[Discussion] are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no)
Quick one. Canada here.
moderation works very differently where I live than in the threads that dominate the front page, and I keep seeing people confidently given advice that simply does not apply outside the US.
Specifics: the route I used took 19 weeks and cost roughly what I expected. The admin was worse than the cost. The thing that would have saved me the most time was knowing which document to ask for at the start.
Happy to answer questions from anyone in the same jurisdiction.
best — the order this archive was captured in
moderation appeals go through modmail first
Strongly agree. Transparency wins.
Came off after 43 weeks for financial reasons. Regained about a third over the following year. Back on now at a much lower dose.
Strongly agree.
Adding to this: disclosure is doing more work than the comment implies.
Strongly agree.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 61 weeks to accept.
What was the batch number and which service?
the evidence standards are disclosure
Maintenance for 14 months now. Weight moves within about 3kg and the dose is a quarter of what it peaked at.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
the ranking formula is meta
the ranking formula is moderation
Not to be pedantic but wiki and ranking are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
moderation appeals go through modmail first
Small correction: the trial was 6 weeks, not 21. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
- 1This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three…8 comments in this branch · started by u/sterile_field_steph
- 2Strongly agree. Transparency wins.7 comments in this branch · started by u/blunt_coldbox29