Comment pins are broke, so see below:
OK, here's the first second draft of the new rules. Everyone made thoughtful contributions - thank you.
- Do not advocate for illegal violence or post other illegal activity. (Be aware of your local laws.)
- Don't be a fag, a psycho, or anything else that breaches the community's standard of conversation. New users will be held to a higher standard.
- Do not post porn.
- NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.
- No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
- No spam or reposts. Do not make more than 5 posts a day.
- Do not post falsehoods and hoaxes that are obvious to an uncontroversial degree.
Notes:
- R16 has to go. That much is obvious. Anyway, the mod team is already diverse by 4chan's standard, not reddit's.
- "illegal violence" might seem redundant, but there are a million cases of civil/legal advocacy of violence, such as supporting the invasion of Venezuela. On the other hand, advocating for assassination can understandably earn you a visit from the Secret Service.
- R2 has replaced the original R3 and is specifically tied to the "community standard" as a minor safeguard against mod abuse. As many have noted here, we need a general purpose "don't be a fag" rule.
- The spam rule has been expanded.
- R7 is to prevent low IQ posting. It has been slightly retooled to, again, add a minor safeguard against mods banning posts due to differences of political opinion.
- The original R7, the brigading rule, has been deleted. This community is too small to brigade even random Twitter posts, and if we get raided then the new R2 will cover it.
A notice at the top: we are now able to handle content violation reports regularly with six people on the mod team, so please make sure to use the report button where appropriate and one of us should get to it. It's a work in progress.
As far as the rules, this is our current list:
- Do not post Illegal Activity, or criminal manifestos.
- Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
- Do not threaten, harass, defame, or bully users.
- Do not post involuntary Salacious Material.
- Do not post Porn
- NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.
- Do not post Facebook accounts or twitter accounts with less than 500 followers, and personal information.
- Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another.
- Do not solicit or engage in transactions that are federally regulated by the US govt.
- No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
- Do not post spam.
- Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes.
- No reposts
- Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
- Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users.
- Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior or conspiring.
What deletions, additions, and modifications do you have in mind?
Drop Rule 15 entirely, and probably Rule 16 as well. You still have Rule 2 if someone gets too spicy but if they're not actually advocating for something illegal (murder/assault/battery/etc.) they should be free to say what they want. The block function exists for a reason. If someone does nothing but call every other commenter a slur (in a way that doesn't count as spam) the community can naturally filter them out; no mod action required.
Now there may be admin requirements around a rule or rules like that, but as far as I know our little website here is US based and we haven't backslid so far (yet) that those rules reflect legal restrictions on speech. If I am wrong in that regard, well, it might already be too late for anything of consequence to be done.
On a lighter note, I don't know if I'd want a whole rule for it but I'd like to see some way to encourage people who post a screenshot of another webpage (like a tweet) to also post a link (raw or via archive) to said web page. Always good to be able to verify for ourselves that it's not some made-up screen grab, especially when suspiciously cropped.
Rule 15 and 16 need to go completely. This isn't Reddit, and the Dom abused them to hell and back. Take a blowtorch to them.
I'd really like to see rule 2 narrowed. I doubt it will be narrowed as much as I'd like but laughing at retards getting what's coming to them and saying they deserve it shouldn't result in a ban hammer. Same for calling for capital punishment. A lot of the problem was DOM's selective and bad faith interpretation of the rule, but even the plain meaning is still too broad. There's room for reasonable people to disagree where exactly the line should be drawn and I think having that discussion would be a good thing.
Rule 13 isn't really a problem but I don't think it's necessary for mods to be enforcing it. The community is very good at self policing when it comes to reposts.
3 and 12 I'm iffy on. With DOM finally fucking off I'm less concerned about them being interpreted in bad faith but it's probably best to close that door entirely. I can see 3 being useful in egregious cases especially if 15 is axed but 12 probably doesn't have any redeeming value that would outweigh the (admittedly reduced) risk of abuse.
Rule 14 is another iffy one for me. I'm not thrilled about it but it is useful an an anti-sperg measure. But as I've discussed with u/Kienan so is rule 16, and DOM abused that one way too much for keeping it to be feasible. We really need to attack the problem of spergs and bad faith posters directly instead of trying to fit a good moderation peg into a Reddit shaped hole.
Everything else falls under legal/TOS/site usability. Rule 1 could probably stand to be narrowed a little bit but it's not a hill I would die on.
Revise 2. "Glorifies" was never used for anything other than selective enforcement.
Delete 12. It basically bans memes.
