In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of Clarence Brandenburg, a member of the Ku Klux Klan who had made inflammatory statements, by insisting that it would only punish advocacy that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The Bradenburg “test” is still the principle used today to legally judge advocacy of violence. Imminent and produce being the key words here.
Per the rules which have been horrendously written. Rule 2: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
As there is no context provided for what constitutes “violence” I’m going to start reporting every comment since words can fall under violence. As people here regularly play games, any mention of any game that contains violence, real or imaginary, must be removed as the display of violence is promoting of it. Any media that has glorified or promoted violence will also not be permitted as to reference to them would also promote violence.
I would highly encourage DoM or AoV to rewrite rule 2 and 16. As it would only take a few people tired of the subjective subjugation to start spamming reports.
Well, to anyone except leftists. Leftists define the lack of advocating for socialism as violence, and they twist and distort everything else to fit those dishonest terms. Anyone who follows along with such a thing, whether they admit to it or not, is a leftist themselves.
So your appeal to two reddit jannies to fix a rule they deliberately implemented to allow for biased moderation is both pointless and hilarious.
Aren't we still on the same copy pasted rules from the old subreddit that haven't been touched for some two years?
I see no reason the mods have not seriously trimmed the fat by now
Because mods are faggots and if they trimmed the rules down they'd have nothing to remove and stroke their dicks about
Post Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Post Approved: sigh
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Approved: >:(
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech (x3)
Comment Approved:
It seems you forgot the most important rule of the internet: "All moderators are faggots."
There are no exceptions.
Subjectivity is never reasonable.
Zero interpretation is not possible.
Some subjectivity must exist.
No, objectivity must exist. This requires a definition of what constitutes violence and it must be applied unilaterally.
You're wasting your time. I had the EXACT same argument with him about this very subject back when he banned another user for comments he "interpreted" as being violent speech.
It was not objective violent speech, but according to his own subjective standards, he labeled it as such. He engages in begging the question and then uses circular logic to avoid answering the question when cornered. You'll just keep going round and round until he goes back to Reddit.
I never said objectivity shouldn't exist, and why I think you're doing this with malicious intent. Some subjectivity must exist. It is not possible for me to make rules which cover all known and unknown possible statements, and apply moderation over them like a computer. Human discretion must exist.
But your discretion is not based on the objectivity of rule 2 which you yourself have admitted.
I believe that the objectivity of Rule 2 is completely fine, and you are only intentionally making bad faith interpretations of Rule 2.
If I engaged in the level of interpretation that you are engaging in right now, I would have to assume that all other rules are perfectly written and there exists no possible subjectivity in any of them, because you have failed to mention any previous objections, and if you mention any objections after this point in time, they are lies.
You're being intentionally unreasonable, and I don't know why you're angry.
There is nothing objective in rule 2. By its own definition anyone that supports the revolutionary war is glorifying violence.
Nor is it necessary, this is argument by absurdity. You simply shouldn't remove things that aren't already a felony anyway.
It is an absurd argument that Ahaus667 is making because he is demanding exactly that. You can say it's not necessary, but that is his demand. Not one instance of subjective interpretation, and a scope that objectively covers every single possible statement in fine detail. If it isn't defined explicitly, then it is undefined and he is free to interpret it to the broadest possible extent.
In the context of rule by subjectivity, yes. Seems to me that the point of the argument is to suggest clarifying the rule or else delete it entirely, because as written it cannot be enforced objectively. And isn't, in the opinion of more than a few people here.
This is shown by you having to make comments clarifying it at all, such as you have in this thread. I doubt that's the first time either. If you have to make such a comment, then the rule as written is insufficient to explain to the users what exactly will get a comment deleted and what won't.
Now, my comment suggesting that the rule's vagueness was on purpose is largely based around what a complete walking piece of dogshit Antonio is(because I think we both know that he isn't acting in good faith), but if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt then the possibility exists that the existing rule is a leftover from reddit. In which case we come to the question of why are we following reddit's rules when we aren't on reddit?
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Threaten harass, bully, defame
Comment Approved: This doesn't meet the harassment rule
Look, I should note that I can probably say regressive leftists are terrorist scum who deserve to die and that the government should do this, but I can't tell people to "go and kill them" even though they do deserve that.
I can probably say it's ok to kill them in self defense though, along with saying that I want to kill a rapist/murderer.
I think we need to hold a constitutional convention to form an entirely new ruleset. As I understand it, here are very few rules actually required by the communities.win team that would be required as a baseline, but downvotes explicitly exist as a means of the community moderation to some extent, so aside from what is required I'd prefer a pretty minimal restriction on what can be posted in a comment. I'm in favor of being somewhat more restrictive on posts (to reduce spam and maintain topicality), but I still lean toward "only what rules are necessary."
