About nine months ago this lifeboat came into existence following massive purges by Reddit admins against non-establishment conforming materials. Those purges never ended, which is why this particular forum has become the overall bastion for KIA2/GG materials.
On the creation of this site we were presented a set of 16 rules which we, the users, were questioned about. Overwhelming we found that the rules were overbearing and redundant.
Many of these rules are redundant, unnecessary, or bad.
The most obvious of which is that there are THREE rules covering NSFW/pornographic material. It was pointed out by myself as well as numerous other users that these were redundant and pointless, and the assumption was that these would be changed as the rules were simply temporary.
It's nine months on.
Those are only the most egregiously obvious.
The reason I make this post today is that our rules are so open-ended and confusing that even our illustrious mods have no idea WTF they mean.
I was personally banned for a day for a rule 15 violation after which u/DomitiusOfMassilia/ admitted he misunderstood what the rule meant. Immediately after I watched him make the same mistake with another. Now, a week after, I notice that the majority of action is taken under rules 2, 15, and 16. Almost all content removals are based on slurs/bad language/insults.
This post is largely upvoted while Dom's statement of removal is largely downvoted. That's just one example. This is becoming far too common. Please do not make the same mistakes that murdered KIA1.
Note that I am not calling out Dom specifically. I think the rules themselves are dogshit tier and must be fixed. I like this community, even if I do think you're a bunch of faggots. And goddamnit u/TheImpossible1 there's no women involved here so kindly fuck off.
Can we please have a serious discussion about our rules and the impacts that they have, and FIX THEM? We do not need SIXTEEN RULES, especially when it's clear not even our mods understand them all.
KIA2 win doesn't even have any rules in the sidebar. I have absolutely no idea what the rules are since I barely use reddit anymore.
This sub does have rules. Got banned for 3days for saying they should of brought and used guns on the 6th if we were gonna be fucked either way. A glow shit rule definitely exists.
That could be a .win rule rather than a kia2 rule. I think it's technically illegal to suggest that the government should have its supposed monopoly on violence broken.
Legal stuff honestly makes me feel like an idiot, so I really don't know the answer. I was half insinuating, but also half wondering. The lack of clarity makes it extremely difficult to discuss certain topics that come up here.
Sorry, could you define? We can say faggot here, so I'm assuming it's a real acronym.
Ah, thanks. I vaguely remember seeing those before now.
Yeah, if only conservatives allowed people to call for the violent overthrow of the government, they'd win the culture war.
No, that only works when you control the levers of power.
Then BLM looting, murdering and raping means: "WE HAVE TO ADDRESS SYSTEMIC WACISM!!!!!"
When you do not control the levers of power, the unguided tour of the Capitol means: "WE HAVE TO CRACK DOWN ON TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS!"
Let us imagine a hypothetical situation in which right-wing violence would be effective. In that hypothetical, one thing that would not be effective is calling on others to commit violence on a public forum.
Why do you suppose they're pushing so hard for "gun control"? I'll give you a hint, the second word of that phrase is substantially more important than the first.
You miss the point. If conservatives are persecuted even when they do not advocate violence, under the pretext that their platforms are used to advocate for violence, how much worse would it be if you gave them an excuse?
Did it once, we can do it again.
Not only are the rules somewhat hidden, but rule 15 states that "a list will be provided." yet a list was never given.
Action must be taken.
Just unironic use of racial slurs AFAIK.
I was thinking the same thing. Sidebar is still empty, what rules?
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/GIJF3rpD/welcome-ashore/c/
The main rules are, don't promote violence, and don't speak ill of the chosen or the damned as a group. You can bitch about individuals without too much risk, though.
I am not sure we even have a sidebar.
There is one, you just can't see it because all it said was: "this a side bar". And it looked really dumb.
You're aware that mentioning me gives me a notification, right?
It's a joke buddy ya gotta expect it at this point.
I thought you were genuinely asking me not to be involved, which made the tag a bit confusing to me.
Regarding changing the rules - 4, 5 and 6 should be combined.
16 is way too open to interpretation and blocks speech that the other side gladly targets at us. There's higher standards for posts here than for media, politicians etc.
Nah I'm just fucking with you.
You're an easy and open target and I knew you'd respond and bring views to the thread.
Exactly. This is the easiest decision out of all of them and shows immediately to anyone that the rules need to be changed/fixed.
I hesitate to say certain things because we got issues.
It's pretty obvious that, as I and many others in the original thread have pointed out, rule 16 has been abused.
That's not a bad thing. It's easy to fall into a mindset that sees the forest for the trees, but when you do, it becomes harder to see the trees.
Mods are super tree focused.