Delete 15 and 16. Those are leftovers from reddit and they don't belong here.
Actual memes are usually fairly obvious, especially ones that are actual image macros. Things like "Epstein didn't
catapult himself into spacekill himself" could be argued as false because the narrative is he did. Less known instances basically then fall between a poster being a tard and not knowing what they are talking about, or needing to explain the joke, and much like when dissecting a frog, this kills the joke.Agreed on all, except potentially 12. Maybe it could be reworded, and it shouldn't include memes, but some people do love to post actual bullshit and try to lie to people for ideological purposes or something.
I think there should be a rule to enforce against bad actors who want to do nothing but post bullshit.
Could potentially be combined with u/Arsith 's suggestion, about providing sources. Maybe you should just have to mark shitposts or "falsehoods" as such, if you're posting stuff that isn't real.
Solution: we mock them for being spergs.
And we can call them gay retards.
I'd disagree with that. This isn't a dissertation review. It's a rinky dink little discussion forum on the internet. Such a rule opens up discussion to devolve into just bleating "source?" at each other like redditors every time someone brings up the black crime rate.
Except that's never been an issue, in all these years. Which could go either way, since the rule was also rarely violated. But I don't think its existence is a huge issue...probably one way or the other.
Sourceeeeeeeehhhhh
Selective enforcement was the biggest problem with the moderation here, especially since it was done with an anti-community agenda.
Rule 16 goes against everything this place is supposed to be about.
Anyone who denies that certain groups are inferior is a liar. And fucking lol at the "conspiring" part which is clearly meant to shield Jews from legit criticism.
Just spitballing here:
Is "manifesto" (R1) a sitewide or actually illegal violation? If not, I think they should be fair game. I hate censorship, and those are always relevant for discussion.
We could roll R1 and R2 together to "Do not advocate for violence, or post other illegal activity." R9 is redundant with R1 too.
We could roll R3 and R8 together, and do away with R15 entirely, changing to to "Do not threaten, harass, or impersonate fellow users."
R7, small accounts, could potentially be lowered slightly, if people wanted. 250? 300? Could just leave at 500 too.
R10 and R11 could be combined, potentially, but I'll leave them distinct for now.
R12 is tricky, since it's open to interpretation, but could be left for now, maybe with the edition of "obvious," although that's still vague.
So, again, spitballing, the simplified list would look like the following:
R1: Do not advocate for violence, or post other illegal activity.
R2: Do not threaten, harass, or impersonate fellow users.
R3: Do not post porn.
R4: NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.
R5: Do not post Facebook accounts or twitter accounts with less than [XXX] followers, and personal information.
R6: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
R7: Do not post spam.
R8: Do not post obviously intentional falsehoods or hoaxes.
R9: No reposts
R10: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
And I think that's it. Cut it significantly, and could be further tuned. Did I miss anything?
Combining R1 and R2 makes sense. They're the same rule. Likewise R3 and R4 could also be combined as "don't post porn, and label other NSFW content."
R5 is kind of silly imo. There's virtually no risk of brigading from here.
I would want to change the current rule 15 to "don't be excessively hostile or obnoxious." Would probably be good as R3.
The anti-brigading is probably vestigial from reddit. Back when they were purging right wingers, I remember accusations of brigading being used to justify banning subs. We clearly don't need a rule like that.
That's an odd thing to put in past tense.
I'm referring to the big purge years back, when they methodically got rid of every single board to the right of r/conservatives and most of the regular users, tons of which ended up here.
And of course, being a bunch of wimpy lefties, they didn't have the balls to openly say, "fuck you, I don't like you so you're banned". So they made a bunch of sockpuppet accounts and basically false-flagged all the targeted boards over a few months. The doomed shitposting at the end was epic.
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too
Nah, we do need such a rule, because no one wants a bunch of IP2A or GreatAwakening faggots shitting around here. It is a rule that can be used to gatekeep, and is therefore very useful.
Point. It would need to be rephrased, the current rule is more like a ban on raiding from here, which doesn't happen anyway. Maybe something like "Raids on KIA2 will not be tolerated"?
You're still on that?
I'm one guy, being hopeful.
Would you rather I be committing rule 2 violations every comment?
Screw IP2, though, yes. They are not constructive.
I will say, keeping some similar rules separate is still good practice since, even if they sound alike, they cover different things. So it can actually be more clear to be seemingly redundant.
Porn is pornographic content, which is different than simply "NSFW" stuff, for example. I don't think those should be rolled into one, since they're covering different things.
