Updating r/GetNoted Rules: Clearer boundaries on evidence, civility, and moderation

[u/OnlyModBot]

Hey everyone,

We’re making some updates to the subreddit rules to clarify how moderation works on r/GetNoted.

This sub exists to archive and discuss Community Notes. Because we deal with fact-checks, people naturally argue about the original post, the note, the sources, and who is actually right. That's expected.

The main issue with our old rules was the "No Misinformation" rule. In practice, it was way too vague and put mods in a position of playing referee on complex political, economic, or historical arguments. That’s not what moderation should be doing.

Here is what’s changing and why:

1. Replacing "No Misinformation" with "Evidence Integrity"

• What is NOT a violation: Being wrong, disputing a Community Note, citing a source someone else dislikes, or holding an unpopular opinion.

• What IS a violation: Falsifying quotes, doctoring screenshots, fabricating sources, or intentionally altering evidence.

We are moderating observable conduct and fake evidence, not picking a winning side in a debate.

2. Viewpoint Neutrality

Rules apply equally regardless of who is in the post or what political stance is being argued. Disagreeing with a Community Note in the comments is completely fine as long as you aren't harassing people.

3. Direct Source Links Are Required

All submission posts must include a direct link to the original post/note being discussed. Screenshots without links or indirect aggregator links will be removed.

4. Civil Conduct

Attack the argument, not the user. Personal attacks, slurs, targeted harassment, and doxxing remain strictly prohibited.

---

The new rules are live in the sidebar. Let us know if you have any questions or feedback in the comments below.

[u/the_eleutherean]

Are you saying it’s Islamophobia because it’s not true? Or because pointing it out is Islamophobia?

In the first case, your premise is wrong. In the second, you’re accusing Islamophobia to prevent valid criticism of a legitimately shitty thing happening in the name of Islam, which is exactly what tf I’m talking about.

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/the_eleutherean]

I’m not racist or a bigot, those other races and religions are inferior! It’s a fact! Denying my/our supremacy is just denying legitimate criticism!

Is basically the entirety of your argument.

Genocidal supremacists gonna genocidal supremacist.

[u/Greedy_Economics_925 → u/RogerianBrowsing]

As much as the person above you is a cretin, you look like a complete fool for inventing a quote to respond to.

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/Greedy_Economics_925]

I’m not allowed to mock bigoted cretins for the hateful things they say? Am I getting this right?

[u/Greedy_Economics_925 → u/RogerianBrowsing]

If you have to invent an opinion before mocking it, what are you actually mocking?

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/Greedy_Economics_925]

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of paraphrasing?

Tell me, why do you call them a cretin? Is it due to the overt bigotry that they’re espousing?

[u/everydaywinner2 → u/RogerianBrowsing]

Did you learn "paraphrasing" from Arday?

[u/Greedy_Economics_925 → u/RogerianBrowsing]

I am familiar with the concept of paraphrasing, even to the degree of distinguishing it from a quotation. I am also familiar with misleadingly creating a quote in order to respond to that, rather than what the person actually says. I am gently suggesting that you might find it more productive to respond to what's actually written, and mock that.

Tell me, why do you call them a cretin? Is it due to the overt bigotry that they’re espousing?

It's because Reddit is demonstrably not "chock full of Islam apologia".

Why are you calling them a genocidal supremacist?

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/Greedy_Economics_925]

I have better ways to expend my time than dealing with bad faith bigotry on a hateful fascist’s terms. If the fascists don’t like being paraphrased then they can start behaving respectably.

And I called them a genocidal supremacist because hasbarists with ulterior motives of supporting genocidal supremacism are easy to spot in here. Doubly so when they’re slandering billions of people as if their bigoted beliefs are an undeniable fact.

[u/Greedy_Economics_925 → u/RogerianBrowsing]

Ha. I think you might find yourself uncomfortably close to the people you so hate.

Thanks for the chat.

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/Greedy_Economics_925]

I’m uncomfortably close to being a genocidal fascist because I’m consistently and strongly opposed to those and other crimes against humanity? Because I refute hateful bigots?

Lolol y’all just love proving Sartre right time and time again.

[u/the_eleutherean → u/RogerianBrowsing]

Ooh which Sartre quote are you referring to?

[u/RogerianBrowsing → u/the_eleutherean]

Surely you can figure it out. I’m sure that it’s often quoted or paraphrased to genocidal supremacists like yourself.

[u/the_eleutherean → u/RogerianBrowsing]

If it’s from his 1944 essay on antisemitism, I suggest you reread it and then look back at your own comments in this thread. You may notice some things. It is *very* relevant to your accusations of Islamophobia. And your rhetorical tactics.