Dom's just been spazzing out ever since some people started noticing things, I guess it fried something in his brain or what ever. Meanwhile AoV... Well, his history on the handling of r/kia2 is an argument that stands on its own.
I guess you can leave reddit, but the reddit faggotry never leaves you.
AoV isn't even a mod here. I don't know if he backseats it, or just talks a lot of shit but he technically isn't.
What did I do?
Remember that little episode shortly after r/kia2 started gaining users due to the r/kia mods going absolutely full retard? The one where you unilaterally decided to ban mentioning and talking about kia1 mod abuse on kia2 so you could
go suck their dicks I guesshold your "private negotiations" for... what was it exactly, 4 months?Oh yeah sorry my bad, that wasn't actually a "ban", you just wanted that topic to be "temporarily" outsourced to r/kiameta, a sub which is now conveniently set to private so all the documented kia mod abuse (i.e. the reason kia2 exists in the first place) is inaccessible.
Meanwhile we got these gems from you, a thread which I've still saved as a warning to never, EVER, take you seriously again let alone consider you something approaching an equal individual seeing as you were willing to sell all of us out on a whim. A stance which I've stayed consistent in I might add.
And then there was that one point in time about a year ago when .win had just about become a thing and entire sub was SCREAMING at you or one of your henchmen to secure kotakuinaction.win, which also somehow fell through.
Or let's talk about the bucket list of bullshittery you enforce on r/kia2 "because the admins said so", which conveniently has found its way over here despite apparently being unique to r/kia2... At least going by the fact that I have frequented many of the now-banned and quarantined "altright" subs and nowhere was such admin incursion ever mentioned, not even for its comedic value.
I thought it was r/MetaKIA
Negative, kiameta it was. Here it is from the horse's mouth.
https://www.reddit.com/r/kotakuinaction2/comments/cg0397/kia_has_banned_me_permanently_again_for_a_post_on/
And that was absolutely correct. There were barely any threads on KiA1 mod abuse on KiA2 anyway, and by that non-concession, I got goodwill with some of the good mods like Hatler to have a shot at fixing KiA1. It failed, but I'd do it again.
I love how people scream at me for being chump, while some of the KiA mods attacked Hatler for being a chump because I continued to allow meta posts on KiAMeta.
Morale of the story? When dealing with retards, the only winning move is not to play, because they will always find a reason to whine.
Good, cause you are not my equal.
Pretty sure that never happened.
Go right ahead.
One would assume you'd be smart enough to see the connection...
Gay shit
Wrong, all the twink porn you've seen is just deepfakes.
Dunno what this means, sounds gay.
16 rules is far too many.
keep it to 5. if you can't fit it in the five most important, it doesn't need to be a rule.
Regardless of anything else, this should at a minimum be rule 17.
Go read over the original thread if you haven't.
Many of the rules are unneeded or redundant.
We could easily have 7-9 rules, and less if we condensed further.
I didn't read the rules, but trying to decide on rules based on upvotes / downvotes is a recipe for disaster. Just like Democracy.
-—Atlas Shrugged, maybe
I would never be so insane as to want rules to be violated. In fact, I'm happy that most people don't violate most of the rules.
Scrounging for rule violations sucks asshole and I hate it.
Honestly, I would have stopped and abandoned this whole thing if I didn't think games working together outside of the influence of Cultural Leftism wasn't important.
Generally, when I use the word "nigger", it's a blanket word to mean a degraded human that acts like non-humans are stereotyped to act, and it's generally divorced of skin colour. Simply because "monkey" is too insulting to decent monkeys everywhere.
And believe me, I've met my share of fucking goddamn white, red and halfbreed niggers. I don't really need or want to have to deal with the really nasty shit coming from the really nasty countries. If I get a gun, you bet it ain't going to be for pestering wildlife.
You don't call a black man a nigger because he's black, you call him that because he's an ignorant motherfucker.
Well, not currently active shooters. I suppose I could edit that.
You don't have another choice...
This is the case for about 80%-90% of all rule enforcements both here, and on Reddit. That isn't really going to mean anything to me when I can expect that response from basically any enforcement action, regardless of how egregious it is or not.
Typically the only times I get upvoted responses is when someone is a Leftist agitator and is explicitly violating the rules (meaning I have to tell them off), or if it's an annoying bot that I have to ban.
Rule 2, 15, and 16 happen to be the most violated rules. Typically because it's not totally uncommon for someone to post angrily...
I tried to be as specific as possible in the rules, that's why there are 16 of them in the first place. By creating specificity, I am deliberately disabling myself from adding subjective interpretation, and preventing myself from
If I eliminate rules, I guarantee subjective enforcement. I'm going to allow myself to do that because it will end in arbitrary and tyrannical enforcement.