And I just did away with R15 entirely. Like you said, it's covered by overly harassing users.
And I think R7 (my R5), is more to protect us, than others. But I can see doing away with it as well. Like you said, low risk, so maybe we should just be allowed to talk about literal whos on Twitter. It was a holdover from Reddit. We could always readjust if it becomes an issue down the road.
My R7 and R9 could be combined as well.
I have ideas to trim it down even further if needed, but for now let's go with, something like:
R1: Do not advocate for violence, or post other illegal activity.
R2: Do not threaten, harass, or impersonate fellow users.
R3: Do not post porn.
R4: NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.
R5: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
R6: No reposts or spam threads.
R7: Do not post obviously intentional falsehoods or hoaxes.
R8: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
Fair enough. That could be confusing.
I'd still like to add verbiage about obnoxiousness to that rule to introduce a lower threshold for enforcement than "harassment," which no two people define the same way.
Feel free. I'm not proposing these as final rules, just spitballing the combining and streamlining of current rules.
A big issue is interpretation. The first rule on your list is fine if it's being applied in good faith. Where is the line drawn though? Can we make fun of retards whose ideology got them killed for example?
Same with the second rule on your list. I think it's fine for egregious cases but the culture here generally allows people to be assholes to each other since we lose less from that than we would from making it into a hug box.
The only thing I'd add is finding a way to make it easier to get rid of bad faith posters. Think Bluestorm or a version of Imp that bothers to rules lawyer. There's no reason to put up with that shit for months on end.
Sadly, that will always be the case, though. But, yeah, as little room for bad interpretations as possible is a good goal.
Similar to now, we can have shortform and longform versions of the rules. I think "don't advocate violence" is a fine shortform rule, and then we can spell it out further in the full rules.
Personally, I view advocating as direct calls to harm others, but not gravedancing. I find the latter very distasteful, personally, but don't view it as violative of any rules.
I don't view "retard fucked around and found out" or something to that effect, as breaking any rules. While something like "do this to all retards" would be a call to violence.
True. It's complicated, but the very fact we've had these rules and they haven't been enforced regularly is a good sign. We can definitely keep iterating though, but I think something like it should be there. Like you said, for the especially egregious cases.
Any suggestions?
I think the guy who suggested changing rule 16 to "don't be a nigger" is onto something lol. More seriously it's something I've been thinking about and it's hard problem. Shadow suggested wording like "don't be excessively hostile or obnoxious" which I think is a good starting point. I'd have the concerns I mentioned above about the second rule on your list, but you have a good point about us not having that problem even under DOM. I think ultimately the mods acting in good faith is more important than the actual ruleset. No ruleset would have stopped DOM from making excuses for Bluestorm or his selective enforcement bullshit. The Reddit ruleset was only a secondary problem. I'm encouraged by what I see. I think we'll land in a good place regardless of how exactly the new ruleset comes out.
Does anyone even post 5 posts a day here?
Imp did, which was one of the offenses I dinged him on.
And we have one or two users here who would absolutely post more low-effort threads daily if it was allowed. The rule should stay, in my opinion. Cuts down on a lot of nonsense, actually.
True. Jg5 probably would too, but I suspect he was only here to poke imp.
Telia used to post up a storm when he was here, but I'm not sure if it was 5 a day when he was told to knock it off.
Maybe R6 could be reworded as "no reposts, spam threads, or 5+ posts a day."
Hey, we could be a dangerous brigade if we wanted to be! There are dozens of us! Dozens!
We are totally,.very organized too!
I think it has been illegal sometimes. Like I think maybe distributing the Christchurch shooter's was an offence in some countries. Realistically they're not all going to be a problem, but I imagine the blanket restriction did save on a real headache of having to check legality in potentially multiple different jurisdictions to make sure none of the users here accidentally ended up on even more watch-lists than they already are.
Part of me wants to say 'fuck em' but, like you said, it would actually be for the user's sake, not for complying with retarded totalitarian regimes. So the 'manifesto' ban could be added back in, if needed. (EDIT: Or require tagging of manifestos.)
The concern I have about banning manifestos is that it's easy to imagine them being a topic of discussion. As I said in my comment it's not a hill I'd die on but I do think rule 1 is a little too broad.
As I said, I'd like them to be fine, too. I just get the argument. But, yes, ideally they should be valid, but maybe require tagging.
Part of me just wants to suggest
But I supooooose I have to act respectable now. So trimming the fat on the boring list probably works best.
