Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Look at these insane rules

immamac

By immamac
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

immamac

immamac 43254

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Rules

These are the rules that govern every discussion on Change A View.

Submission Rules

Rule A

You must personally believe the view you are submitting

CAV is about challenging the submitters view , so submissions can not be made on behalf of others, as “devil’s advocate” or as any entity other than yourself.

The purpose of Change a View (CAV) is for the Original Poster (OP) and responders to have an exchange of ideas in an effort to change the view of the OP. If you don't hold the view, however, then it is impossible to determine if that view has been changed.

"A submission can not be made on behalf of others..."

Allowing OPs to submit views on behalf of other people would put an impossible burden on them to divine what another person might think. The only way for you to really know if a comment has changed your view is if you can personally evaluate the argument and decide if your view was changed.

Historically, OPs posting for others would reply to strong arguments with, "That is what I told them, but they don't get it!" which doesn't help bring the discussion to closure.

If your friend holds a view, encourage them to make an account rather than try to argue on their behalf

"...as "devil's advocate…"

Historically, allowing OPs to post views that they don't actually hold allowed them to use CAV to just fish for better arguments for conversations, assignments or debates. While this isn't necessarily bad, that is not what we are here for - we are here to help change people's minds, not win their arguments for them.

Even when done in good faith or in a genuine attempt to gain good arguments for a view that they hold, an OP that doesn't hold a belief can never really have that belief changed so we only allow views that you personally believe to be true or right.

"...or as any entity other than yourself."

This prohibits OPs from submitting "in character" or role-playing. Since the OP is not the character in question, it is not possible for them to know what actually change a character's mind. The only mind you know is your own, so it is the only one you can speak to.

Note: You are more than allowed to argue views you do not personally hold in responses

Rule B

Submissions must adequately express and explain your view

Since clear and well articulated submissions are necessary to begin a discussion, submission titles must be clear statements about your view (rather than questions) and submission bodies must be at least 500 characters of original text explaining what you believe and why you believe it.

Why an Original Poster (OP) holds a particular view is an incredibly important thing for commenters to know if they are going to try and convince the OP that they should hold a different view. By not explaining why you hold a particular view, you are going to find yourself giving the same explanation to every commenter over and over again. We've found that it is better to get this out of the way upfront, and to edit the post periodically with answers to the most common questions to save everyone time and effort.

The reason that we require 500 characters is that we've found that this is the minimum amount of explanation the average post needs to launch a productive discussion. Some posts may be able to get away with less than that but they are few and far between, and they are nearly always made better posts with more explanation.

500 characters isn't all that much - here is what 500 characters looks like:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenita.

The 500 characters need to be an explanation of your view in your own words. While we encourage OPs to use quotes and citations, they do not count towards the character requirement; we want to know what you believe, not what someone else does.

Bypassing the character requirement with "filter text" will result in your submission getting removed.

Inflammatory posts

While not strictly prohibited, posts that use inflammatory language or all caps are discouraged because they do not inspire confidence that the OP is here to have their view changed. We are not a G-rated forum and adult language is permissible, but overtly hostile submissions may be seen as indications that the OP is violating the rules on openness to change and be removed for that reason.

Titles should also avoid inflammatory language or all caps whenever possible. "I don't have an anger problem" sets a very different tone than, "I DON'T HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM YOU JERKS!"

Posts with "spoilers"

If your title contains spoilers for any popular media, please keep the title as vague as you can out of respect to others reading the thread that may not know the spoiler. "About the ending of Hamlet" allows users to decide if they want the ending spoiled without actually spoiling it; "Hamlet should not have killed his uncle" doesn't give them that option. Spoilers are allowed in the body of posts, so long you indicate the post will contain spoilers; we suggest appending your title with [Spoilers] to make this clear.

Rule C

Your behavior must demonstrate that you are open to your view changing

The purpose of CAV is to challenge and expand your point of view, so submissions and the subsequent conversation can not be to convince others, spread your ideas, advocate for a cause, or otherwise “soapbox” any point of view.

While we do not require that our Original Posters (OPs) want to have their view changed or that they can articulate any doubts they have about their view, we do require that they be open to hearing arguments against that view. They must be willing to seek further understanding for those who disagree with them, and they must enter with the acceptance that their view may be flawed. A good OP must have the mindset that they mightbe wrong and be genuinely open to exploring that possibility.

To that end, OPs must act in a way that demonstrates that willingness. Many people who are soapboxing fall back on claiming that they are "willing to change their view if they see the right argument", but that is not sufficient. The moderators do not have access to their internal mental state, but only to what they see in the post post and comments.

