Today there was a post asking about the largest confirmed gathering of people in world history. It seems that the answer to the question may violate the 20 year rule, and the result was many, many comments being removed by the mods.
My question : Should it be considered appropriate to correctly answer a question when the author of the question is unaware that the answer would violate the 20 year rule, and should the mods be given discretion to allow the answer?
One could say, "Because the answer to this includes an observation (namely xxxxxxxx) that violates the 20 year rule, this is better asked of /r/asksocialscience or /r/askanthropology." That would get around the prohibition while still providing information.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and its associated regs describes a 50 year rule for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and as a National Historic Landmark. There is an opportunity to argue an exception to the rule: clearly the World Trade Center site was internationally significant on September 12, 2001. I sat on the National Historic Landmarks Committee between 2004 and 2013, serving as chair from 2009 to 2013. We had committee members who represented the two extremes regarding the fifty year rule. Some felt strongly that to open the door to exceptions was to open the door to chaos and to poor judgments that time would correct if we only waited. Others felt strongly that some resources were just so obviously significant that they warranted listing before turning 50. I led the charge for and was pleased to see the listing of Graceland, for example. The NHL Committee has and will continue to debate each proposed exception, and each example will represent a tough discussion, but I have faith the collective wisdom will arrive at the right decision most if not all the time.
There is no question that in the best of all worlds we should have exceptions to the 20 year rule, but the fact is, the Mods have a considerable burden maintaining this as, what many believe to be, the best of the subreddits. Asking a Mod (which one - or should they go into conclave every time the question arises?) to grapple with this question is asking too much of these heroic volunteers. So hats off to the Mods; subscribers, please put the 20 year rule in perspective; and let's live with a necessary evil.
My two cents:
While the 20 year rule is intended to limit discussion to history and avoid recent events, I think a little discretion on the part of the moderators might be acceptable. If the OP isn't intentionally seeking a discussion on recent events, but the best answer to the question lies within the 20 year mark, what's wrong with allowing a quick mention of the event in question? By all means, limit the larger discussions to events older than 20 years, but allow us to answer the reasonable questions accurately rather than simply deleting the answer every time it arises.
We don't want this sub to become a discussion hub regarding current events, but deleting correct answers to a perfectly innocent question seems unreasonable.
As the rule stands, we can blame OPs for not knowing something already by deleting the post, or simply refuse to answer the question by deleting the answers. Why can't we make an exception to allow a brief answer followed by a modpost explaining that any further detailed discussion will have to be about an older event related to the question or in a different sub? We could maintain the integrity of the sub while still giving a quick answer OP could use as a starting point for more detailed information.