Critique of the sub's "Rules"

Hey guys,<br><br>I know there have been a few such critiques lately, but I think I've got a few ideas that are worth saying. I am a redditor in this sub, I am a writer in this sub, and I am a moderator in this sub. I have an interest in all three aspects, and I hope the following will be of interest to you as well. I have submitted this to the moderators, but I think it is most important that you, as writers, see these ideas and have a say in them.<br><br># Rule Two<br><br>**Do not ask us to "Critique my writing style!" or "How can I be a better writer?" without a sample of your work.**<br><br>Now, I understand why this rule is here. For a long time, this sub was swarmed with "I am a bad writer. Help me." posts, many of which came with no samples attached. For a long time, many of us asked why such posts were not allowed, why this sub was not "for writers" as much as it was "for writing." That's all well and good.<br><br>But when we came to the idea of making this sub "for writers" as much as it is "for writing," I think we missed something important. We have stuck with this rule, even as our attitudes as a sub have changed. Now, I see "How can I structure a plot?" and "How do I write from a certain perspective?" being locked, which are less problematic to me than "How can I be a better writer?" I would say that these posts should be allowed, so long as they are well considered and well thought out. If a writer can pose a specific question about writing, they should be able to. This is, after all, "for writers" now.<br><br># Rule Three<br><br>**If you post excessively, you will get banned.** <br><br>This rule is not a problem per se, but the way it is enforced is. You cannot just ban someone for posting "excessively." What does that even mean? Should we ban every other post? Every third post? How should we decide when someone is being excessive? We need a hard number for this, especially as many of us tend to forget which user is which, or if we even remember the user at all. We need to know from exactly when the ban clock starts ticking.<br><br># Rule Four<br><br>**Do not post links to google documents, or expect people to follow you to a different website.**<br> <br>I disagree with this 100%. This is just a preference, and I personally don't like following links all over the web in order to read pieces, but forcing people to paste here is simply not reasonable. I know that there are length limits, but the fact that there *are* such limits is just ridiculous. Forcing people to put large works of fiction into giant "Part 1, Part 2, Part 3" posts is absurd, especially if the writer doesn't want to. Why should we care where the work is hosted, as long as it is submitted correctly? (From now on, I'll refer to submitted pieces as "works.")<br><br># Rule Five<br><br>**All comments must be in the form of a critique.**<br><br>This is another "fair enough" rule, except that there are exceptions. For example, if someone submits a completed work, such as a short story or a novella. In these cases, there is little to critique, and less reason for comments such as "This is really good!" or "This sucks, you should quit!" These sorts of comments should be allowed, as long as they are not offensive or attacking. This should apply to completed works only, and not works in progress, as those are the ones we are supposed to be critiquing. This would also give us an opportunity to put "I liked this!" comments in their own category, so that if someone doesn't want to see them, they don't have to.<br><br># Rule Eleven<br><br>**All votes on this sub are on the content of the work, not the user.**<br><br>Now, the problem is not with the spirit of the rule. Critiquing the user is not helpful at all, and is not an effective way to help people improve. The problem is that it's very difficult to know whether someone is voting on the work or the user. Furthermore, there is no way to stop such votes from happening. If we see someone voting on every work by a certain user, we have no way of knowing whether they are voting on the work or the user. This rule is not enforceable, and I believe it should be removed.<br><br># "Critique the work, not the user" as a whole<br><br>This is a bit of a tangent, but something that's important to consider. Critiquing the user *is* important, to a certain extent. Telling an alcoholic writer to stop drinking is a critique of the user, but it is also a critique that will likely improve their writing, career, and life. Telling a socially anxious writer to put themselves out there more may be a critique of the user, but it is an important one. Critiquing the user *can* be an effective way to help them, and *should not* be seen as universally unacceptable. We must be careful in this regard, and make sure we are not being offensive, but I think it is something we should consider.<br><br># "If you're looking for a beta reader, you're in the wrong place."<br><br>Our attitudes on beta readers are very wishy-washy. On one hand, we have recently said that we are "for writers" as much as "for writing." On the other hand, we still claim that we're not for beta readers. I think we need to make up our minds. If we want to be for writers, we should be willing to be beta readers. Otherwise, we should go back to being just "for writing." I know that there are some posts about beta readers, and some people are willing to be such, but we need to be more consistent. In one post, you'll see "I'm looking for a beta reader" locked, while in another post, "I'm looking for a beta reader" is met with open arms. We need to be more consistent, and stop sending such mixed messages.<br><br>If you have any other ideas, please share them! I hope this has been informative.<br><br>~Mr. Elusive<br><br>EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention was how often we forget that humans are flawed, and make mistakes. We all have bad days, and sometimes we all just fuck up. We need to be more willing to forgive, as long as the offender is willing to make amends.<br><br>EDIT 2: I'm glad that the feedback so far is mostly positive. I'm going to be compiling the suggestions you leave here into a single document, and then submitting it to the moderators. We will hold a discussion on Monday about these, and then let you know our decisions.<br><br>EDIT 3: Thank you all thus far. As you may have noticed, I have submitted the paper to mod discussion. I'm going to close this thread in a few days, just to keep the sub "clean" and whatnot. Please stop by my profile if you want to stay updated on this.<br><br>EDIT 4: Alright, time to close this thread. Again, I appreciate all of you, and I am glad you were so willing to participate in the process of improving this community. This thread is now closed.<br><br>UPDATE FROM MOD DISCUSSION<br><br>Everyone has been put on notice regarding "excessive posting bans," which are now "posting bans over 3 in a 24 hour period."<br><br>As for the rest, we are still discussing. It has been a long discussion, but we will let you know once we decide.