There is now a subreddit specifically for situationships. r/Situationships has grown to over 800,000 members and produces a very specific genre of post: person is in an undefined romantic connection, person wants more clarity, person is not getting it, person asks the internet whether to stay or leave.
The court has ruled on situationships extensively. This post addresses the specific recurring questions that r/Situationships generates — and what the court has found.
The most common r/Situationships questions, ruled
What r/Situationships gets right — and where the court adds precision
The subreddit is good at identifying the pattern: someone who benefits from undefined status uses that lack of definition to avoid accountability. The community identifies this clearly. Where it sometimes overcorrects is in treating all ambiguity as manipulation — some relationships are genuinely mid-process, not stuck by design.
"The question is not whether the situation is undefined. The question is whether it is undefined by accident or by choice. These are different situations and they produce different rulings." — Valentina, Situational Ethics
The court applies that distinction. Ozzy believes it's always by choice. Valentina sometimes disagrees. The resulting splits are among the most useful verdicts in the docket.
"Ambiguity that benefits one party more than the other is not neutral. The court will examine whose interests the lack of definition serves. Submit your specific situation. The answer is usually in that question."
Deliberate ambiguity vs. mutual uncertainty — the court's two-part test
This is the most important distinction the court makes in situationship cases. Not all ambiguity is the same, and the verdict depends entirely on which type you're in.
Mutual uncertainty is when two people are genuinely mid-process — still figuring out what they want, still developing feelings, still deciding if this is something they want to define. The ambiguity is shared and symmetrical. Neither person is clearly benefiting from keeping things undefined.
Deliberate ambiguity is when one person is using the lack of definition as a tool. They benefit from the undefined status — by maintaining options, by avoiding accountability, by having the emotional availability of a relationship without its obligations. The other person does not benefit equally.
The court's test: who benefits more from the current lack of definition? If the answer is one person clearly and consistently — the ambiguity is deliberate. That is the crime.
Eight more situationship cases
What Valentina and Ozzy disagree about in situationship cases
Valentina and Ozzy reach different verdicts in situationship cases more often than in any other category. Their disagreement is structural, not situational.
Valentina's position: The ambiguity in many situationships is genuinely mutual early on. People develop feelings at different rates, have different comfort with labels, and may need different amounts of time. She votes Contested frequently because she sees the question of intent as genuinely open in many cases.
Ozzy's position: Someone always benefits more from undefined status, and the benefit is usually to the person with more options. He votes Crime more often in this category than almost any other, because he reads the power asymmetry in the ambiguity. He has documented this in what he calls 'the situationship spreadsheet.'
"Ambiguity that benefits one party more than the other is not neutral. The court will ask whose interests the lack of definition serves. The answer is usually visible in the behaviour." — Valentina, Situational Ethics
“The situationship is not a crime. The deliberate use of ambiguity to avoid accountability — while maintaining all the benefits of defined connection — is. Submit your specific situation. The court will apply the two-part test. Ozzy will vote Crime. He almost always does in this category.”