Indicators of Rule C Violations

Enforcing this rule requires subjective evaluation of the post by the moderators, which can only be made based on observable behavior. When evaluating this rule, the moderators looks for specific indicators of unwillingness, including but not limited to:

Cherry-picking weaker arguments to shoot down, while ignoring stronger and more persuasive arguments (including abandoning an exchange that isn't going your way)

Dismissing a response by merely pointing out some superficial and partial imperfection, instead of comprehensively refuting its substantive parts, or making concession that it has merit and giving deltas where appropriate.

Arbitrarily limiting the lines of argument discussed, or demanding impossible/highly unreasonable evidence as the only means to change the view (e.g. that new studies be done or that negatives be affirmatively proven).

Making ad hoc patches to the original view, or rejecting relevant counter arguments for being "unimportant" or "off-topic".

Reiterating viewpoints to others (beyond the degree necessary to reply to overlapping responses), while not exploring new grounds offered by others (such as asking genuine follow up questions to gain more insight of an angle).

Writing the view like a persuasive essay, "rant", or call to action (evidence include explicit statements of intent to change people's' minds, external links to essays by the OP, or requests for advice in advocacy groups/forums supporting the view).

Common rebuttals to Rule C removals

When posts are removed for Rule C violations, many of the same justifications are provided. These are listed below, along with why the moderators do not find them compelling arguments. Please review these before appealing a Rule C removal; rehashing any of these arguments as a part of that appeal will only result in the moderators asking you to review this guidance:

"I am open to changing my view."

To be blunt, saying it doesn't make it so. If your submission was removed as a Rule C violation, it's because multiple moderators agreed that you weren't acting open-minded.

If you want to convince us you are open to other opinions, show us evidence of it - provide us links to exchanges where you were working with other users and making progress toward a change of view.

"I just haven't seen a good enough argument/the evidence I want yet."

Any rational person will be open to changing any view if presented with undeniable proof that it's wrong. That degree of "open-mindedness" isn't sufficient to satisfy Rule C.

On a basic level, there has to be a realistic chance of your view changing for a CAV submission to function. If you're requiring an unrealistically high standard of evidence to even consider a shift in perspective, then you're violating Rule C.

"Of course I haven't been convinced, here are all the reasons I'm right."

Your view may indeed be correct; we take no position on that because Rule C isn't about that. Rule C is about your openness to making a change.

On any complex issue it should at least be possible to recognize some aspect of the other side which broadens your perspective, even if your core belief is well-justified. In the improbable event that you're completely right about everything, you don't belong on CAV.

Rule D

You must be willing to engage with responses within three hours of submitting

Because CAV is about conversation between the submitter and respondents, submitters must substantially engage with responses that challenge their view; if you can’t respond within three hours of submitting, you should wait until you have time to engage.

Change A View (CAV) is about conversation between people who believe different things. The Original Poster (OP) needs to be available to answer questions, provide clarification, evaluate arguments and provide responses as part of a back-and-forth between them and the people in the discussion. If someone takes the time to respond to your post, it is only fair that you be there to read it and respond yourself.

Why three hours?

For the super popular submission that get a disproportionate amount of attention, a three (3) hour limit is enough to stop the submission in its tracks if OP is unresponsive. This gives plenty of time for responders to see the thread and start engaging with OP. Without a doubt there should be at least a few users in the thread. If we wait any longer, then new users who see it and comment will be wasting their time responding to an OP who isn't there.

On the off chance that nobody responds to OP (really, really rare), we will be lenient on the timeframe because obviously OP needs someone to respond to for it to be a conversation. Similarly, if you only receive a few low-effort responses (e.g. "You spelled X wrong" or "It was actually 1990, not 1991") within 3 hours after posting, we won't hold it against you for not responding.

A conversation means a conversation

A small number of one line responses that don't address the arguments that people are making will still result in removal. Additionally, OPs who exclusively respond to people agreeing with them doesn't really count as conversation. You need to actually engage with people who are countering your argument, not look for people who agree with you and bolster your own. Furthermore, frivolous responses (e.g. saying "it's all good" in response to all comments) are not a "conversation".

Rule E

Posts can not be on the impractical submission type list, such as neutral viewpoints or meta topics

While no viewpoint is banned from CAV for unpopularity or perceived offensiveness, some types of submissions are prohibited for practical reasons.

