 Year discussion to deal with, is often going to be allowed to slide. For example, something like "Were presidential nominations in the 19th century as hotly contested as the Republican race is this year?" would be fine as the comparison regards a mostly uncontroversial fact and his asking about historical matters. Similarly a question such as "[Candidate A] recently made [Claim X] about 1950s America while debating. Is there any truth to their statement?" since it focuses solely on the historical aspect. Of course, keep in mind that even in the case of a question we initially approve, we may reconsider and remove if it proves to be leading to overly modern and/or political discussion.

###Straddling the Line:

Obviously, some events don't neatly end for us on December 31st, 1996. With a question about, say, the 1996 NFL season, we're probably going to let slide an answer which talks about the playoffs and the Superbowl, even though that edges into 1997. But a question about a long-occurring event that began in December '96 and continued for a number of years onwards, we aren't going to be cutting slack. The rule of thumb here, essentially, is that a toe over the line can slide, but hanging onto the line by a finger won't. In the end, of course, it again is a judgement call, and we certainly appreciate it when users reach out to us to check if they are unsure.

###Explaining Effects:

Pertaining pretty much just to answers, an offshoot of events that straddle the line is cases where there may be long term effects worth noting. Again, you guessed it, this comes down to a judgement call! A prime example here would be the conflict in Afghanistan beginning in the 1970s, and continuing one one way or another right up to today! A response which covers the period of Soviet involvement, the collapse of Najibullah's regime, and the rise of the Taliban, has an OK endpoint in 1996 with the fall of Kabul, and with this topic, we would expect that the substantive answer essentially stop there. But if the respondent were to include an "epilogue" paragraph, if you will, mentioning that the conflict continued and mentioning a few facts such as that Massoud and the Northern Alliance's continued the fight eventually to overthrow the Taliban with US backing, it isn't going to result in removal, but focusing much of the response there is going to. Basically, giving people some info that they can take to use as a basis for further research, or to ask a question somewhere else that doesn't restrict questions to >20 Years isn't going to result in removal. But again, if you have any doubts, we love it when you check with us!

###Historiography:

Questions which are about the study of history, methodology, and modern debates in the academy about historical theories and interpretation are acceptable. For example, a question about the current state of the Intentionalist-Functionalist debate in Holocaust studies would be acceptable, even though it deals in part with current matters.

##But I Want an Answer to Your Standards!

In a perfect world, we could have no limits whatsoever, and every single post in the subreddit would be amazing and follow the rules. I'll keep my fingers crossed on one hand, but the other is going to stay hovering over the "Remove" button for now. So in the meantime, while we are not directly associated with these subreddits, here are a few suggestions for other communities that keep rules in place and employ a dose of active moderation. We of course urge you to make sure to familiarize yourself with the rules of the respective subreddits before you start posting!

For political questions, /r/Ask_Politics and /r/NeutralPolitics are a good place to look, as is /r/GeoPolitics or /r/IRStudies.

For questions regarding people and society, /r/AskSocialScience covers a number of disciplines, including Political Science, Public Policy, and Sociology.

For current events, /r/TrueReddit doesn't allow text submissions, but does attempt to maintain intelligent discussion on the articles present, which can make for good kick offs. They is also the subreddit /r/InsightfulQuestions, which shares a similar mission, and mod team with TR. /r/TrueAskReddit also it worth mentioning there. While not strictly an "Ask" style subreddit, /r/ChangeMyView provides a forum for civil discourse on weighty matters. /r/CredibleDefense focuses on military affairs and conflicts, generally. Additionally, there are a number of subreddits which devote themselves to certain events, such as /r/SyrianCivilWar or /r/JihadInFocus. Hopefully users might be able to suggest some more worth noting.