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.
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.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/141FFJuQnQ/x/c/4OTNC9nUBEe
For the most part, it's about the tactics of information warfare being directed against the sub by multiple different factions. I truly wish this wasn't something I had to be concerned about, but it kind of is. It seems like anyone who desires even minimal advertising or propaganda efforts comes to forums with 10 accounts, 30 bots, and an agenda on how they are going to cultivate it into what they want, or fucking destroy the whole god damned thing.
I warned him yesterday. I especially do not want to try and start a inter-forum war on .win There's more than enough of that stupid shit on Reddit, and the ConPro mods, whatever they think of me, haven't tried to be assholes. I'm not trying to pick a fight with either ConPro or KIA, so I've got no need of people starting shit. He doesn't like posts being made specifically about him, and it's also why I don't want people making posts about anyone on the forum. Sure, make posts about stupid forums or topics you don't like, but really don't make posts about how one of our own users on our own forum is stupid so that everyone can get together and belittle them in a single place.
I don't think ConPro should be allowing it on their side because it cultivates animosity, but it's not my forum, so I don't want to intrude unless I feel like it's getting out of hand, or there is any genuine brigading attempts. I think for the most part, it's what us and KIA had: over-lapping users.