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.
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.
No, all you would simply have to do is state the criminal definition of violence. This would set definition. Rule 2 could even be erased as anything that falls under illegal activity is counted in rule 1.