Specificity -> More specific written rules -> strict enforcement -> no unwritten rules
Vagueness -> Few generalized written rules -> broad subjective enforcement -> vast unwritten rules
That's a trade off that you can't avoid. The first is preferable. It's why Reddit claims they have 9 rules, and our Revised Code has closer to, like 50 or more. We're actually identifying what is actually against the rules by being specific. It's also why the number of rules keeps going up.
That's actually one of the reasons that I haven't created a list of slurs. The Euphemism treadmill exists, and I will need to cover almost every slur I can think of. I've actually done this before in a time long ago in a very different place. The slur list will probably be over 1,000 slurs long. It will take a significant amount of work to detail them all. Given the Euphamism Treadmill, we'll probably have to have some sort of system to add or remove slurs every so often.
I want to explain a fraction of this phenomenon, as it may not be obvious to you. If you delete a comment, we can't tell if it was really justified (there were tools to check on reddit, but not here) in being removed. We could trust you..but I hope you'll agree that some skepticism is healthy. And I know you're not in a great spot there, because this is not a free speech site, as much as I and others might like it to be.
So what about the votes? It's just the little evidence available. If someone is being a big troll or agitator, that leaves a clear trail and so it's simple enough to give you a pat on the back for cleaning up. If I can't see any evidence and an otherwise interesting or entertaining conversation is cut short or partially erased, I'm gonna be irritated and lean towards you overreacting. It's not really fair, but it's part of being a janny that you seem capable of handling.
Relatedly: can we get a modlog here? That's a great confidence-building tool.
I think you should be prepared to make an exception based on context. Example: "niggerfaggot" is a signal-label from voat, which carries no real negative charge to it. Though you do specify "angry" posting, so I guess that'd be obvious enough.
We have an official mod log, but I don't think it's public.
I am prepared for that, but it may need to be written down to be sure.
Definitely. However, then OP can also not cite downvoting of DoM as proof that users disagree with his call.
The problem is not really with what is 'really' offensive, but what can be used against us. If one has to be inducted into the minutiae of signal-labels from Voat to realize that something has no real negative charge (e.g. I was unaware of this), then it is a very potent weapon to wield against us.
That said, some slurs are more dangerous than others.
I know. I think killroy knew it was a weak argument himself. While I think a democratically-moderated forum is an interesting idea, it's not what we've signed up for here.
Mm, a fair point. It shouldn't demand special knowledge. They use it as a weird sort of aggressive endearment, close to how one might shit talk a friend during a game. Anyone using it differently shouldn't get a pass just for using the term itself. So it ends up coming down to demanding the moderator investigate context/motive every time, which seems like a failure due to exhaustive effort.
I wouldn't be able to support a zero tolerance ban because even I can use a slur to be crass sometimes. Other times I can try to explain the behaviors implied in the slurs. I could compromise on banning "low effort slur usage", because it should be apparent if the person is making a genuine communicative effort, even though the compromise would mean I lose some slack in speech allowance.
I hate this, but since you argued weaponization, I have to agree. Whether it be actual feds, discord trannies, or asspained autists, there do exist simple language superweapons. Even if zero people care when some shit gets flung here, if the wrong outsider takes a look it could cause some trouble. Even modern imageboards have to learn to deal with this angle, and they're supposed to be the free speech bastions. Though they usually get taken out with obvious things like cp spam and declarations of homicide, rather than some charged labels.
I'm very wary of the optics angle, but I can't advocate for others to take a stand when I think they'll be fighting a losing battle.
I fear we're approaching the day when it's actually illegal in the US to use slurs, in which case we'd be forced to comply as part of the .win network rules. So it may not be a matter for us to discuss after a while.
I recognize niggerfaggot as just something that I saw on 4chan for years. Eventually something reaches the point of simply being jargon or parlance from another website where it was allowed to grow, and it becomes normal to use, like Oldfag and Newfag.
I also recognize Niggerfaggot as the name a NSFW MLP artist used for a while (don't know if they're still around). The fireworks over that name was hilarious to watch every time it came up.
Hm, I did notice it getting used on multiple chans, but I just assumed it started with voat since they used it so much more frequently.
Now that's some deep lore, haha.
And half the joke is that its so over the top edgy it ceases to be useful as a slur any longer.
There is a reason nobody there gets upset at the x-fag label. Only at whatever the X part is, because newfags are cancer.
Some stuff should be democratic, other stuff cannot be - or at least is very risky. E.g. we cannot let users vote on the sitewides. But if users do not want a rule of choice, it should generally be up to them.
