Seeing as the AskTRP rules were hidden in a link to the banned subreddit r/AskTRP (and thus inaccessible to anyone actually trying to read the rules) I found it again in the Internet archives and am posting it here and stickying it in the forums red AskTRP sidebar where the broken link is.
Old rules posted ver batim below the line break (excessive or non-reddit irrelevant rules removed from original post; emphasis, mine):
Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.
1. Posts must be requests for advice OR clarification. Posts only. It's called askTRP, not tellTRP. Not pollTRP, or discussPhilosophicalIssuesWithTRP, or haveAConversationWithTRP.
2. Advice must come from a Red Pill perspective. New members are expected to read the sidebar here and on the main sub, and to follow the discussion long enough to get a good grasp of the material before trying to offer advice of their own. To balance maintaining the integrity of our message without discouraging newer members on the learning curve, we may temporarily or permanently ban those seen posting blue-pill ideas and advice.
3. Do not insult or harass members; respect the EC tag. Members are here to improve their lives and discuss important ideas. Insults and ad hominem attacks dilute the message and become counterproductive to this mission. Attack the idea, not the person.
Members with special flairs have been vetted for thorough RP awareness and freely provide ongoing contribution and support to the community. Challenging their ideas is welcome, but disrespecting these members personally becomes a quick path to removal.
4. Address the community properly. While enforcement on AskTRP is more lax for the sake of beginners, to keep the discussion on point our posting standards disallow the following:
Moralizing
Concern trolling
Examples from fiction or lyrics
Requests for financial help
Promoting personal blog or site
Linking to Reddit- use a web archive
Imperatives, platitudes, clickbait titles
Announcing you are a woman
5. Read the FAQ and check the sidebar before posting The same questions posted every day lower signal quality and tend to burn out those who would stick around and help men who are actively trying.
Members are expected to read the short and long form FAQ and scan the sidebar to see if their question has been covered BEFORE posting. This will allow you to ask a more in depth, nuanced, and interesting question and obtain better results.
Putting in effort to improve your own lot is a pillar of masculinity and a condition of posting here
(read as: do a good amount of the work, don't just come here and ask a bunch questions that are probably answered in the sidebar, or the rational male, for example)
adam-l Moderator 2mo ago
One small note.
This is a rule from back when people would bring fictional characters as true red-pill examples (see James Bond did this...) Hence the ban. However most people took the prohibition to the letter, preventing then on commenting on movies as examples of the Blue Pill .and the mainstream narrative. Cultural artefacts always were a common frame of reference, so this in practice limited a good part of the mainstream critique.
I believe we can at least tentatively do away with this bit, and reassess if needed.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 2mo ago
This is a prime example from just last month on why we *still* need this rule
Like @mattyanon said, when you are done using fictional examples as illustrative comparisons, you still have to bring real life into it.
I agree mostly but not in the same way as described. I think this rule should have always been a contextual reinforcement and not a hard rule. It probably should have read as "Fictional examples cannot be used as standalone illustrations of TRP principles, however, can be used as a comparison reference if it is backed with comparable or equatable real life situations"
At least that's how I'm going to be approaching fictional examples
JamesSkepp Moderator 2mo ago
I think the rule should stay.
I can see how there are BP and RP examples in movies or songs, but then you run into a problem where a character is displaying both and we end up in a feedback loop of "Trump is alpha look here, no he's beta look there, but no hes alpha look here...". People lack nuance and will use one specific moment to extrapolate on an entire character. Is Bond alpha? The Connerys era is, how about the new ones?
Secondly, when we allow discussing RP/BP behaviours we must take into account motivations of a character - and these in a movie are always fictional. "He helped her b/c he's a RP man that takes care of her women." No he did that b/c it advances the plot. So in effect we are going to be allowing the discussion about movie plots.
Next thing is lyrics: I know for a fact modern songs are specifically written to be popular. This is especially true for big names like Taylor Swift. No doubt she has good grasp of how to write a good song herself, she's been doing this for last 15 years or so but she has an entire record label full of people who point out this line would be better, this word would be better and so on. With this in mind, is her song about her ex bf displaying her real personality or is this an entertainment piece made to entertain?
