Community Guidelines
Last updated: August 2026 · Version 1.0
These guidelines exist to stop people being targeted.
They do not exist to protect shows, episodes, or the people who make them from criticism — including criticism that's harsh, sustained, and unwelcome. That distinction is the whole document. Everything else is detail.
The rules
How we argue here
1. Go after the work, not the people.
2. Don’t target, follow, or gang up on anyone.
3. Clip it straight — don’t cut or caption a moment to change what it meant.
What we’re careful about
4. Take extra care with real people’s lives.
5. Flag the heavy stuff.
6. Say if you’ve got a stake.
Everything else
7. Don’t manipulate — votes, reports, lists, or accounts.
8. Keep it legal.
What we protect
Reports against the following will be closed:
• Criticism. Saying a show is wrong, lazy, biased, boring, or dishonest. Saying it bluntly.
• Sustained criticism. Doing that about the same show for months. Frequency is not evidence of harassment. An account that only ever posts about one podcast, and only ever about the podcast, is a specialist — not a harasser.
• Being wrong, loudly. You don’t have to be right to post here.
• Satire and humour, where it’s about the work.
• Personal experience, including health and recovery experience, shared in good faith.
• Unpopular opinions about popular shows. A large audience is not a defence.
The line is between the work and the person. “The research in this episode is garbage and he obviously didn't read the study” is protected. “He's a fraud, and here's where he lives” is not.
Rule 1 — Go after the work, not the people
This is the one rule that decides most cases. Everything you post should be aimed at what was said, made, or argued — not at who said it.
| This breaks Rule 1 | This doesn't |
|---|---|
| “He’s a moron” | “This argument is moronic” |
| Tagging a moment to mock someone’s voice, accent, weight, or looks | Tagging a moment to mock a bad argument |
| A thread about a host’s marriage, finances, or mental health | A thread about a host’s sourcing, sponsors, or track record |
| “Anyone who listens to this is an idiot” | “I don’t understand why anyone listens to this” |
Attacking the audience of a show counts too. It's the most common way this rule gets broken and the one people are most surprised by.
Rule 2 — Don't target, follow, or gang up
Harassment is behaviour that works to push someone out of the conversation through intimidation or abuse. Disagreeing with someone, even strongly, isn't harassment. Neither is thinking their favourite podcast is garbage.
| This breaks Rule 2 | This doesn't |
|---|---|
| Following someone across unrelated episodes to keep an argument going | Replying critically to several of someone’s tags because you disagree |
| An account whose main purpose is abusing one person | An account that only ever posts critical takes on one show |
| Contacting someone again after they blocked you or asked you to stop | One heated exchange where both of you are going at it |
| “Go tell this guy what you think” with a link | Sharing a thread you disagree with and saying why |
| Sexual comments about someone who didn’t invite them | Discussing the sexual content of an episode |
Accounts can be restricted for a high number or a high proportion of hostile posts. Thirty nasty replies out of thirty is a different account from thirty out of three thousand. The proportion test applies to hostile output, not topical output.
On pile-ons: we look for coordination and intent to overwhelm — not for a lot of people independently reaching the same unkind conclusion. If we can't find evidence of coordination, we treat it as organic, however unpleasant it is to be on the receiving end.
Rule 3 — Clip it straight
A tagged moment is a quote from someone else's work. Quoting is the product. Misquoting is the abuse of it.
| This breaks Rule 3 | This doesn't |
|---|---|
| Cutting so “if the study replicates, then…” becomes a flat assertion | Cutting the ten minutes of throat-clearing before the point |
| A caption that puts words in someone’s mouth | A caption that sharply characterises what they said |
| Presenting a joke or a hypothetical as someone’s stated position | Arguing that the “it was a joke” framing is a dodge — as your view |
| Stitching two moments together to imply something neither said | Tagging two moments and pointing out the contradiction |
The test: would the person, hearing your clip, recognise what they said? Not agree with your take on it — recognise it.
Rule 4 — Take extra care with real people's lives
Podcasts are full of named living people — hosts, guests, and people being talked about. Almost none of them are on Limea. They can't reply, can't correct you, and won't know it's happening. That asymmetry is why this is the strictest rule here.
Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced comes down immediately, without waiting for discussion — whether it's negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. This applies to tags, captions, threads, lists, and list descriptions alike.
Allegations of crime require a conviction. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges are not convictions, and your post must not suggest otherwise. Saying a show discussed a charge is different from asserting the charge — say who said what.
When the facts change, so does the post. If a case ends in acquittal, is dropped, or a conviction is overturned, or the report it rested on is retracted, content asserting the allegation comes down. We remove or amend it directly, on notice from anyone. A post can be accurate the day you wrote it and misleading a year later. “Technically still true” isn't a defence we accept.
We'd rather show nothing than show something misleading about a real person.
Rule 5 — Flag the heavy stuff
Podcasts go to dark places. True crime, addiction, abuse, suicide, graphic violence, medical detail. A tagged moment strips all the context the episode built up to it, and drops it cold into someone's feed.
Mark a tag or thread as sensitive when it contains graphic violence or injury, detailed description of sexual violence or abuse, detailed discussion of suicide or self-harm, or graphic medical content.
You won't get in trouble for over-flagging. Deliberately not flagging something so it lands harder is a Rule 5 violation, and if it's aimed at a specific person it's a Rule 2 violation too.
Rule 6 — Say if you've got a stake
If you're paid by, work for, or make a show — or you're connected to a company being discussed — say so in the post.
Don't run accounts that exist to talk up a show while looking like an ordinary listener. Don't accept money, product, or access in exchange for posting, tagging, or promoting.
This isn't about disclosing that you're a fan, or that you once worked in an industry. It's about money and material benefit.
Rule 7 — Don't manipulate
• One person, one account. No second accounts to agree with yourself, boost your own posts, or get around a restriction.
• Don't coordinate voting, tagging, or reporting.
• Don't abuse reporting. Bad-faith, retaliatory, and mass reporting are violations in their own right. Organising a mass-reporting campaign skips the ladder entirely. If you joined one because someone told you to, you'll get a warning — we go after whoever organised it.
• Reporting something you sincerely believe breaks the rules is never a violation, even if we disagree with you.
On list titles. A list can name people. The title has to describe something the list documents — not a motive, a character, or a state of mind. “Episodes that got the science wrong” is fine. “Hosts who lie about science” isn't: it asserts they knew, and none of us can verify what someone knew.
If a title crosses the line, we hide the title and tell you what to change. We don't delete the list. You did the work of building it; a bad title is a title problem.
Rule 8 — Keep it legal
No content sexualising minors. No credible threats of violence. No incitement, no terrorist content. No non-consensual intimate imagery. No posting private information about someone — address, phone number, workplace, documents — or threatening to. Nothing you don't have the right to post.
These are the bright lines. They don't get a warning, they don't get a ladder, and context doesn't move them.
What happens if you break a rule
• We weigh severity and context. There's no fixed number of chances and no formula from violation count to penalty.
• Penalties are scoped to what was abused. Misuse lists, lose lists for a while — you keep listening and tagging privately.
• Most violations expire after 90 days and stop affecting your standing.
• Every action comes with a written reason naming the rule, and one appeal, reviewed by someone other than whoever decided.
• A few things skip the ladder entirely: anything under Rule 8, evading a permanent suspension, and organising a mass-reporting or brigading campaign.
Reporting
Report a post with the flag on any tag, thread, or list. For anything illegal, or a threat to someone's safety, write to contact@limea.io. If someone is in immediate danger, contact emergency services first — they will always be faster than we can be.
You'll get a confirmation, and you'll get told what we decided.
Your own tools
Most of what happens to you here, you can fix faster than we can:
• Block and mute anyone, any time.
• Report a tag, thread, or comment from the flag on the post itself.
How we work
• We back up daily, and at least two people always hold emergency access to the infrastructure.
• If we ever have to shut down, we'll give as much notice as we can — at least 30 days where it's within our control — and export will keep working throughout.
• Data export is always available.
• Every enforcement decision comes with a written explanation and one appeal.
• We publish what we change and when.
The operational commitments follow the Mastodon Server Covenant.
Changes
These guidelines are thought through but not perfect. You can suggest amendments and point out flaws at community.limea.io.
We'll tell you in-app and by email before any significant change takes effect. See also our Terms of Use.