Over the years, we have found that certain types (not topics) of posts just don't lend themselves well to the Change a View (CAV) structure and result in very poor discussions. For that reason, we have decided not to allow these types of posts on CAV for purely practical reasons.

We do not remove posts based on content or perceived offensiveness. If your post was removed for violating this rule, it is because the format just doesn't work well for CAV and not because we are censoring any view point.

Neutral viewpoints

Neutral posts are prohibited because we feel like they would only open up discussion for the most popular opinion. In order for people to argue the other side of a view with you, they have to know what that other side is first. Saying, "I believe that X is correct" gives people something to react to; saying "I don't know if X or Y is correct" does not.

Meta topics

We aren't opposed to criticism or suggestions, but we've disallowed "meta" posts from the main site because the format of CAV doesn't suit a genuine suggestion, since OP might not be interested in debating it (which doesn't reduce its potential utility) and the top level comments would have to criticise it in some way, which would make moderator responses difficult.

Non-English posts

Submission and responses made in languages other than English may be removed at the moderators' discretion. We don't have anything against our international users, but as CAV's moderation team consists primarily of English speaking users, we simply can't practically enforce the rules in a language other than English at this time. As our team grows, we will relax this condition to include other languages.

Readability

We will also remove posts for Rule E if they are incoherent, unreadable, or so convoluted that they can't not be easily understood.

Discussion Rules

Rule 1

Direct responses to a submission must challenge or question at least one aspect of the submitted view

In order to prevent CAV from becoming another echo chamber, all direct responses should challenge or attempt to clarify some part the submitter’s view; agreement with the view is restricted to replies to responses.

Your goal as a commenter should be to challenge the Original Poster (OP) and help them understand why they might be wrong in their viewpoint, not provide additional reasons that they might be right.

If we allowed responses that reinforced the OP's view as top level, Change a View (CAV) would quickly become an echo chamber where only popular opinions were allowed. It would also increase the likelihood that people would come here to soapbox rather than take a critical look at their own viewpoint. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, that is not what CAV is for, so this rule ensures that all direct replies must present some argument against the stated view.

Clarifying questions are acceptable in top level comments, but it must be clear that their goal is to advance the conversation or better understand the OP's initial position.

OP's can not make top-level comments for any reason. If you need to clarify your view, please edit your post instead.

What does not constitute a challenge

This should be obvious, but saying something like "Your view is correct. You're wrong to think that you should change it."

A comment that is entirely dedicated to supporting or merely restating the view or some part of it

Positively expanding the view while leaving the original view unchallenged; comments that argue OP's suggestions "don't go far enough"

Providing alternate reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion; saying that the OP is "right for the wrong reasons"

Non sequiturs that don't address OP's view. E.g. OP claims to be in favor of fascism and the top-level response that argues against communism (without somehow tying it in to fascism explicitly)

Musing about random topics that are not the topic of the view.

Questions that are not clarifying and of no appreciable aid in facilitating a view change.

One that predominantly supports the view while correcting only a tangential aspect of the view; otherwise known as the _Foot in the Door Technique _(see below)

The Foot in the Door Technique

We allow direct responses to challenge minor aspects of the OP's argument, but we do not allow posters to use nods to disagreement as a means to 'get their foot in the door' and then devote the bulk of their response to agreement. Correcting some minor aspect of the view, or pretending to ask a clarifying question to get by on a technicality will result in your comment being removed.

For example, if OP argues "Andre the Giant was right; nobody should start a land war in Asia," the response "Actually, Vizzini said that. Also, here is a laundry list of reasons why we still shouldn't start a land war in Asia" would violate Rule 1, but "Actually, Vizzini said that." (with more wording to avoid low effort) is acceptable.

Rule 2

Award a delta when acknowledging a change in your view, and not for any other reason

Celebrating view changes is the core of CAV, so if your view is changed, reply to the response that changed it with a short explanation as to how and award a Delta; do not use deltas sarcastically, jokingly, or when you already agree with the response.

It is important that you award deltas any time your view has been changed. We want to be a place where people are not only rewarded for expanding the views of others, but a place where Original Poster (OPs) are celebrated for deepening their own understanding.

When awarding a delta, you must include an explanation as to why and how your view has changed. Particularly if the response concerned covers many points, some of which may have stood out to you more than others. This part of the rule is an attempt to prevent the meaning of deltas from being "watered down", and also help any readers understand or skim through arguments. Consider it a too long; didn't read (TL;DR) for a successful discussion.

