Hello everyone,

TLDR at the Front

We are contemplating a permanent change to the rules that would remove the 'No Example Seeking' Rule and replace it with more expansive allowances. For the next month we will be testing this out, and at that point consider whether to make the change permanent based on our observations. For the more expansive explanation, see below!

Why Is This Happening?

Although it has gone through a few tweaks over the years, the 'No Example Seeking' rule has been one of the longest running rules in the subreddit. Its been around longer than I've been a mod even. But while at the time it was instituted it was quite clearly a necessary rule, as with most submission rules, it was instituted because of pragmatic necessity in striking a balance on how to moderate the sub. As the current language in the removal notice notes, we remove these threads "not because the question is bad" but because "these kinds of questions tend to produce threads that are collections of disjointed, partial, inadequate responses." They could be tough to moderate in good circumstances, and back in the day when one such thread would get popular, near impossible.

But its been nearly a decade, and while sub growth means some of the factors which underpin the rule have, if anything, only increased - i.e. the sheer volume of visitors - at the same time the strength of the community has grown, and the tools available to us as moderators have improved markedly (the rule predates Automod!). As such, we believe it is time to revisit the rule and see if it still is necessary by instituting a test period over the next month where we will not be enforcing it. And if the apocalypse doesn't come about, we'll likely make those changes permanent!

What Are You Hoping to Achieve?

The biggest driving force behind this change is the recognition of how the rule interacts with the balance of the subreddit. On the positive, it exists because of the needs of moderation, but on the negative, it can limit the participation of some users, on multiple levels. Aside from the obvious fact of limiting the questions people can ask, it also serves to limit the answers people can write! One of the biggest hurdles we face on the subreddit is ensuring a diversity of topics. Since the site is driven by user generated questions, content reflects user interests... plenty of questions about Rome, Hitler, and what Hitler thought about Rome, fewer about women in 11th c. Korea, or artistic movements in 18th c. Ethiopia.

This isn't meant to be judgmental though, just a reflection of the irony that to ask a good question, it helps to have a little knowledge already, and for us, this means that many topics which could provide the basis for fascinating answers never get questions in the first place. As such, a major impetus behind this change is the hope that allowing more lee-way with questions that lend themselves to multiple answers in multiple places and times, it creates more opportunity for contributors and would-be contributors whose topics come up rarely, and more opportunity for our users to learn about times and places they might never have thought to ask about in the first place if narrowing down their query.

What Is Actually Changing?

To be sure, all other rules remain in place! Poll-Type, Soapboxing, Basic Facts, and so on remain in force and will be applied, and in some cases this means that a question previously removed as Example Seeking will still be removed under a different rule. But that section of the rules page has been removed, as well as the third entry on the summary rules displayed on the sidebar. For the next month, that rule will read:

3. Questions should be clear and specific in what they ask, and should be able to get detailed answers from historians whose expertise is likely to be in particular times and places.

Likewise the rules page itself now has a section entitled "Scope and Depth" which reads as follows:

AskHistorians is a space intended to provide in-depth and comprehensive answers to questions submitted by users. While we don't aim to stifle the curiosity of those asking questions, we do ask that they submit questions with an interest in a detailed answer. In this vein, we expect questions to present a clear and specific prompt for detailed answers which are comprehensive and based on current, academic discourse. While questions which have multiple answers are allowable, they should not require expertise across time and space; instead questions should seek examples of a phenomenon in a way that allows different contributors to provide detailed, comprehensive answers regarding the historical areas in which they have expertise.

Finally, the Basic Facts Rule has been modified to clearly include questions which are asking for "a simple list of examples or facts".

What Does This Look Like in Practice?