It is not even that. I can investigate it, determine that it's not 'bad', and the admins will still decide that it's bad. Or if we are here, the people contacting the hosting services will seize on it, and the hosting services are not going to investigate it. They just want to avoid bad press.
Of course, this applies to any number of things. But then one has to determine to what extent something adds value, which justifies taking some measure of risk. Honestly, I don't think users calling people 'niggerfaggot' adds that much to justify taking any risk with the sub.
I don't think we're going to get a zero tolerance policy. Slurs should be allowed. Within reason. That said, if a user unironically calls someone 'faggot' in every single comment, in my view that is undesirable for reasons of sub pollution alone.
Racial slurs are too risky. Don't blame me, blame America.
This is not really 'optics'. It's more: what can we do to prevent being taken down. That said, if every comment is 'nigger this nigger that', that does create some optics problems. We want to be able to attract people here.
That's the good thing about your Constitution. That will never be the case. Corporate tyranny is where it's at.
Fair enough. Ex-voaters aren't so numerous or special that they demand special risk. I think you can agree on some simple terms that reddit treats as slurs, such as "faggot" and "tranny". Not exactly intellectual labels, but they're pretty useful for communicating issues that pop up regularly. The exception you mention about pollution is acceptable to me.
I am eagerly awaiting the inevitable attacks to hit the .win network. So far, I've been pleasantly surprised with their ability to stay online. Just hosting the_donald was a damned big target. Now they're practically challenging the citadel by trying to make their own reddit (I think .win is more threatening than the other places like saidit).
Though that's their issue, a bad actor trying to remove us merely has to convince the .win admins that our presence is a liability and I don't know them personally so who knows how easy that may be. I don't think they've stopped by to lay official mandate? I assume Dom would make a sticky about it if so.
Contradiction? Or implying a total corporate takeover like cyberpunk without lasers.
From watching more niche sites struggle with foreign hosts during attacks, I don't think even america is a useful blame target. If someone wants to break your business partner that has no skin in your game aside from a one-sided contract, it won't take a federal effort to accomplish it. I hope one day we are done with all this cancel culture and deplatforming stuff.
They are useful, and they are also not very risky.
So far, as far as I know, they have been very cool. But that of course is no guarantee for the future. If we do allow more dodgy stuff, like unironic racial slurs, we may indeed become more of a liability.
Racial slurs are risky, precisely because of corporate tyranny. We don't fear that anyone will be prosecuted by the government, but that the corporate tyrants will do what they do best.
I meant the culture - the absolute hysteria about words and any sort of rational speech regarding race. Not the state per se.
Rule 1 rewrite
I suppose I could make it clear that I am not referencing currently active active shooters, but people who are/have been active shooters who are rationalizing their shootings with a manifesto.
That is still some bullshit. If I wanted to talk about why the NZ guy did what he did why couldn't I post a first hand source? It may be full of memes and ultimately worthless, but it has some value and is worth discussion. I'm not saying go ahead and post the video, this isn't liveleak, but a bunch of words should be acceptable.
What if I posted excerpts of "Mein Kampf" not in celebration but for discussion?
Are you going to ban people who say "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" or any variants of that?
As I said to lgbtqwtfbbq, the biggest problem I saw here, especially at the time, was that it was being used not to simply slander a forum or a user, but to entirely deplatform websites as a whole.
No, despite it's presence in a manifesto, I don't think a generic statement about the concept of the Industrial Revolution itself should be removed. That's effectively an academic matter.
As I replied to AoV below:
And yet Kiwi Farms is still up. I'm sure you've seen the email.
From that thread: Imagine trying to ban a video that will let everyone know exactly what went down and how horrible it was. The video and manifesto turned the attack from a list of numbers and a title to the inner workings of a demented person who went out to kill innocents. People can only benefit from being able to access it.
I get wanting to keep the site up but giving in to demands that aren't even being made is just accepting defeat. Did the .win's admins ever say that couldn't be shared here? Are they filtering private messages like reddit does? If so it would be beneficial to everyone if that information was shared.
I wouldn't use Kiwi Farms as a example of websites being immune. Null is constantly embroiled in lawsuits from literally everywhere because of his refusal to take threads down. Right now he is in over 5 figures of court costs just from the two current ones, and he constantly has to do wacky fund raising to keep up (right now selling silver coins).
I get your point, but KF is in a special position where its run by one guy who owns his website and is willing to go to any extreme, including mega debt and ruining his own life (which he has), to keep it up. Which is a lot different than volunteer jannies.
Yeah, I know what state KF is in.
