Source
r/supremecourt•
SeaSerious

r/SupremeCourt - Rules and Resources

Pinned

#Welcome to r/SupremeCourt!

###This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court - past, present, and future.

###We encourage everyone to read our community guidelines below before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion.

###RESOURCES:

WIKI/FAQ

EXPANDED RULES

Official meta-discussion thread

Official "How are the mods doing?" thread

[Official "How can we improve r/SupremeCourt?" thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)

r/SupremeCourt 2022 Rules Survey - Results

To retrieve case information from SCOTUSBOT, comment !scotusbot [CASE_ID]

#RECENT RULE CHANGES:

  1. Jokes and memes are not permitted in top-level comments unless they are within a more substantive comment.

  2. Submissions are no longer required to be flaired. Flairs are still available for those who wish to use them.

  3. Comments speculating on the identity of the Dobbs draft leaker will be removed. This applies to any comments naming a specific person or a group of people associated with a specific named person.

#RULES:

##CIVILITY

####Description: Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Partisan attacks and polarized rhetoric are not permitted. Speak with others how you would like to be spoken with. Politely disagree when appropriate and acknowledge if you cannot maintain your original argument.

Assume that all beliefs are held in good faith. Do not insinuate that others are a bot, shill, or that their beliefs only apply to one "side".

####Purpose: Given the nature of how emotionally-charged the cases that SCOTUS rules on, discussion on the internet is prone to devolving into partisan bickering, arguments over policy, polarized rhetoric, etc. which drown out those who are simply looking to discuss the law at hand in a civil way. We believe that active moderation is necessary to maintain a standard for everyone's benefit.

What constitutes "polarized rhetoric" is subjective and at the moderator's discretion, so use your best judgement.

####Examples of incivility:

  1. Name calling, including derogatory nicknames
  2. Aggressive and/or condescending responses to disagreements
  3. Assuming beliefs are held in bad faith

####Examples of condescending or belittling speech:

  1. "You think [X]? That's cute."
  2. "Rofl. Please humor us with how you believe [X]."
  3. "Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better"
  4. "Thanks for the chuckle!"
  5. "An ad hominem AND a false equivalency? What a combo!"
  6. Sarcastic use of "Sweetie, Bud, Friend" etc.

####Signs of polarized rhetoric:

  1. Emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity
  2. Distinguishes "us" versus "them" groups, framed as a battle of good versus evil
  3. Assumptions of bad faith / maliciousness / incompetency of "them"
  4. Blanket negative generalizations of "them"

####Examples of partisan attacks / polarized rhetoric:

  1. "They" hate America and will destroy this country
  2. "They" are murderous, treasonous, and evil
  3. "They" don't care about freedom, the law, science, truth, our rights, etc.
  4. Any Justices endorsed/nominated by "them" are corrupt political hacks

##QUALITY

####Description: Low effort content, including jokes, memes, and policy discussion unsubstantiated by legal reasoning will be removed as the moderators see fit. Jokes and memes are not permitted in top-level comments unless they are within a more substantive comment.

Comments and submissions are expected to related to the Supreme Court and/or the law and substantively contribute to the conversation.

####Purpose: This standard aims to foster a subreddit for serious and high-quality discussion on the law.

Discussions are expected to be in context of the law.

Policy-based discussions should focus on the constitutionality of said policies, rather than the merits of the policy itself (which is more appropriate for politics related subreddits). The line between the two can be blurred when the nature of the policy itself could influence the legal side of things, but such discussion is still required to be substantiated by legal reasoning.

####Examples of low effort content:

  1. Submissions unrelated to the Supreme Court
  2. Image macros

####Examples of unsubstantiated (former) versus legally substantiated (latter) discussions:

  1. Debate about the existence of God vs. how the law defines religion, “sincerely held” beliefs, etc.

  2. Debate about the morality of abortion vs. the legality of abortion, legal personhood, etc.

##META-DISCUSSION INVOLVING OTHER SUBREDDITS

####Description: Any meta-discussion regarding law-based subreddits other than r/SupremeCourt must be directed to the Official Meta Discussion Thread. This includes pinging specific users from other subreddits.

