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.
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.
There would be nothing objective if I expanded the definition. You would simply re-define words even further into oblivion. You will expand the definition of a word not only to include it's opposite, but to include that which does not exist, and then you would tell me to re-write the rule again because it's contradictory, because you defined it to be after the fact.
You are not making a genuine argument.
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?
All rules have to be clarified because no rule can be written so perfectly as to not need any clarity. Clarification is part of transparency so people understand the rules. People aren't computer code.
It can be enforced objectively, and as far as I can tell, damn near everyone seems to understand it, or understand it after I speak to them to clarify it. This is also why I am lenient on first time offenses, so that if people want, there can be a discussion about what people mean. It's also why I will try to explain in more detail in modmail when people get banned.
We are not following Reddit's rules. If we were, you couldn't even call me a faggot troon.