When to award deltas

You must award a delta if you had a change of view or have mentioned a change of view in your response. We can't force you to admit that your view has been changed, but if you have indicated at this being the case then please award one. Please note that a delta is not a sign of 'defeat', it is just a token of appreciation towards a user who helped tweak or reshape your opinion. A delta also doesn't mean the discussion has ended.

A change in view need not be a complete reversal. It can be tangential, or takes place on a new axis altogether. A view changing response need not be a comprehensive refutation of every point made. It can be a single rebuttal to any sub-arguments.

While it is not required, it's also a good practice to go back and edit your submission to mention how your view has been changed. This makes it easier for people to focus their new responses on parts of your view that still remain, or at least not to waste time crafting a lengthy argument about the view you've changed.

Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should award a delta if their view is changed.

When not to award deltas

Since deltas are a key component of how Change a View (CAV) works, their misuse is strictly controlled. You cannot award deltas for anything other than a genuine change of view (to any degree). This therefore excludes:

Sarcastic deltas

Joke deltas

"Super-agreement" or "Shine" deltas

Anything else we deem delta abuse/misuse

Rule 3

Do not be rude or hostile to another user

CAV is a place where all views can be discussed civilly, so any comment that contains rudeness or hostility towards any CAV user will be removed, regardless of the overall quality or relevance to the discussion.

Change a View (CAV) is meant to be a place where a person with an unpopular view could go to learn about the other side of issue, to try and understand different perspectives, and do so without fear of being attacked. This is meant to be a place where even the most unpopular views can come to work it out.

A lot of people who post here are doing so in the confidence that people will treat them with respect, approach the topic politely and respond in a mature manner. Being rude and hostile can scare them off, or worst of all, make them retaliate. If you think that a person's opinion is vile, and you're insulting them in CAV, then you're being unproductive.

Controversial and "Bad" arguments

We deliberately avoid removing posts and comments if the only reason is that the view presented is offensive or controversial itself. We also don't remove comments just because the argument is made badly, is inaccurate, or contains logical fallacies. Doing either would suppose that we were somehow the ultimate arbiters of truth or correctness, which we aren't. If you're rude and hostile to someone arguing that it's okay to eat babies, but they're otherwise being civil, then much as it pains us, we'd have to remove your response and not theirs. The goal of CAV is to have you, the user, point out the problems with another user's responses. The moderators are only empowered to break up verbal fistfights.

Groups vs. Individuals

This rule only covers rudeness and hostility towards individual CAV users, not groups of people or other figures not participating in the discussion. Attacks on public figures, institutions, and/or categories of people are allowed and you can use whatever language you wish, but other users and public figures who are participating in the discussion are off limits.

The reason for this is that if we were to say that groups of people can not be insulted or criticised, it would be nearly impossible to discuss any thing of value on CAV. While these opinions on groups may be unpleasant or vile, those are the exact opinions CAV wants to try and change. If someone feels negatively about a group we want them to come here, post that opinion and have others try and explain to them what they are missing or don't yet understand.

Moreover, limiting what can be said about any group of people would put the moderators in a position of having to decide which groups were off limits to criticism and which were not. That is not a power that we can, should or want to have.

Please note that an insult to a group does not equate to an insult to an individual who might be a member of said group for the purposes of this rule, and is thus not removable.

Offensive labels

Labeling someone with an offensive term, e.g. "You are a racist", is a violation of this rule unless the person applied that label to themselves first. You are free to call the idea they present an offensive term - "That viewpoint is racist" - but you must stop short of anything comment about the person.

The offensiveness of any given label is determined by the moderators, in line with socio-cultural norms and context of the comment. If you see a label that you feel is offensive but the comment is not removed, please feel free to message us and let us know why that label is problematic.

Passive Aggression

This rule also covers passive aggressive comments or backhanded compliments. For example, a very common reason for removals is implying or stating that someone "lacks reading comprehension" (or is failing to use it). To be clear, this (and other forms of passive or active condescension) are prohibited.

Semantics

We are somewhat more flexible about rudeness towards someone's argument rather than their character. However, don't use narrow semantic distinctions to try to dodge. Calling an argument "moronic" is effectively calling the person making it a moron, in part because arguments themselves don't have intelligence, and therefore can't even be "moronic"... only the arguer can be. An argument can be called fallacious or incorrect, but it can't be called stupid.

