Rules 1, 2, and 3 are submission-removable offenses, along with the video rule. (Was 7, moving to 4 for organizational purposes.)
The rules after the video post as of the time when the sidebar of /v/pizzagate is changed to reflect the above, are flair-level offenses since they're a bit less solid than the first four. Subjective wording is our enemy, as things open to interpretation are the gateway drugs of censorship.
8, (meta concerns) for the moment, is a valid stanalone removal rule with the caveat that response comment to the submitter asking them to find the link in the side bar, or providing it for them, is given.
9 (spam) is sitewide and remains the same - "spam" is not a catch-all and has a very specific definition, so if you're not sure, flair it and move on.
Post subject to self-deletion for a more accurate or better version later.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Millennial_Falcon ago (edited ago)
I guess New lead and new evidence could be combined into "new lead or new evidence"
I agree on "how is this relevant" to an extent. However, relevance is kind of subjective. Maybe an "off-topic" flair?
On, "needs sources," the reason I think we need that one is that a disinformation post could provide tons of sources and bombard readers with info, but could be lacking a source for a key claim.