how about you just put up a news post or forum thread that says what is mc other than the obvious. so heart eyes, corruption, body control etc. that way people can stop asking "wheres the mc" or outright flag it

Y'know, you CAN just DM him, instead of creating a bomb waiting to happen XP

but i like blowing things up... :(

Well, do as you wish I guess.

ALSO I GOT POST 40000 YEEEEEEEEE

Are you the Mad midnight bomber what bombs at midnight?

I doubt anyone gets that joke.

CONGRATULATIONS!
YOU WIN A FREE brainwashing session courtesy of CM Inc.

Never imply that no one remembers the Tick. That show was great.

SPOOON!

I mean, it's already in the rules page.

I know but no one really talks about it. I wish they would put it back on TV.

I think The Tick is loooooooooong overdue to come back.

Edit : He is. On Amazon.

Problem there is not everyone would notice.

And people are more than happy to argue with the mods about shit anyway.

I expect a very specific standard of fecal matter, thank you very much.

I'm really a bit torn on the whole "where's the MC" thing. On the one hand, a report does not guarantee that a post will be taken down, so it shouldn't be particularly bothersome.

Unfortunately, it seems like we have adopted too strict a standard at this point. It seems like the standard is about two inches away from being "If you can find a single simi-plausible explanation that can result in it not being MC, even if MC is more plausible it's deleted." Once the flag has been thrown up, people start scrutinizing it far more strictly than normal, and it's more likely to end up deleted than before.

Sometimes though, I like subtlety. Maybe because I am a creative person, but I like the implication of MC without the exact how and why spelled out. But if it's not spelled out in the most blunt way possible, it's at risk for deletion. I don't like that.

Yeah, why didn't you just DMail me? I'd have noticed faster. :P

Any news post I throw up will quickly be drowned out by...more posts. That's a very transient solution. As for a forum post, most of our users don't use our forums much if at all. And, from my experience, most people subconsciously ignore Stickied threads on forums, anyway, haha. XD

I could make a list of things that are not obviously MC that we tend to count as MC and throw it on the wiki somewhere, I guess. I'll consider doing that. But even then, it's not exactly set in stone, as things are generally handled case-by-case.



*laughs* It's pretty much the opposite. There needs to be sufficient reason to believe that there's any MC at all, which usually means it has to in some way involve some sort of sign of MC. Alas, what you said about that precluding the allowance of subtlety is true.

It's already extremely difficult to draw clear lines on what is and is not MC, due to the very ambiguous and fluid nature of popculture symbolism (which is exactly what the signs of MC are). Being subtle about the MC only further muddies the waters. An unfortunate side effect of having our "MC content only" rule is that subtlety is all but banned by it. The "burden of proof", if you will, lies with the content.

I could allow subtlety to fly, but then I lose any ability to clearly explain why X image was considered MC while Y image was not. If this were to happen, users would want clear explanations for what is and is not MC, and we'd just end up right back where we are now - going by fairly clear signs and excluding subtlety due to the lack of clear signs.

Burden of Proof isn't hard though .We've made a lot of allowances for stuff, like "image tied to story that is mind control" and picking up on things that might not be MC but could be (like heart eyes or empty eyes), i think we've pretty well got it covered.