I don't even like or frequent the site. But if that is what people have to do to keep stuff like that up, well, we are fucked if no one wants to make a stand. As far as I know, the .win admins are willing to do that.
I honestly don't remember. I'd have to ask.
I don't believe so.
Because that leads to websites being taken down. Pure and simple.
Sure, why not? This is mostly aimed at preventing people from murdering people in order to get their views to spread - at least, that is the rationale for the censorship.
Not sure how this is relevant, to be honest.
And yet Kiwi Farms is still up. I'm sure you've seen the email.
From that thread: Imagine trying to ban a video that will let everyone know exactly what went down and how horrible it was. The video and manifesto turned the attack from a list of numbers and a title to the inner workings of a demented person who went out to kill innocents. People can only benefit from being able to access it.
KF does its own hosting.
I don't care.
I usually agree with DoM and you. But this is interesting. So you want to push people to other sites to get the truth? We could post here, black and white and untouched, yet there seems to be a problem? I know KF does their own thing but the .win admins, as far as DoM knows right now, never said "Don't do it"
You saying "I don't care" somewhat implies you are involved with moderation here. And if that is the case, fine, just be open about it.
No. It should imply that I have the knowledge to answer some of these questions. Of course, I do talk to DoM at times.
As for where other people get their 'truth'. That's a no-brainer when it's a choice between a significant risk of the site being taken down, and having people go elsewhere.
Isn't this whole discussion about why 'shooter manifestos' are banned here?
Would posting a link to Industrial Society and Its Future, originally published by the Washington Post, run afoul of this rule?
I'm unsure why that portion of the rule even needs to exist here: as I recall it was a response to reddit banning people for posting the Christchurch shooter's manifesto, but I fail to see why that needs to carry over to this site.
Let me do some research on Industrial Society and Its Future. I think I've seen that one before, but I'll have to double check.
The rule existed previously because there was a major push at the time, not just in regards to Reddit banning stuff, but it was genuinely being criminalized in UK, NZ, across Europe, and many IT companies in the US were taking whole sites down and removing their ability to be hosted.
Transparency
I think the rules are transparent, their pinned to the top post. But, I'm fine adding them to the sidebar.
Edit - I changed the sidebar.
But I don't think it's displaying properly on dark mode. Could I get some help with that?
That will fix it, just use rgba instead in order to support old browsers.
Combining Rule 4, 5, 6
I do not think these should be condensed because they are 3 completely separate things.
Four, involves salacious material that is being leaked for a multiplicity of reasons. Five, specifically refers to actual pornographic material, which is not part of Four. Six, requires that if something could be unsafe for work, salacious or otherwise, it should be labeled NSFW.
Combining them would just make it one extremely large and overly complex rule.
I think it'd be fine to combine them into a more complex rule. I could even see porn counted as spam, combining yet another rule.
Can you give me an example of 4 that cannot be considered a type of porn? Could holding hands count? If it could, the current description of rule 4 does not make that clear.
The existence of rule 6 creates a confusing implication that some porn can bypass rule 5, so I suggest either combining them OR make an in-rule reference so that implication doesn't come up.
As a side note, do you really need to state the specific rule when you take a mod action? It's just annoying to me to have to check the rules to translate, but it's also extra work for you because you couldn't have referenced the rule number without first understanding what the problem was. It's one thing to memorize the rules, but it's another to memorize the numbers assigned to each rule.
I don't really see how holding hands alone would could count as pornographic material, unless it was literally an early or late scene in a pornographic piece that wasn't sexually explicit.
Rule 6 is independent of Rule 5 since it's about the concept of making sure things are appropriately flaired. I suppose I could remove the word porn and make sure the word 'salacious' stays.
The goal is two fold:
Back to 4+5 then; couldn't you just say "No salacious content (imagery)"? Then there's no need to specify whether it's voluntary or involuntary. [I'm just referencing the sidebar rules atm, so apologies if the long hand rules are clearer]
The best reason I can think of to not do this one is if you needed to explain the reasoning of the rule. Rule 4 is intended for a pseudo-legal conflict prevention, whereas rule 5 seems to be a basic rule to prevent ridiculous scenarios where people decide they'd rather use our space for their fap sessions than see us talk (which is why I tend to consider such porn posting to be spam).
I will mention, though, that some of the loli argument threads we had recently brought up a few instances where I was seriously tempted to post images that would count as porn. The intent was to provide an informative chart for clarifying definitions. It was such an odd scenario, I thought it worth mentioning since it's a potential exception (I did manage without posting such a thing, and I believe others can manage the same, so I kind of hope it is not made an exception).
