My question is why the moderator had to be so rude in answering. Expecting (slightly) more leeway is reasonable given the nature of the question. Delete the answer- but do so with more understanding as to why the response was written as it was.

Giving a FINAL WARNING is a little ridiculous. He had two options:

1. Not actually answer the question, but not break any rules.

2. Actually answer the question.

Running your sub like Judge Dredd has led to it being one of the highest quality subs on reddit, but it also occasionally results in some silly sitautions. This is one of those situations.

I think more importantly, one could easily mention that 'they are still in use today' but base a more substantial answer about the history of trebuchet use without simply saying 'well here's some modern day examples I know about aaaaaand I'm outta here'.

For example, one could talk about how trebuchets were still used centuries beyond the medieval times during some colonial/Age of Discovery wars. And while trebuchets did not make a large debut in 20th century warfare, improvised catapults were famous in World War 1 for lobbing explosives over relatively short distances.

I answer a wide range of questions and often times interesting tidbits are locked off because of the 20 year rule. I often reference the fact that there is more to learn and/or discuss in the modern times, but never do I use AskHistorians as the place to do so.

AskHistorians has a laser sharp focus for dealing with things in the past and bringing in too much modernity muddles that.

Touching on relevant aspects/information of modern events isn't against the rules but basing an entire answer on it does.

Providing corollary acknowledgement of more information in modern events is not the same as an answer entirely dependent on modern information. If the question seems to require an answer based only in modern information, either it shouldn't be posted here or you haven't looked at it in another way yet.

And we do allow leeway when discussing historiography.

Of course, that's simply my view on it and IANAM (I Am Not A Moderator!)

Honestly, if a question cannot be answered without breaking the rules it probably shouldn't be in this sub to begin with. /r/askHistorians is about history. The people who answer questions are (hopefully) experts on history, not on current politics. The twenty year rule might seem arbitrary, which it is, but you have to draw the line somewhere. And once you've drawn the line, you can't allow anyone to cross it.

In any case, there probably were ways to answer that question without going into the last twenty years. If trebuchets have been used in Syria, they've presumably also been used in some other "recent" conflict.

Hello. As I assume you want a second mod to answer you here, I've arrived!

So there are several reasons here that it was removed. The 20 year rule is the big one. We have it for a reason, and in this case, we really don't want a discussion of the Syrian Civil War. It is an ongoing conflict, and has no place here. Posting as you did invites further discussion. Follow up questions about use and effectiveness. All of which break the rules, and all of which we would have to remove.

Yes, you are challenging the premise of the question itself, but it puts us in a catch-22 position, and the default there is basically to enforce the rule as written. That being said, this doesn't render the question unanswerable, as the likely intent of the OP is more "How did use of the trebuchet decline during the medieval/early modern period?" And even excluding that, the answer "It never fully went away" can certainly be answered without breaking the 20 year rule, simply pointing out that it remained (or was revitalized) in use through the modern era by, yes, providing examples from the '70s or '80s. That is certainly sufficient argument to demonstrate continued use and requires no <20 year examples, winky faced or otherwise.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Edit: Also one additional thought I would point out, as I missed your own edit about "specific and rare edge-cases and question types where there is no way of answering the question without breaking it." In those cases, where it is simply unanswerable otherwise, we would just remove the question and direct OP to the appropriate subreddit. But as I said, in this case, I feel OP's intent is clear enough, and the edge-case aspect, as I said, can likely be sufficiently answered without having to start discussing the SCW.

I usualy deal with such questions by making it clear there are examples that violate the 20 year rule.

Ask historians works best for long form answers. Answers along the line of "this date this battle" don't get you very far. If you think trebuchets are still common in asymmetrical warfare then the 1996 cut off will still leave you plently to talk about. FWIW I don't think they are. I've not see any records of them, they are more complex then you might expect (look at the amount of work that goes into pumpkin chucking designs), they lack mobility, and the role is well filled by mortars and rockets. If for some reason you want to avoid those there are far more mobile options involving springs along the lines of the leach trench catapult.

There's a good reason why most first world legal systems have eschewed the use of things like strict liability offences and minimum sentences - they're simply unable to take into account the individual circumstances of each offense. Judges and juries are afforded significant leeway in the interpretation of the law, because lawmakers acknowledge that there's a significant difference between pushing someone and punching them in the stomach - even though both constitute common assault.

In the same way, the mods need to apply discretion in the application of their rules. In this case, the OP had three choices:

• Provide a factually correct answer (in violation of rule 3)

• Provide a factually incorrect answer (in violation of rules 17 and 20)

• Provide no answer at all

The only way OP could have avoided breaking at least one rule would be to have left the question unanswered, which doesn't really add to the quality of the subreddit. The post in question was factually correct and cited sources. While the strict standards of this subreddit have made it what it is, it's at times like these when some minor bending of the rules wouldn't be unwarranted

Side note: Please don't downvote the moderators. They could easily have nuked the question, and are instead engaging with the community in discussion.