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.
Changer said:
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."
*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.