Finally, I'll save you a step and bring up a potential problem with replacing "porn" with "salacious". You could get people posting "tasteful nudes", which can become quite a slippery slope. This doesn't mean the description is a failure, though, just that there's too many language games available to play for you to make a perfect, ultimate description that comes in a digestible length. I'd be surprised if we got anybody here that was really so autistic that they couldn't grasp that this isn't the place to share anime tiddies (maybe advertising a game they made themselves at most).
But I'm not banning salacious material altogether, I'm banning genuine pornography.
Kilroy thinks that every rule should have a state of intent, which isn't unreasonable in my mind.
I think that's clearly reasonable enough for it to not really be what I'm talking about.
I think there may also be a form of self-policing that should be able to handle boundry conditions.
One more point.
I'm going to assume the point is based on legal issues, since you maintain that "porn" cannot contain the content described by this rule.
This rule functions only with a discernment of intent behind an item's distribution. I'm not great at the legalese game, but this seems very exploitable to me. It largely has to be based on claims, right? Could you append the rule to describe how the intent is verified?
There will be occasions where it's obvious, of course. But as it stands, wouldn't a simple drawing posted online alongside a text message 'this work may not be redistibruted without explicit consent' fall under this as soon as you're notified? What if it isn't the artist or their lawyer contacting you? What if the evidence is falsified?
It's basically the IP law nonsense that youtubers struggle with now. I don't really expect us to receive that kind of harassment, but it's not impossible.
Initial thought: would it be permitted if an archive is available? Legal stuff is real iffy, but that seems like some kind of lead because archives generally only function on public documents (I think? never tested). Then you'd have to make it clear whether we can post archive links that depict rule4-breaking items. I think this has come up on reddit in the past, but I don't recall your ruling.
Yes, because excluding some forms of pornography, most pornography is a commercial product which is created from a voluntary contract.
It's certainly possible that it could be exploited. Like, if Hunter Biden said the laptop's pictures were ISM, he actually has an argument to that. However, these aren't just leaked nudes, some of them are clearly felonies. It's not him and a girlfriend. It's him and a prostitute. Him and several prostitutes. Him, several prostitutes, and crack on a fucking scale. Him and his niece.
I think that at some point there has to be subjective analysis here about the news value of a high-profile person, whom the media is protecting, having documentation of his crimes be publicly available. Compared to some activist or random individual having their private nudes to their ex-boyfriend leaked to someone.
I don't really see how it would make a difference to rule 4.
Doesn't really matter how overbearing we find the rules. DoM made the site, like AoV made the sub. They're faggots who despise stormfaggotry. Granted, I don't think we have any actual stormfags here, but anyone who points out an observation along those lines they'll instinctively want to quash. Their prerogative is their right.
Make your own internet.
Neither Dom nor Tony made KIA.
They fight like younger men.
Admirable.
But they merely adopted the shitlord.
I was born in it. Molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was a man and by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING.
The shadows betray them because they belong to ME.
I will show them where I have made my home whilst preparing to bring justice.
Then I will break them.
I was there with Antonio when he still thought KIA2 was temporary and the mods on KIA1 could be reasoned with and would back down on all the shit they pulled.
He is the most stubborn person to ever exist, and cannot be shaken from that. He is reasonable, but you aren't gonna win easy.
As a different flavor of far-right extremist, being allowed to exist openly is enough for me because its a rare allowance these days.
Our little coalition doesn't need infighting. It also doesn't need to be an echo chamber. Yes, yes. Baneposting. We should appreciate the environment they've created, though. And they should remember what they hate. Unethical journalism.
Now Killroy, I think you are being fairly disingenuous about what you're actually attempting to do here. You want to end rule 16 because you want to rant about the Jews controlling everything, and hopefully using this forum as base for alt-right activity.
No, I'm not letting you do that.
Firstly, because I know that it is going to scare away normies, and if we want to survive we need to grow. Without Reddit's search engines, I have to construct an authentic decentralized system to attract attention from outside the .win network in order for more people to use this place as a communicable hub. Normies don't want to hear you rant about a Jewish conspiracy to keep them down because they a) don't believe it, b) don't have any experience that would agree with that, c) it makes you sound absolutely crazy, d) it's resentful and rageful that a lot of normies don't want to get emotionally invested in.
This is why places like Voat died. Well, in addition to a few others:
Secondly, it makes it super easy to commit false flag comments and glow posts that can be weaponized against us as well as .win. It's the 2nd biggest avenue of attack that I could open for the Left. The biggest being porn. I wouldn't care if people posted porn, but I know with 100% certainty that Leftists would come here and post really nasty shit, then report their own posts. The Leftists were pushing false flag, blatant, and unhinged racism to give the John Birch Society a bad name in the 1950's and their still doing it today with Hoax Hate crimes. I'd even be okay with some of the stuff I remove for rule 2 violations if I weren't 100% sure that glowposts would abound.
