I see the GOOD in what you're trying to do here, but honestly, IMHO, this was already covered in the rules, as they stand. My purpose here, is not to be a nit-picking little bitch - I just need to understand if/how this applies to how we interpret the current Rules of this subverse - and if we should expect to see changes made to those rules.
My overall question: Is this sticky MORE THAN renewed and emphatic ENCOURAGEMENT for pizzagate publicity/meme efforts, WITH ADVICE on how to do this well?
My specific concerns/questions:
The last sentence in paragraph three:
From now, on, posts about organizing protests, poster or flyer campaigns, tweetstorms, meme warfare, letter-writing and the like, as well as new investigative activities to fuel them, will not be removedso long as they satisfy Rules 1 and 2.
This single sentence brings a great deal of focus to the Rules of this subverse. Rules 1 and 2 stand as is (check). Next paragraph covers Rule 4, it stands as is (check). Rule 6 is a given (check). Rules 3 and 5 aren't specifically discussed, although Rule 5 is very relevant to this post.
Rule 3: Please explain if, and how, Rule 3 has changed, or no longer applies, whether in it's entirety or in part.
Rule 5: According to Rule 5, stand-alone memes are currently allowed - as part of sourced discussion posts. Has something changed regarding how we should interpret Rule 5?
This sentence:
So we would like to officially designate SOURCED posts about how to raise awareness of"Pedogate"as not "meta".
To me, this implies that submissions about "Pedogate" are inherently "meta". If those submissions followed the current rules, why wouldn't those subs stand. What's different now?
Final thought (for now): Please know, I'm ALL FOR encouraging posts and discussions about pizzagate publicity efforts and memes, and for advice on how to make more-effective posts.
Sorry I failed to respond to your questions, Rooting. Your submission reply got buried in the shitpile of shill comments.
The rules have not changed. This was an attempt to bring attention to how to post in accord with them, and to give some encouragement to organizaing efforts. Almost no one who posts on this topic does so as a sourced post -- they are almost all loose, off-the-cuff, unsourced discussion posts which fall under Rule 4. I could have titled this "Information Warfare posts don't have to be meta; if you source them, we will upvoat".
Mods can't just change the rule set. It's a multi-step, many-day process that requires gathering feedback, posting the proposal as a sticky, gathering up/downvoats and comments to gauge user support, announcing the changed rule in another sticky, and then getting users to understand and follow the new version of the rules via removals and explanations (a process that has taken about 4 to 6 weeks every time we've changed a rule). We wanted to encourage folks more quickly than that.
No fail. I'm patient, and here you are now. Thanks for clarifying. Your last sentence in paragraph three set off my alarm. Glad to hear changing the Rules requires a process, I didn't know that. I fully understand why Rules (and Mods to enforce them) are essential to this site. Without them, I doubt I'd be here, because NO doubt this would be a shill/shit-swamp. I appreciate your time, effort, and encouragement. Keep up the good work.
Thanks. :-) It's really hard to make sure every sentence is expressing the intended idea, and only the intended idea -- you'd be amazed at what people think they hear me say in here! And that, of course, is another reason it's not simple to change the rules.
view the rest of the comments →
rooting4redpillers ago
I see the GOOD in what you're trying to do here, but honestly, IMHO, this was already covered in the rules, as they stand. My purpose here, is not to be a nit-picking little bitch - I just need to understand if/how this applies to how we interpret the current Rules of this subverse - and if we should expect to see changes made to those rules.
My overall question: Is this sticky MORE THAN renewed and emphatic ENCOURAGEMENT for pizzagate publicity/meme efforts, WITH ADVICE on how to do this well?
My specific concerns/questions:
The last sentence in paragraph three:
This single sentence brings a great deal of focus to the Rules of this subverse. Rules 1 and 2 stand as is (check). Next paragraph covers Rule 4, it stands as is (check). Rule 6 is a given (check). Rules 3 and 5 aren't specifically discussed, although Rule 5 is very relevant to this post.
Rule 3: Please explain if, and how, Rule 3 has changed, or no longer applies, whether in it's entirety or in part.
Rule 5: According to Rule 5, stand-alone memes are currently allowed - as part of sourced discussion posts. Has something changed regarding how we should interpret Rule 5?
This sentence:
To me, this implies that submissions about "Pedogate" are inherently "meta". If those submissions followed the current rules, why wouldn't those subs stand. What's different now?
Final thought (for now): Please know, I'm ALL FOR encouraging posts and discussions about pizzagate publicity efforts and memes, and for advice on how to make more-effective posts.
Vindicator ago
Sorry I failed to respond to your questions, Rooting. Your submission reply got buried in the shitpile of shill comments.
The rules have not changed. This was an attempt to bring attention to how to post in accord with them, and to give some encouragement to organizaing efforts. Almost no one who posts on this topic does so as a sourced post -- they are almost all loose, off-the-cuff, unsourced discussion posts which fall under Rule 4. I could have titled this "Information Warfare posts don't have to be meta; if you source them, we will upvoat".
Mods can't just change the rule set. It's a multi-step, many-day process that requires gathering feedback, posting the proposal as a sticky, gathering up/downvoats and comments to gauge user support, announcing the changed rule in another sticky, and then getting users to understand and follow the new version of the rules via removals and explanations (a process that has taken about 4 to 6 weeks every time we've changed a rule). We wanted to encourage folks more quickly than that.
rooting4redpillers ago
No fail. I'm patient, and here you are now. Thanks for clarifying. Your last sentence in paragraph three set off my alarm. Glad to hear changing the Rules requires a process, I didn't know that. I fully understand why Rules (and Mods to enforce them) are essential to this site. Without them, I doubt I'd be here, because NO doubt this would be a shill/shit-swamp. I appreciate your time, effort, and encouragement. Keep up the good work.
Vindicator ago
Thanks. :-) It's really hard to make sure every sentence is expressing the intended idea, and only the intended idea -- you'd be amazed at what people think they hear me say in here! And that, of course, is another reason it's not simple to change the rules.