u/malin_petrescu

I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.

coming back later is allowed and it is common

modmail first, always, and the thread second

Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.

Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.

Feed position is a function of early votes and time. That structurally favours agreeable early answers over correct late ones, which is why sorting by controversial occasionally is worth the effort.

Had the conversation with a clinician before stopping rather than after. Considerably easier that way round.

Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.

Careful — interval stretching and dose reduction are different interventions and your post uses them interchangeably.

Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.

What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?

Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything.

Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

mod_ambulatory is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.

What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?

Appetite is the proximal effect and weight is the lagging integrated outcome, which is why watching appetite gives you an earlier and more honest signal.

Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.