Third, I consider racialism to be Leftist generally. To the point that I consider your racialism about as actively subversive and dangerous as active communist activity in the forum. I look at it in the same way that I would look at a BLM activist screeching about how this sub can't be a place for black inclusion until we end our innate whiteness and abandon capitalism.
Which also informs my bias assumption that you are being disingenuous with your post, and particularly the objective of bringing 'reform' to the rules. I think you know good and well that if I start making the rules more general and vague, I'll have to start policing subjectively, which will both undermine my own position (and create demands for my removal as mod which you can exploit), and guarantee that users will see rules as weapons to be enforced by their particular ideological faction within the sub. That way, the moderators can use force to craft the sub into something more appealing to their particular faction. After generating enough objections from my subjective enforcement, you should be able to garner enough support to remove most of the rules, and replace (or add) moderators with people more ideologically aligned with your faction. After having removed most of the rules, you will be able to use moderator power to purge users and crush dissent to form a more ideologically homogeneous userbase that you hope you can use for your own purposes.
This, of course, destroys the forum.
Now, as you're reading this and saying: "Dom, you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist."
But remember:
I think of you as a Leftist. What would you expect a subversive communist to do? The same shit for the same reasons.
To be honest, you're much better off parasitizing any successful growth the sub has for political purposes, rather than controlling it outright.
So this isn't a place for free speech and we should be looking elsewhere? I thought the reason we were here instead of on Reddit is so that we don't have to censor things. But you're willing to just do it anyway.
Porn's just too risky.
Personally I'm fine with that not being here, but that's not what this discussion is about.
What would you like to be the standard for removals? There's always illegal stuff that has to be removed. There's also some non-illegal stuff that does have to be removed, like spam.
This place is about Gamergate. It's not "Jews are evil", nor is it about any other petty agenda that someone may want to advance.
The sub has evolved past just being about Gamergate to politics in general, which I think is good. But that is naturally going to lead to people discussing conspiracies. Picking and choosing what opinions you think are valid or not isn't a good moderation strategy unless you want this place to end up like Reddit. Saying X conspiracy is not allowed to be discussed sets precedent and is a slippery slope to banning more discussions.
Any resistance to Social Justice is Gamergate.
I did not want that, because politics are a distraction. I'd much rather fix the culture, and politics will take care of itself, as it is downstream from culture.
That said, the rule against unrelated politics on r/Kia2 was never unsuspended, because it seemed to me that this was not what the users wanted. You could argue that IDPol has infected politics to such an extent that it has become very relevant.
Where exactly did you get that discussion of conspiracies was going to be banned? That is quite different from becoming another /r/conspiracy though.
They had a very limited definition of what "Gamergate" is, removing anti-SJW stuff as well.
I am pretty confident in saying that Gamergate was not about "gas the kikes".
I'm a bit busy still with Easter stuff so I'll write a couple more in-depth responses later.
I want to respond to this a bit though.
That's not at all what I'm doing.
There are two parts to this:
It is instead much better to have fewer, more consolidated rules and attach examples and a statement of intent to each. Similar to certain methods of legal documentation.
I also will talk and debate about many other topics and ideas. I believe I've been quite thorough in my discussions on the tranny issue, for example.
What I am concerned about is using the rules as an outright blanket banning of certain discussions or ideas. The original intent of those rule, as discussed, was to prevent low-effort hate posts, while still allowing discussion of said "non-pc" topics.
I'm sure we can both agree that these rules have been targeted against issues such as global judaism, black criminality, LGBT issues, and others.
I am concerned with what I've seen in that the tangent we're now following will give credence to further destruction of acceptable topics.
Your characterization of me as disingenuous is absurd. My concerns are the exact same as they were nine months ago, and the same as they were when I posted them on both /r/KiA and /r/KiA2. I truly and legitimately want for open and free discussion of anything from the most banal to the most sensitive of topics.
As I said, I'm busy with Easter stuff so I'll reply to other stuff later.
A statement of intent and example is perfectly reasonable, and I'm sure I could build that up.
I admit that I may have a purely biased perspective by the nature of my work itself. If I'm primarily seeing shit that violates rules, then that's what I'll tend to see. Insert hammer & nail analogy.
Actually we disagree on that. The policy isn't targeting the topic. More than anything it's targeting the negative spiral of hate mongering and resentment stoking that those topics are intentionally designed to illicit.
