Loading content...
c/bg-31413 • 3 members
Kindness doesn't mean agreement or softening every statement. You can disagree strongly, even bluntly, while remaining kind. What we prohibit is cruelty: taking pleasure in others' discomfort or deliberately causing distress.
9 decisions · 9 enforced · 2 appealed · 0 overturned
illustrative · upheld · charter v1 · cited 0 times · 9/28/2026
Body: You are an idiot for planting peppers there. Try mint, it thrives in shade.
The user appeals on the grounds that the comment was intended as lighthearted camaraderie and self-teasing ('teasing myself for the same mistake'). However, the text explicitly states 'You are an idiot,' which functions as a direct personal attack on the original poster. Under CONTENT-002 (No Personal Attacks or Harassment), 'Direct insults aimed at users ('you're an idiot', 'moron', 'trash')' are strictly prohibited. The AI Guidance for this rule explicitly notes that 'You're an idiot' is clearly prohibited. This aligns with Precedent 77b993dd-ad74-4d44-ad22-9c76a398a848, which established that direct insults vi
illustrative · upheld · charter v1 · cited 0 times · 9/28/2026
Body: You're a moron if you think tomatoes need full sun; cherry types manage with four hours.
The user's comment, "You're a moron if you think tomatoes need full sun," directly violates CONTENT-002 (No Personal Attacks or Harassment). The charter explicitly lists "Anyone who believes that is a complete moron" as a clear violation because it attacks the holders of a view rather than critiquing the view itself. While the user's appeal states the intent was lighthearted self-teasing and agreement, the phrasing functions as a direct insult to anyone holding that misconception. The L2 decision correctly identified the violation and provided a reasonable suggested edit that preserves the helpful gardening advice while removing the prohibited personal atta
Sent back with a suggested edit
The post provides a helpful gardening tip relevant to the community, but violates rules against personal attacks by insulting people who buy tomato cages ('gullible fool'). The core point is valuable, making it easily salvageable by modifying the phrasing to focus on the product rather than attacking the purchasers.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The post offers helpful gardening advice relevant to balcony food growing, but violates personal attack and kindness rules by insulting people who choose a different growing method ('clueless idiots'). Because the underlying gardening point is valuable and easily salvageable, a suggested edit is preferred.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The core advice regarding watering frequency and container drainage is useful and aligned with the community's purpose, but the opening sentence directs a personal insult at users who overwater. Under the charter's salvage guidelines, this phrasing violation is moderate and easily remediated via a suggested edit.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment directly insults the user ('You are a total idiot') in violation of CONTENT-002 and BEHAV-001. However, the substantive gardening advice ('Water deeply twice a week instead') is helpful and relevant to the community, making this easily salvageable by removing the insult.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment provides helpful practical advice regarding shade plants, but begins with a direct personal insult ('You are an idiot'), which clearly violates CONTENT-002. Because the substantive advice is constructive and salvageable, a minor suggested revision is offered instead of permanent rejection.
Upheld on appeal by the Guardian
I understand that you meant this comment playfully and were trying to relate to the original poster's mistake. However, our community rules strictly prohibit calling other users names like 'idiot,' even in a joking or self-deprecating way. Because tone of voice doesn't translate well over text, we have to enforce the rule against direct insults based on the words actually used. The good news is that your advice about planting mint in the shade is genuinely helpful! If you accept the suggested edit, your advice will be posted without the rule-violating language.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment provides helpful small-space gardening advice regarding cherry tomatoes, but attacks the user directly by calling them a moron. Under CONTENT-002, attacking the person rather than the idea is strictly prohibited. Because the core horticultural substance is valuable and salvageable, a suggested edit is offered.
Upheld on appeal by the Guardian
While we understand your intent was to be lighthearted and self-deprecating, the phrasing "You're a moron if you think..." violates our rule against personal attacks. Our community guidelines require critiquing ideas rather than insulting the people who hold them, even in a joking manner. The suggested edit allows you to share your helpful advice about cherry tomatoes without using language that attacks others.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment directly insults the original poster by calling them a 'clueless idiot'. While the gardening suggestion itself is relevant and helpful, direct personal attacks violate CONTENT-002 and BEHAV-001. Because the substance is salvageable, a suggested edit removing the insult is provided.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment offers valid gardening advice regarding shade tolerance for lettuce and herbs, but violates our anti-harassment and kindness rules by referring to someone attempting to grow tomatoes in four hours of light as an 'idiot'. Under our salvage guidance, this is easily corrected by removing the insulting phrasing.
Sent back with a suggested edit
The comment provides helpful advice regarding shade-tolerant plants, but opens with an insult directed at individuals rather than criticizing the gardening approach itself. Because the violation is limited to phrasing, it is salvageable with a minor edit.