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.
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.
They can be written to require less of it. You've received a few decent suggestions in the thread so far.
We need more of the latter, and less of the former, within the actual text itself.
Cutting down subjectivity is always good.
This thread exists at all because a bunch of people think the summation of the rule is "whatever you say it is".
So if it can be enforced objectively, why not write it objectively and less vaguely? I suggested as much above, the rule should simply be the already existing legal standard for unlawful speech. That's not only crystal clear, it also has six decades of easily discovered legal precedence behind it.
I really haven't received good suggestions.
I've seen requests to make a complete and total reversal of the rule itself. Most of which allow for actually calling for people to be killed. It is not a felony to have people calling for the death of an individual in a forum, and I have no intention of allowing people to do that. I will also not change the rule for people to make an open call for genocide either. I will also not change the rule for people to call for the death or murder of a user. There is nothing illegal about calling for Kaarous to be raped and murdered, yet I still won't be letting people do it.
Each suggestion I've gotten would be a change that would allow for all of those, and that isn't going to happen.
That being said, I can see about clarifying it further, but I don't see how it's confusing. I could still try.
Why then, if it's not a felony, would you be policing legal speech?
The only potential answers that I can see are "because that's how it was on reddit", and "because that's the way I want it."
And hopefully you can see the problem with those. The first quite simply shouldn't be happening, because if the rules aren't going to be substantially different than the leftist instituted insanity of reddit then there really isn't any reason for this board to exist, and the second pretty much confirms the concerns of people who are worried about subjectivity.
That could reasonably fall under rule 3, as proclaiming someone by name adds a level of specificity. There is a case to be made that naming specific users, rather than generic terms, would be deserving of more scrutiny in any particular instance.
You've even said something similar yourself in the past about rule 3, with regards to the various squabblings about Dr. Jester. Who by the way should start getting temp bans at least when he spams that pedo shit.