I'll post my suggestion for additions in this new comment instead of adding to my wall of text. The only thing I would suggest adding is something that allows mods to show obvious bad faith posters the door. I'm thinking of that Bluestorm faggot but to get my point across even clearer just imagine if Imp had spent the last few weeks doing what he was doing except making it a point to dance within the rules. One of the things that convinced me that DOM was acting in bad faith instead of just being inactive was his excuse making for Bluestorm while gleefully banning good faith posters with interpretations of rules 2 and 16 that he stretched further than Lizzo's waistband.
Part of the problem with that type of bad-faith poster is that codifying rules is just gamifying their evasion. Their intent is to skirt the rules, so it's just going to be a whack-a-mole game of adding new rules and them coming up with new ways to be a technically-legal cunt about things until it becomes HR hell with no fun allowed.
It's the same problem you see with more serious consequences with the actual judiciary. When you trust the arbitrators more than the users, you use broader rules that are somewhat open to interpretation so they can use their actual personal judgement to catch the bad ones without having to punish the good ones, and you eject the judges who demonstrate obviously incompatible judgement. But when you let bad ones fester or have no means to forcibly oust them, they just start using all that wiggle room to turn it into their own personal little feifdom. When you have a high trust in the userbase/community you can have rigid rules and trust that no-one is going to try and twist the spirit on the rules whilst just abiding by the letter, and either end up incredibly vulnerable to even the slightest bit of two-faced behavior, or allow some alternative way for the community to take care of trouble makers themselves.
When you can't trust either side of the equation very much, it's almost impossible to have a system without serious potential flaws.
Unfortunately the mixture of broadly interpretable discresionary rules, extremely strict automated rules, and lengthy neglect has been one of the worst possible systems. So I guess the only way to go is up right now.
I suspect things will improve just by virtue of the mods being good faith posters who experienced the last several years. No ruleset would have prevented DOM's selective enforcement and active sabotage of the community. It's encouraging that we're finally having discussions about the rules after half a decade but good faith mods who actually listen to community will make the real difference. I'm highly optimistic on that count.
I constantly get treated as a problem just for being alone and desperate.
Relax bud, I'm not here to make enemies.
And desperate people can be dumb and therefore a problem, so that's actually fair. Keeping yourself together would lead to better outcomes for everyone, yourself included, so there's a goal for ya.
Replace rule 16 with "don't be a nigger"
in all seriousness though, I wouldn't like to see a rule somewhere along the lines of "don't post low quality bait". I would like to see some kind of mod action against posting things that are obviously fake. EDIT: apparently that's rule 12. it would be nice to see some actual enforcement on it.
It seems like R12 could be changed to something like that.
"Baitposts must show effort"?
"gr8 b8 m8"
Based.
Some of these rules are relics of Reddit KIA and need to go. We are not beholden to a bunch of tranny petty tyrants anymore. For example, Rule 16 is meant to stifle discussion about any kind of conspiracy about a group we all know.
Rule 15 is meant to stop us from reliving the glory days of Xbox Live Modern Warfare 2 game chat and is therefore gay.
Rule 14 is good, as it prevents Imp and others like him from shitting up the board.
Rule 13 is good, but should only result in the repost being removed, not the user.
Rule 12 is kind of hard to enforce, since you can't really say if a person is intentionally posting falsehoods without an extensive pattern of behavior.
Rule 11 is good, but is kind of a repeat of Rule 14.
Rule 10 is good.
Rule 9 is good, this isn't Ebay.
Rule 8 is good as it should prevent Imp's alt accounts.
Rule 7 is good.
Rule 6 is good.
Rule 5 is good.
Rule 4 is good.
Rule 3 is a little too broad. Imp fully deserves the bullying he has received.
Rule 2 while I don't like it, is here to protect us from the feds arresting us for having an opinion.
Rule 1 is good.
I don't see why we shouldn't be able to post criminal manifestos, unless that's referring only to publishing self-written manifestos.
But even that would be useful if some idiot posts a manifesto here and then goes on to commit the crime. I'd like to have the option to see what they said.
As for the rest, anything with weasel words should be removed or reworked. "Glorifies" is subjective. "Harass" and "bully" are subjective. "Intentional falsehoods" is extremely subjective without the poster admitting to it. "Egregious" is subjective, as is "slur."
I asked this to, and the answer was it could be illegal in some countries. So it's - potentially - more to protect some users from inadvertently committing a crime, than to penalize people from posting.
It could still potentially be done away with though, or could just require marking.