####Purpose:

While many members of our community have joined r/SupremeCourt after being dissatisfied with the quality of discussion in other law-based subreddits, the quality (or lack thereof) elsewhere should not affect the conversations here. This includes discussion on the moderation practices in other subreddits. r/SupremeCourt is its own community and should not be used simply as a tool to affect change in other subreddits.

####Examples of what is NOT allowed:

  1. Referencing another subreddit in a derogatory or belittling way
  2. Mentioning specific users or their comments on other subreddits

####Examples of what IS allowed:

  1. Meta-discussion regarding other subreddits in the dedicated thread
  2. Meta-discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt (welcome anywhere)
  3. Discussion and criticisms of r/SupremeCourt moderator actions (welcome and encouraged)
  4. Addressing and responding to legal arguments made elsewhere, without ascribing them to a specific user or subreddit.

##ARTICLE SUBMISSION GUIDLINES

####Description:

Present descriptive, clear, and concise titles. The post title must match the article title.

####Purpose:

Readers should understand the topic of the submission before clicking on it.

Editorialized titles run the risk of injecting the submitter's own biases or misrepresenting the content of the linked article. The article should speak for itself. If you believe that the original title is worded specifically to elicit a reaction or does not accurately portray the topic, it is recommended to find a different source. Often in these cases, the majority of discussion focuses on the title itself and not the content of the article.

####Examples:

  1. A submission titled "Thoughts?"
  2. Editorializing a link title regarding Roe v. Wade to say "Murdering unborn children okay, holds SCOTUS".

##MEDIA SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

####Description:

Videos and social media links are subject to removal based on moderator discretion. Video submissions are required to be primary sources directly involving the Justices.

####Purpose:

This rule is generally aimed at self-promoted vlogs, partisan news segments, and twitter posts.

####Examples of what is NOT allowed:

  1. Third-party commenting over the below allowed sources.
  2. Vlogs regarding SCOTUS
  3. News segments regarding SCOTUS

####Examples of what IS allowed:

  1. Audio from oral arguments or dissents read from the bench
  2. Testimonies from a Justice/Judge in Congress
  3. Public speeches and interviews with a Justice/Judge

##COMMENT VOTING ETIQUETTE

####Description:

Vote based on whether the post or comment appears to meet the standards for quality you expect from a discussion subreddit. Comment scores are hidden for 4 hours after submission.

####Purpose:

It is important that commenters appropriately use the up/downvote buttons based on quality and substance and not as a disagree button - to allow members with legal viewpoints in the minority to feel welcomed in the community, lest the subreddit gives the impression that it is an echo chamber or that only one method of interpretation is "allowed". We hide comment scores for 4 hours so that users hopefully judge each comment on their substance rather than instinctually by its score.

####Examples:

  1. Downvoting a civil and substantive comment for expressing a disagreeable viewpoint
  2. Upvoting a rule-breaking comment simply because you agree with the viewpoint

##COMMENT REMOVAL POLICY

Scotus-bot will reply to any rule breaking comments with an explanation for why the comment was removed. For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed comment will be included in the reply. The moderators may redact parts of the removed comments if they contain slurs, personal information, or content that violates sitewide rules.

####Comment removal template:

This comment has been removed as it violates community guidelines regarding [INSERT RULE HERE].

If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please contact the moderators and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can provide feedback in the Official "How are the mods doing?" thread.

If you disagree with the submission guidelines, feel free to share your thoughts in the Official "How can we improve r/SupremeCourt? thread.

For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:

![INSERT TEXT HERE]

##BAN POLICY

Users that have been temporarily or permanently banned will be contacted by the moderators with the explicit reason for the ban. Generally speaking, bans are reserved for exceptional cases where a user either violates site rules or repeatedly (in a short period of time) violates sidebar rules in an egregious manner showing that they cannot or have no intention of following the rules of civility / quality.

If a user wishes to appeal their ban, their case will be reviewed by a panel of 3 moderators.

Posted Jul 25, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC · edited

206
Loading comments…