Should this not be under scope rather than general?

Where do we draw the line here? If something could be accomplished with CSS but the dev adds some nonsense logic that isn't really required does that get a pass? The function of ChatButtonsBegone and CollapsibleUI can both be achieved with purely CSS, where do they stand?

Should this not be under scope rather than general?

woops, yes meant it to be under scope

Where do we draw the line here? If something could be accomplished with CSS but the dev adds some nonsense logic that isn't really required does that get a pass? The function of ChatButtonsBegone and CollapsibleUI can both be achieved with purely CSS, where do they stand?

ChatButtonsBegone(CBB) is a goliath that uses webpack queries to get the classnames, meaning its not a spam of css with wildcard queries happening on every mutation - that to me is far across the line of "functionality as a plugin" rather than just a css snippet in a plugin.

Quick glance at CollapsibleUI shows its not just css, it gives the user multiple options across various parts of the UI, a bit like CBB.

I would deem these appropriate for being a plugin, whereas something like this is what the new rule covers. Lastly, like most rules, are generally up to the discretion of the review team - if its as simple as that plugin linked above, its obviously not permitted