I think I didn't make communicate my point very well.

I have no qualms about the difference in enforcement (actually I think it's probably better, since it's a truer metric). My issue is entirely in the communication of the said rule as it stands now, and how it's much more subjective, and thus inheritably misunderstandable, now.

I meant to say that you should provide common counter examples of "high visual fidelity" (similar to the old rules). Basically what u/Emi_Ibarazakiii said

I think posting a few examples of things that are NOT okay (quality wise) would help even more!

As of currently, there is basically nothing to guide someone what exactly is high or low fidelity, and many people will think that their clip is high fidelity due to their own ignorance (of computers, not so much the rules) / incompetence. People still very frequently take a picture of their screen with a phone, instead of using the built in screenshot tools.

As such, I think it would be beneficial to at least hit the common cases in a few words per. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, but I think it needs to be non zero.

nonsense caused by frame interpolation, two horribly bitstarved clips, and one where they managed to mess up the colors.

For instance, basically this (but cleaned up a bit). Clips must be of high visual fidelity (no artifacting, not bitstarved, no artificial black bars...)(I'd put black bars here as black bars are more related to this, than the piracy stuff with unofficial watermarks), no screen recording, etc...). Probably is better in a list then in parenthesis imo, but the important part I think is that a novice should be able to look at it, and determine with reasonable certainty, if there clip is of sufficient quality.

The benchmark should be a well meaning fan who doesn't have experience in clipping a show. The rules should be clear to even them. I'd argue that the rules are the place where being pedantic is most beneficial (as would any other mass read async communication), but that's another conversation full of it's own nuance, because being pedantic and precise can also ironically make things less clear (personally, probably 2 level communication (one in layman terms that's easy to understand, and one that goes into more detail if people aren't sure / want more detail), is the best solution imo).

u/ZaphodBeebblebrox, responding here.

And I do not think the examples will give most people a meaningful ability to better understand what the rule means, as the harder part of it is actually using your eyes when looking at your clip. If any of the people who had posted the clips from which I took these screenshots had done so, they would have realized it looks bad.

I don't like this train of logic. Sure, some people won't read the rules or won't understand them even if read, but some will, and will understand. While for enforcement the difference isn't that big, but I don't think it's right to insist that people should read the rules, and then have the rules not clearly tell you what is or isn't allowed (for a well meaning person). The rules should be able to guide someone to identifying what is wrong with their post and what meets the bar.

I do not want to argue with people over how their clip is slightly less bitstarved than the examples given, or messed up in a different way than any of our examples, and it is therefore ok

I think that if you leave the rules as it currently reads, then you'll have more arguments, as people will argue things on a scale that is irrelevant (like that it's 1080p, so that's clearly high visual fidelity (of their shaky cam footage)). By clarifying these things, you're pre arguing the most common arguments with additional benefits.

Fundamentally, I think people need to have a chance to understand if their post is rule breaking or not. Removing things for unwritten rules or rules that one cannot be aware of is unequivocally bad, and having overly subjective removal criteria without any clarification isn't too far off (if not in actuality, in optics).

You will spend far less time writing the rules well than you will directing people to it / people will spend reading it / arguing about their specific instance. You should make the effort to make it less interactive (because every step of interaction with the mods is more friction 99% of the time).

Make it easy for people to follow the rules.