The level of imminence that the law requires is not possible online. As in physically impossible.
If DrJester says he's on his way to come to your house and kill you and he posts your address that would not be considered an imminent threat under the law.
Obviously, if he did that, I'd remove the comment, ban him from the sub, and report him to the admins because it is in fact a call for violence against a user.
When you specifically call for killing a politician: yes, I will remove those (besides the fact that it's obvious glowposting). If you agree with the sentiment that yes we should kill that politician, I'm going to treat it much the same.
Also, if you call for an entire race of people to be exterminated, I'm going to remove that as well under rule 2.
Which means that you are not utilizing rule 2 per its definition.
Yes I am.
Then any post about violence would be removed under promotion, any glorification of historical violence or fictional violence would also be removed. You clearly do not remove posts for violent speech per those definitions.
Your bad-faith interpretation of the rule is wrong, and you know it.
No, youre trying to push bad verbiage as reasonable, which it is not.
You don't care about verbiage. If you did, you wouldn't be defining violence as an unlimited abstract concept that can include non-existent violence. You know what words mean. You aren't making an honest argument, and are effectively just trolling me at this point.
Violence is not defined here. As it is not defined then all applications apply. You can claim otherwise but that does not change the verbiage.
If posts can't meet a legal immenence requirement to be considered violent (which I agree, they can't) then why remove them?
There's lots of reasons.
Firstly, there is the likelihood of horrific discord as the sub falls into absolute fucking chaos as people threaten to kill one another as bad actors do everything in their power to start a flame war.
Secondly, there is the likelihood of glowposting for the purposes of attracting law enforcement attention. This could partly be to allow for further legal attacks on the .win network generally, but it could also be for the purposes of subverting the forum for the purposes of government sponsored radicalization and recruitment.
Third, there is the likelihood that bad actors (Leftists) come here to balkanize the forum and set it's users against itself both to weaken the forum's influence, and to poison the experience of posting here for everyone involved.
Forth, there is the likelihood of more bad actors genuinely recruiting for their particular ideological zealots by ratcheting up tension in the forum and trying to recruit the people who are convinced that they are under attack by that faction's chosen enemy.
Fifth, when you push all of these together the forum breaks down into a shithole of people who push no content, only outrage, attack and threaten users, and destroy the whole thing altogether by:
Six, causing any sane person to leave because they realize they should not expose themselves to a social environment where they are told "I should fucking kill you" for the 8th time that day.
There are specific groups of people who are happy to destroy this forum because it meets with their specific agendas to do so, or are simply uninterested in preserving it since it doesn't take priority to their agendas which will lead to the inevitable destruction of the forum.
You might as well invite every commie lunatic and unindicted co-conspirator to come on here and start fedposting.
I have my issues with Rule 16, but loosening Rule 2 would only unleash a shitstorm, and lead to a situation where we need more moderation, not less.
There is no loosening, there is what is what is written, which is vastly different than what is applied.
I disagree. I think it's pretty fairly applied, considering that there's a sizeable subset of almost exclusively bad-faith users who would, given the opportunity, spend hours every day postimg about nothing other than what they would like to do to every member of a certain ethnoreligious group in a deliberate and adolescent effort to shit up the place and take it over.
Everything you just said has nothing to do with rule 2 or 16 being applied subjectively. Subjective rules are the reason KiA2 even exists in the first place.
The rule is not being applied subjectively that I can see.
Can we talk about games and books where violence is applied? If so it falls under promotion under legal definition. Can we say sjws are mentally deranged? If so it violates rule 16 as sjw is an identity. These rules have never been applied objectively.
Saying that a book says something is different from saying you agree with it or that you condone it irl.
We can say that SJWs are mentally deranged, because SJWs don't count as an "identity group" as that term seems to be defined under Rule 16. However, as I said above, I actually agree with you about 16 and I think it should be tweaked a bit.
My major concern is that any substantial overhaul would lead to the level of discussion in the community being degraded and retarded by feds and teenaged edgelords begging for attention.
Which is not in the rules, violence is not defined so all types apply
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Approved: Obviously not.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Approved: Again, obviously not.
because of the dire state of their mental health, to protect them and the people around them, trannies should be confined to a nuthouse
Actually under the rules treatment of an identity as inferior is removable. Saying you dislike an identity is treating them as inferior as it supposes you as superior. Once again these rules diction is horrendously framed.
Not necessarily. It depends on what XXXXXX is.
"All trannies should be forced to seek medical counseling" would certainly be allowed.
"All trannies should be killed" would not be.
I agree.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
You can't call for people to be killed, especially when they haven't even committed a crime.
Rule 16 keeps you out. That's the goal. Take the hint.