Finally, we have such a large number of stories from real life that we don't really need to bother with the ambiguity of fiction.
mattyanon Admin 2mo ago
Disagree.
The problem is that people tried (and still try to) bring up fictional examples and discuss them, without quite realising that it's pointless - when you start discussing what happened in a film, you have stopped talking about reality.
Yes, that prohibition was the idea. Avoid talking about both blue and red pill examples. I don't think this was an example of over adherence to the rules,, I think that's the rules working exactly as intended.
In general the issue with discussing media is that we live in a gynocentric society: 95% of the media (film, TV, books, news) is female-focused and examples of talking points are everywhere and relentless. It's pointless, and as I said above: it distracts from talking about reality.
We're not a book club nor a film review club, and I don't want to degenerate into either.
You haven't said why ... ?
RPU_mike Admin 2mo ago
Agree with matty. Allowing computer touchers to live in imaginationland doesn't help them at all. However, I'll add that there's a slippery slope here. If we're banning references to fiction because it doesn't reflect reality I'd argue that a lot of TikTok, YouTube shorts, and other shitty social media content suffer from the same problem by a lesser degree. There's so much garbage content that calls itself Red Pill/manosphere content (but still gets the truth wrong) that we're essentially dealing with an unreality in and of itself there. Women making mouth noises on TikTok doesn't reflect reality either, and I for one get exhausted watching rage porn about women being retarded produced by retarded men who can't even comprehend the sidebar.
There's an argument to be had for letting the debate play out and allowing the group to figure out what is useless on their own. After all, this place is designed to encourage critical thinking, right?
I think keeping the no fiction rule makes sense. My only difference in approach is regarding enforcement, which would be to simply call them out and explain why it's useless rather than swing the banhammer. If we want to ban the post, fine, but banning the person doesn't help them either unless they contribute no value and spam bullshit ideas. In my opinion banning a person is a final step.
mattyanon Admin 2mo ago
Right.
This happened.
The rules are the end result of "figure out what is useless on their own".
It's not a banhhammer, it's a "delete this post".
Right.
First infraction is post removal.
RPU_mike Admin 1mo ago
Thanks for clarifying, you have my full support.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 2mo ago
I agree with this, my only difference in thought is that fictional discussion is fine IF
For example, I am sure there are some movie scenes out there that are actually really good examples of RP. And I think it would be acceptable to highlight it IF it was satisfied by the 3 requirements.
But also at the same time i don't think there are enough adequate examples floating around our there so while i could see some rare exceptions, don't think that it should ever show up here as common practice. I'm in favor of the rule just remaining as is and NOT penalizing/taking down an actually satisfactory example
So rather than altering rules just making exceptions to the person who posted it and their post
RPU_mike Admin 2mo ago
I'm a huge fan of selective enforcement. It baits the whiny toddlers who still believe that life is (or at least, should be) fair.
adam-l Moderator 2mo ago
Maybe we can't avoid talking about films. It's not films vs the reality, films are the reality. It's the means by whoch the narrative is built.
Declining talking about them seems like trying to bring down a Christian regime without talking about the Bible.
I'm not 100% on this, but I believe quite some men would benefit by discussions deconstructing the narrative pushed through the films.
If it turns into a "film club", yeah, we can reassess the rule.
Vermillion-Rx Admin 2mo ago
I don't have any problem with discussing films at all. The only problem with it is when men discuss a film as the sole example leave it at that.
It is just not practical to leave it at that, the film writers already scripted the outcome. Film discussion is completely fine in my opinion but James Bond has prescripted outcomes. How, for example, does James Bond's behavior align with RP (this is just a rhetorical question)
Point being is that film makes great metaphor (should be allowed) because one can watch that specific scene for a quick mental schema of what an RP principle looks like. However, not relating it back to real life or some RP tenant in some articulated form is not "proof"
I wasn't around when the rule was written but my interpretation of it was just that film or fiction should not be treated as a field report. Disallowing metaphor or illustration seems to be a bridge way too far but posting fiction as a standalone field report is also bad practice in my opinion, it should be attached to commentary
Vermillion-Rx Admin 2mo ago
@mattyanon, @RPU_mike, @Adam-l, @JamesSkepp
RPU_mike Admin 2mo ago
Posted my thoughts above. Living in make believe world is gay.