Changes highlighted in italics:
- Instance rules apply.
- [New] Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
- [Updated] Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. Avoid unnecessarily mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
- [Updated] Post sources whenever reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
- Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
- Have fun!
What I’m looking for is constructive criticism for those rules. In special for the updated rule #3.
Thank you!
EDIT: feedback seems overwhelmingly positive, so I’m implementing the changes now. Feel free to use this thread for any sort of metadiscussion you want. Thank you all for the feedback!
Are comedic posts still going to be allowed? I looked through the community and saw a couple. I suppose they are covered by rule 5?
You mean stuff like this, right?
This sort of stuff is mildly discouraged. People are probably better off sharing it in [email protected] instead. But as long as there’s some room for genuine discussion or info sharing about language, I won’t remove it. Because, yes, rule 5 (nobody likes “stop having fun!!1one” style e-jannies).
Note that neither @[email protected] nor me are too strict on the rules. For example I’d rather tell users “don’t do this” than to temp-ban users.
Thank you for bringing this up!
I didn’t see that one, but in the recent posts there is “bro wake up, seven new laryngeals have dropped” and the xkcd about “going to”.
Oh yeah, I forgot about linguistics_humor - even though I’m subscribed already. That does make sense.
Ah, got it - I know which posts you’re talking about. Same deal, except that both have more room for discussion.
I’d allow it into [email protected] too. :)