My apologies for any responses that don't quite answer the question, please let me know if I have failed to adequately address something.
52xMax wrote:I don't really participate on the forums that often anymore, so I don't see how these new rules might affect me much, if at all. Upon first glance, they seem to make sense...except...
What kind of offense would get someone banned from CAaSS that wouldn't get you banned from the whole site? Is this really necessary?
iMURDAu is correct, basically if someone is consistently making thread titles that say things like "Liberals love pedophiles! Roman Polanski invited to speak" And "Racism wins again! X politician re-elected" we may ask them to cool it in CAaSS but wouldn't want them to miss out on the forum in areas that are not as stringent on posting guidelines. If you break a site-wide rule and it coincides with a CAaSS rule, that's different.
Deathclaw_Puncher wrote:We still get free banana pudding, though, right?
Of course.
SandTea wrote:Tesseracts wrote:More details about this system later.
• Memes and shitposting are allowed but should be on topic and part of a larger discussion, no dumping somewhat related macros.
I'm only vaguely familiar with the term, mostly from context clues. The first result I got was-
Shitposting is posting large amounts of content of "aggressively, ironically, and trollishly poor quality" to an online forum or social network, in some cases intended to derail discussions or otherwise make the site unusable to its regular visitors.
I'm hoping the more details will be better defined for folk like me who often have to google internet speak and still not quite completely understand. As I understand it now a single image meme that is on topic would be allowed with no other comment along with it and so would a mean spirited backhand not directed at any particular user but at their standing on a subject in general?
I am still going to abstain from CASS to the best of my ability.
We are trying to make that as clear as possible, but basically, memes and shitposting should be within the rules. If you can break down the meaning and message of the meme and it adds to the conversation without insulting your TCS peers, it is probably okay. If it is something that would break the rules if written out as a verbal statement, it's best to hold off.
Ladki96 wrote:Does this mean the Trump thread will be renamed? :) Or a new main thread on the topic will be created and the current one will be locked or something?
Edit: Oops, missed bullet point 8. So does that mean no main threads at all? That's fine too ^^
This one is still being discussed but I personally like your solution of a fresh start.
gisambards wrote:I think these rules make sense, and should make it much easier for people to comfortably express controversial opinions. I also think that the rule regarding neutral titles and OPs is sensible - I suspect this will be the most controversial one, but it can make the topic of threads very unclear if the OP is overly opinionated and makes one feel much less welcome to pipe up if one disagrees. That said, two things I think could do with a little more clarification:
1) Does the rule regarding memes, shitposting, etc. cover making purely joke responses? It would be a shame if people felt unable to be more lighthearted about things.
2) With OPs no longer being opinionated, might it make more sense if it's just that OPs need to open with a neutral paragraph describing the topic of the thread, but then can contain the poster's opinion, clearly delineated, in the rest of the post? I do think that making the OP purely factual might make it more awkward for the OP to give their opinion without just double-posting.
Don't worry, it has always been the plan to let OPs put their thoughts and feelings and takes as passionately as they wanted to, clearly delineated from the thread introduction. Our intent with this is have a way to set the tone in an inviting manner without policing an OP's opinions, and it's one case where double posting is completely okay if that is someone's preferred method of doing so. As for joke responses, it's okay within reason. We split off of a comedy site and are generally people with a good sense of humor, I agree that it would be a shame to quash that. But as with all things, ask what do the jokes add? What is their aim? There is a vast difference between making fun of public figures and making fun of their supporters, for example. Joking about the victims of a tragedy is less likely to be okay than joking about the perpetrator. As a rule of thumb, with humor try and follow the idea of not punching down.