Think about it from Impossible1's bias. If his hatred of women started to spiral and attract like minded people who constantly complained about women, their innate inferiority, and their desire to destroy all men, it would actually poison the attitude of the forum and cultivate an environment of whinny incels.
But compare the refinement, documentation, history, organization, support, and funding of the Incel community to that of anti-Jewish or anti-Homosexual groups. There is no Incel political party, no weaponized meme-ing to create psychological conditioning, no history of documented "Scientific Sexism" from the progressive era to debate, nor books into the innate dangers of women, nor a gendercide of women (and arguments that deny it's existence if it had actually happened).
Sure, an ideology built on resentment against women exists, but it's structure is vastly inferior to the structure of ideologies built on resentment against Jews, disgust against Homosexuals, or resentment and disgust against Blacks.
Now, is there such an ideology of resentment and disgust that exists against men and whites? Absolutely? Is it here?... eh, no. I don't even have the opportunity to remove comments targeting white people and men... because no one's making them. No one's screaming about Hindus either. I can only enforce what's in front of me. It's not like I'm desperate to defend the honor of women from Impossible.
I'm literally laughing to myself as I write this about the idea of me screaming "I MUST SAVE THE INTEGRITY OF WOMANHOOD!" and banning impossible.
Happy Easter.
This. Also, quite apart from the reasons you correctly specify here, there are additional reasons why Stormfaggery presents a problem. The fact that we don't like their views (which is true) is not the reason. I'd actually love to debate their favorite subjects with them, although I try to restrain myself because it's quite damaging to this place for people to go around spouting the views that they hold.
We have hosting. We have domain registrars. Hell, we have the T_D.Win admins, who will likely not appreciate it if we do allow stuff that brings (1) unfavorable attention on them and (2) attacks on their hosting/domain registrars. I have heard some people claim that they actually ban the word 'nigger', but that is unconfirmed.
You may say 'the attacks are already there'. I believe one Stormfag site got taken down because of inflammatory comments about that woman who got hit by a car in Charlottesville. Apparently, someone said that she was a fat dumbass who deserved to die or something. I don't personally have a problem with it, but it's something with a lot of risk and barely any reward - besides some catharsis for the individual saying it.
You can call DoM a sellout, cuck, whatever you want. Fact is, he is responsible for the survival of this community. In order to safeguard the survival, he may have to do some things that you don't like, that he doesn't like.
Finally, olur cause (Gamergate) stands on its own, and it is vehemently anti-identity politics of all stripes. This is not a recruiting ground for your politics, whatever your stripes are. If we were swarmed by communists who tried to make every thread about the evils of 'capitalist pigs', that would also be quite tiring.
The problem is that people who start down the road of what Gamergate uncovered will eventually find the underlying mechanisms of what was driving everything. This is why KiA fractured. Some people began to identify root causes and others couldn't upend their worldview when confronted with new information. Honest inquiry will organically lead to exploration of identity politics every time, which is why everything eventually gets censored.
You're always allowed to discuss and learn up to a point, but anything beyond that point is forbidden.
I was there. I don't remember you. No one mentioned the 'nefarious Jews', which I presume you think what it was all about. In fact, some of the strongest mod critics were Jews. It was about what we were allowed to post, which had nothing at all to do with the Jews.
Have you considered that you may just be wrong, and that people are not bad because of their ethnicity?
The initial fracture was discovering that the Left is the engine powering all the unethical politically motivated journalism. Lots of people were unwilling to grapple with the discovery that the Left is essentially evil. This is a large part of why KiA2 emerged, as a response to every criticism of the Left getting pruned for "unrelated politics", despite it being directly related to the behavior we'd been cataloging.
If you keep digging further you start finding a whole lot of Jewish influence, but once you find that and attempt to explore that phenomenon you get people like you coming in to squash further exploration of the issue.
Depends on how you define 'the Left'.
No, that is 100% false. KiA2 when created got an unrelated politics rule of its own. I am pretty sure the reason you are getting this wrong, is because you were not around, and are looking for a way to connect your agenda with KiA.
Breaking News: Group Of Humans Found To Be Influencing Human Endeavor.
I've been here for...what's it been now, almost seven years since Jim made his video on the initial scandal? Your unrelated politics rule got plenty of pushback of its own, you just didn't carpet bomb all threads containing literally any politics the way KiA did. Your rule set and the reality of the userbase on the ground are not synonymous, but you've never really picked up on that distinction. KiA2 only gained any traction at all because there was a need to continue the discussion of "unrelated politics".
Doesn't sound like it. Nor do I remember your username. Not that it's literally impossible, just quite improbable.
Not at all. Option 4 was not about unrelated politics.
Curation is what murdered KIA1. It was going fine even with rules against IDPol.