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.
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.
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.
Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Threaten harass, bully, defame
Comment Approved: This doesn't meet the harassment rule