Variations of rude comments like "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" or "Only a retard would voice an opinion like yours." will be counted as violations of this rule. Constructing a hypothetical argument where they have to agree with you or be bad is against the spirit of CAV. Different perspectives should be celebrated, and if those perspectives are wrong they should be challenged on factual grounds not with attacks on people as personal attacks tend to lead to people shutting down.

If your comment was removed, it's because you were "attacking the person", not because you were "attacking the argument". You are not allowed to be rude or hostile to a user even if your hostility is also addressed to their argument.

Accusations of bad faith

Another common reason for removals is accusing the submitter of being a troll, soapboxer or otherwise purposefully arguing in bad faith. While being open to changing one's views is a requirement for submitting (see the other rules), accusing them of trolling only serves to make people who truly are open more defensive and less likely to hear what you have to say. We do allow mild comments - such as pointing out that someone might be moving the goalposts on their argument - as rhetorical techniques, but only insofar as they help to advance the primary goal of changing views.

Apply the principle of charity here - assume people have an open mind, and, if you think they don't, report the post to us and we'll look into it. Keep in mind that only the submitter has the requirement for openness - commenters are not required to argue in good faith and playing "devil's advocate" is specifically allowable.

Common rebuttals to Rule 3 removals

When posts are removed for Rule 3 violations, many of the same justifications are provided. These are listed below, along with why the moderators do not find them compelling arguments. Please review these before appealing a Rule 3 removal; rehashing any of these arguments as a part of that appeal will only result in the moderators asking you to review this guidance:

**"They started it" **

This is not an excuse to break the rule. If someone is being rude/hostile to you, report it. Retaliatory responses (i.e. being rude/hostile to another user because they were rude/hostile to you first) will be removed and the violating user will receive a warning. No exceptions.

We often get asked, "Well, why didn't you remove their comment too?" Typically the answer to this is, "Because no one reported it". We can't review every single comment and we rely on reports to help us moderate. If you want us to take a look at another comment, report it and it will get reviewed.

**"But it was true" **

This isn't an excuse either. We prohibit insults even if you think they're accurate. Insulting other users does not lead to views being changed and just results in unproductive arguments.

This counter is particularly common when posts are removed for using an offensive label (e.g. "You are a racist"). Our position is that since there is no universal or objective standard for these labels, they cannot be "true" and thus still violate the rule

"I was being sarcastic" and/or "It was a joke"

While irony is an important persuasive tool, your comment may be removed if is sufficiently sarcastic to also constitute an attack on the user.

Rule 4

Responses must contribute meaningfully to the conversation

In order to keep the discussion focused and relevant, responses that are only links, jokes, or simple agreements will be removed; humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial responses.

In order to keep responses relevant to the discussion, users can report posts that don't add anything useful to the thread. To be clear, we're not referring to the effort of an argument - we don't make it our place to judge the strength or weakness of your comment in this regard - but rather to the effort of the comment itself.

Examples of low effort responses

Responses that are so short that people have to make assumptions about what is meant in order to understand them and respond to them.

Vague questions like "What?" or "Huh?"

Reaction gifs, meme posts, and puns.

"lol", "this", "FTFY", "KTHXBYE", "Cheers", etc.

Responses that are only a single link with no substantial argumentation, or that are directly copy/pasted from another source.

Responses that correct someone's spelling or grammar unless it changes the meaning of the argument or view.

Simple refutations such as "you're wrong" or "A != B".

Responses from bots or in-character novelty accounts. These accounts will be banned.

Responses that just say "Yes" or "No" unless you were personally asked a Yes/No question needing no explanation.

Responses that just express agreement, such as "You're right" or "Great post". You are allowed to agree with someone in your response, but you must also add something to the discussion in the process.

If you just want to call out a post as good without adding anything to the discussion, use the Shine button.

Length/conciseness isn't the determining characteristic: adequate on-topic information is. Depending on the context, sometimes one word answers to specific questions are sufficient, for example.

Responses which are nothing but a link or a copypasta also count as low effort. A short summary saves people lots of time.

Deliberate attempts to disrupt discussion

Not everyone comes to Change a View (CAV) to argue in good faith, and while we do not allow people to make accusations like that in the forum, we do acknowledge that those people exist. Bad-faith users are defined as users whose activity on CAV is overwhelmingly dedicated to making incendiary responses, with the apparent intent of instigating conflict and inciting rule violations by other users.