The intention of these changes is to open up the scope of what can be asked, but at the same time ensure there are checks on the 'extremes' which the rule was designed to curtail. Example Seeking questions are the ripest of targets for users, especially new users, to 'drive-by post' by dropping short comments which are simply a name or two, or a link to Wikipedia, and our intention is to balance a new approach to questions which might allow broader scope in questions, but still clamps down on questions which might invite such behavior. To give a sense of what is actually changing, here are a few examples of questions and how the rule impacts them. These are based on questions removed over the past month:

Questions which will definitely be allowed now

• In your period of expertise, how were identical twins explained? What sort of attitude did people have towards them? - This question is basically the Platonic ideal of why we are changing the rule. It is both specific in what it is asking, but open ended in who can answer, and very clearly is inviting an in-depth response from from a variety of users.
• Current attitudes towards the military often place soldiers as either awful people, or heroes. What sort of attitudes towards soldiers have existed throughout history? - This is a similar case as above, just more 'standard' in how it is formulated. It might not have the appreciated "in your period" opening, but it is still a question which invites a variety of in-depth responses from multiple perspectives.
• Has there ever been a female dictator before? - The old 'has there ever' type question are some of the toughest to enforce consistently under the old Example Seeking Rule because if a mod knows the answer is 'yes, only one', it can seem allowable as compared to 'wow there are 150 examples I can name off the top of my head' which isn't. The rules change means these questions will generally be allowed now.
• How do armies supply themselves? - Questions like this are one of the more common removals for Example Seeking, where they ask about a phenomenon which happens throughout time and space in a very general way. Much as we'd prefer people ask them like the first or second example, we'll usually be allowing these now.

Questions which likely would still be removed

• What are negative consequences countries have experienced in the past due to immigration? - Up to now, we'd remove this for example seeking. It no longer violates that rule, and depending on specific factors, a question like this might be approved, but it is also a question which we would pay close attention to due to the potential that it is not being asked in good faith. Soapboxing still applies.
• Dictators are known for doing terrible things, but what are examples of good policies that dictators have instituted? - This might not violate example seeking, but a question like this would potentially break the Poll-Type rule. Depending on specifically how a question like this is asked and what the topic is, it might also be removed under the 'good taste' exception that we reserve as mods, with a request to reformulate.
• What are some good historical fart jokes? - This is a question which clearly doesn't invite lengthy answers, so would be removed and sent to the 'SASQ' thread, or else could be resubmitted to ask more substantively about past perception about passing gas.

Please Bear With Us

A final, important note. This is a test period! We are still trying to figure things out ourselves. Fully expect to see it enforced wildly inconsistently over the next month. It might very well be that one mod approves a question which is identical to one another removed. That is fine, and please just roll with it. We'll be keeping a running tracker of things internally which we'll be evaluating how to fine-tune or revise things over the period. If it is still happening six months from now, then you can maybe complain. To be sure, the examples above we don't expect too much variation on, but there is a third, middle group which will be the most likely place where this occurs as we work to find where the new balance point is between "No longer example seeking" and "Basic facts just wanting a list of things". This group is the kinds of questions such as:

• What are some total badasses from history?
• What are some historical weapons which don't get shown in movies often?
• Who do you think is the most underrated historical figure?

These are the types of questions which no longer are covered by the Example Seeking Rule, but we expect to be the most likely to continue to attract bad answers. They aren't phrased in a way that invites long answers, but rather those 'drive-by' responses previously mentioned. Questions that ask roughly about these topics may get approved, but they also may get removed under the Basic Facts Rule or else the Poll-Type Rule, since they ask for either - or both - a simple list of examples without depth, or else subjective opinion. I'd again stress that we're finding our sea-legs with these questions ourselves, and will remove some and approve others as part of the experiment this month is to see just how such threads end up progressing.

What Happens at the End of This?

At the end of June, we'll head back to our ivory tower to discuss whether a) the positive impact we were hoping for seems to be happening, b) whether the negative impact which spurred the rule on in the first place is continuing and c) what the balance between those two factors is! We'll also be seeking input from our flair community on their perception of the impact as well, as we greatly value their input on issues like this as it impacts their engagement with the sub. We also welcome user feedback which can be left in this thread.

Once we've evaluated and discussed there are basically three possible outcomes. The first is that we are pleased as punch and continue right one along, making the changes permanent. The second is that we find some pros, some cons, and make some further changes to address those issues before formally adopting the changes as permanent. The final option is that the coming month is a disaster, we hate it, and we roll everything back to how it was yesterday. there is no guarantee for any of those three options, although given that we're generally optimistic, but also hardly perfect, some degree of the middle one is probably the most likely outcome if you're looking to wager.