unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about rules are guesswork
unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about rules are guesswork — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be evaluated. Without it there is nothing to compare against the current text.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier. It is what makes those threads worth reading years later.
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
- 1The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a…8 comments in this branch · started by u/marisol_frisk