Simply disagreeing with you or not having their view changed by your argument is not sufficient to conclude the person violates this rule. Neither is someone playing devil's advocate (which is specifically allowed) - there is a difference between someone arguing a side of an issue they don't agree with or passionately arguing for their beliefs, and someone who is not here to argue in good faith at all. We evaluate bad-faith users on two key criteria:

Their comments are minimally or tangentially related to the submission's primary topic of discussion

They are nearly exclusively engaging in chronic hostility (especially advocating violence) toward groups or individuals

This is not to say that all responses that may meet these criteria will be removed. At times, hostile towards groups or responses that seem tangential may still be valuable to the discussion being had. We apply this view very narrowly and only remove items when it is clear that the user was not here to have an discussion, but rather to rile up others and cause general disruption.

We also see users who routinely delete their posts and/or comments as disruptive. While we understand that from time to time it may be necessary to delete a post or comment (for a variety of legitimate reasons) doing this excessively makes it difficult for people to engage with you in a meaningful way. If you are concerned about a particular view being associated with your primary account, you can create a "throwaway" (a new, single use account) to post the view.

Rule 5

Do not suggest direct harm, incite violence, dox, or spam

Some behavior is simply unacceptable on CAV and is expressly prohibited to maintain the quality of the site, and safety of our users and others.

Conversations in forums like this can, at times, cause real damage to people. The purpose of Change a View (CAV) is discussion, not harm, so some submission or responses are not allowed:

"Do not suggest direct harm…"

This prohibits any discussion that could personally endanger a specific living individual, e.g. submitting about why a public figure should be assassinated. Abstract discussions about the merits of such actions, discussions about the application of law (e.g. the death penalty or other legal punishment) or government/military action, and/or discussions about past actions or historical people remain permissible.

Views that are relating to your personal situation are allowed so long as they can't reasonably lead to a dangerous outcome:

An obvious example, while unlikely, would be "My life IS worth living". This would hopefully be ignored anyway, but some users might try and convince you that it isn't worth it.

A less obvious example - since it's something we'd want you to change your view on - would be "My life ISN'T worth living". The reason being that commenters might not know how to deal with this situation and inadvertently make it worse, which is a negative experience for everyone involved. When someone subscribes to CAV, they aren't signing up to deal with such a situation. These posts are better met with by people who are trained and prepared to deal with them.

Another example would be both "I SHOULD leave my abusive partner" and "I SHOULDN'T leave my abusive partner". These posts are problematic because arguments by commenters or the OP would advocate a dangerous position.

If you see a post where the user is clearly suicidal or otherwise dangerous, please report it to us and we'll work to get in contact with people who can help.

"...incite violence"

Any submission or response that includes a "call for violence" where the user is advocating for immediate and direct violent action against a person or group is prohibited as well.

We must stress that this rule does not apply to general views that you believe indirectly endangers you or your way of life, but rather to specific, direct and actionable advocation of violence.

"...dox…"

Do not make posts that expose the personal information of any user on CAV. In addition, do not post personal information about any person unless that information is already publicly available:

Example: Posting a politician's office address or office phone number would be allowable, but posting their personal residential address or cell phone number would not

"...or spam"

If we believe your submission was made to promote or advertise something (i.e. YouTube channel, blog, book etc), we will remove it. We will also remove the submission if it appears that your goal is advocacy of a specific cause or action (e.g. trying to get users to sign a petition or brigade a website). Since it seems unlikely that someone who runs a blog about a topic is open to having their view changed on this topic, we don't feel these are appropriate for CAV.

Links to blogs, YouTube channels and other media that you do not personally control are allowed, providing that the post still has enough original content to be allowed.

Linking to blogs, YouTube channels or other media that you own or control in _responses _are similarly allowed, providing the comment still meaningfully adds to the discussion. However, those links must still be aligned with Rule 4 and meaningfully add to the discussion. If we believe your response was made simply to advertise your link or product, it will be removed even if it is in a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10447

Posted
Posted

I only read the first few. They're not terrible, they're just entirely unrealistic. If everybody abided them, it would be a great forum. But they apparently aren't familiar with how the internet works. They could have a dozen mods working 24/7 and couldn't achieve their goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29197

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, immamac said:

The point is that the rules were insane for another politics board. 

insane, but kinda not that surprising.

i would love to see how they evolved to that point.  some idealistic idiot was probably initially thinking, "i want a free flow of ideas and stimulating debate."  then every few days, he found himself writing, adding, amending, to this monstrosity, until he arrived at the link you posted.  shit, the initial filibuster rules were in place to stimulate vigorous debate on the rule of law.

it's like when there's a can of paint, and on the side it says "do not eat."  that warning wasn't always there.  somebody done ate that shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...