As suggested here by mod /u/caffarelli, I decided to make this post.
My point in making this request is simple. If OP asks a question, and the top comment or two answer it, thats great! But if often enough that other users will ask relevant questions, or post relevant, if too recent to count (hence 20 year rule) that would then get deleted.
I think it would be a fair idea if the age limit rule was enforced more laxly in this situation. Rather than continue enforcing the rule when all appropriate questions / answers are posted, you're potentially shutting out an interested audience.
Just for example lets ask about the US military history regarding generals and their leadership tactics. We get a couple fantastic sourced comments describing WW1 and WW2. Now that OP is satisfied, to open the floor to more questions such as the more war in Afghanistan or whatever.
Now this can obviously clutter up threads, which is why I'm asking for it to be perhaps eased in rather than killing the rule. the mods in here are strict, and i think thats great for subreddit health. But the community is why we're here, and deleting honest questions because they break the 20 year rule (after the main thread is "over") can kind of suck for the individual.
I think all this would do would be to encourage discussion of sub-20 year stuff in the comments, and ignore the very good reason we have that rule for. Similarly, just relaxing the rule would probably lead to unclear moderation which no one really appreciates.
Thanks for creating this META thread, it avoids off-topic discussion in a non-meta thread. Here are some details which may help an informed discussion of your proposal.
You state you want to open the floor to more questions, so I went through the thread which inspired you to create this thread. Of the (at this time) 117 removed comments only 3 asked a question:
As much as I hate the fact that there is not a place with similar rigor to discuss recent history, I think that the good of the 20 year rule vastly outweighs the negatives.
First and foremost, the more recent the topic the more crassly it tends to be politicized. It is hard enough to objectively discuss the policies of JFK, Nixon, or Reagan. It would become phenomenally harder to discuss the policies of GWB or Obama with anything approaching objectivity or academic rigor.
Part of the issue with academic rigor in those periods is that we're simply too close. We can't see the long term impact of the policies of GWB or Obama. We don't know if they've saved us or doomed us or somewhere in between. We need a certain amount of distance to really determine what the effects of a policy or leader were. Additionally, we still lack a lot of the documents to properly analyze these events. Many of the documents are classified or practically undiscovered. Many of the programs are incredibly opaque. I don't think it is truly possible to really maintain the full academic standards of this sub within the twenty year role for many questions, particularly the ones that are most likely to be asked.
All of that being said, I would love of some of the wonderful mods here would create a new subreddit with the same academic standards that focused on the last twenty years or allowed more general discussion than we can get here.
Is there another sub that does more recent history with the same rigour? The various wars that have taken place within the last twenty years are always worth a look and I know there are experts and historians who are building the history.
I completely agree so long as we keep top level comments in alignment with current rules. Once you get to third level comments, tons of threads end prematurely because the (otherwise excellent) rules stifle excellent discussion, sometimes among actual historians.