"Know your local laws. Poster Beware."
Yup, as well as tagging of criminal manifestos.
It's not like they come up that often and, when they do, everyone wants to post them. Requiring a tiny bit more effort, while protecting some users, but still letting everyone else see them, seems like a good compromise.
Who cares? More than 90% of what we talk about here is now illegal in the UK alone.
What is involuntary salacious material? Also there's a lot of retards, faggots, and other terms flying around these parts, that pretty much violates rule 3, don't it?
yeah, I would like to see rule 3 gone, at least the part about bullying. it's an anonymous forum, anyone who can't handle bullying shouldn't be here
I will maintain that threats should never be posted here, that kind of shit can get the entire form in trouble.
The term "bullying" takes me back discussion boards I participated in 10-15 years ago. Back then it meant failing to show the mods and their buddies the deference they feel entitled to. That kind of faggotry isn't a problem here but I wouldn't mind seeing that word disappear from the ruleset. A faggot who whines about being bullied doesn't belong here.
Yes. That would be a good addition to the rules.
Who knows, and who cares? Whatever it is, seems like it's covered by multiple other redundancies. And was anyone EVER dinged for a R4 violation? Probably once or twice, because I remember people saying exactly that: What the fuck is that?!
So, yeah, get rid of that nonsense.
I think Beefy is right, it's probably about revenge porn but they tried to fancy it up so much that it means nothing
If a girl sends you nudes, don't repost them here. Or leaks like the fappening. Redundant with rule 5.
Involuntary salacious material sounds like in those porns where someone "trips" and sticks their dick in someone else accidentally
Rule 4 might cover weird edge cases like leaking sexts which might not count as porn but the involuntary part still makes it a no-no. But we're not a girl's gossip group chat so I don't really think that's going to come up.
If "I'll know it when I see it" is good enough for actual real courts, it's probably good enough for rule 5 to cover this den of reprobates.
Drop 16.
first off, if it's not a .win REQUIRED rule, get rid of it.
then we can start re-adding. 5 and 6 are ok, there are better places for it. 7 makes no sense. 8 and 9 are irrelevant. 10 is normal. 11 is normal. 12 is subjective, kill it.13 is acceptable. as is 14. 15? kys nigger. 16 is literally the jew rule.
No more 15-16 for sure
#15 probably can go because I’ve never seen it enforced and we’re all grown adults. #16 because it’s stupid (not like inferior was ever an issue, just the second half). #12 might need to go as well because how can you judge the intent on a post?
The rest are standard forum rules and CYA legal stuff, seems good to me.
I was thinking of retooling #15 as "don't be excessively hostile or obnoxious" because there are a few users here who just destroy threads by flaming everyone. Obviously people get heated once in a while. We all understand that. But constantly raging is not good for discussion, especially when people start quoting line-by-line and it takes up most of the page.
It would be in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I think we know enough to enforce a reasonable community standard.
If it keeps threads from devolving into the 30+ comment long wars like the ones AoV and Imp (I think?) waged on every post in 2020 I’d be fine with it.
I wonder if it would be useful to take aim at shitting up unrelated threads with a pet cause. The root cause of the Imp/Antonio "debates" was Imp bringing up his lunatic theories in every single thread and Antonio being the only one to regularly engage him. Rule 14 kept him from flooding the board but there was no analogous rule for comments. Rule 16 eventually came into play but there are way too many problems with that rule to keep it around.
That’s probably going to end up being the result. Sounds like it will be the anti-Imp rule.
That might be a good approach to Bluestorm like posters. DOM made excuses for him while he went after users who actually post in good faith. Showing bad faith posters the door is as important as laying off good faith users IMO.
Yeah, what's even the difference between a regular gamer word and a particularly egregious one?
I believe in some circles it's a single consonant
Edit- can't fucking spell, and I refuse to be immortalized as a retard.
Bro, you just walked right into this one.
I'm just gonna go through the detailed rules from the stickied "Welcome Ashore!" post.
Unless this is a sitewide rule, it should be removed. The value of being able to analyze and discuss the trannifesto or "The industrial Revolution and it's Consequences" outweigh any potential benefits of censorship.
Considering that this has literally been used to delete posts advocating for capital punishment, it should also be removed, or at least pared back to require an imminent and specific threat of violence.
I'd rephrase this as "Don't engage in criminal harassment of other users" and leave it at that, otherwise the rule is intentionally overbroad.
Probably the first two rules that are fine as-is.
This needs to be rephrased, since "porn" is already explicitly banned, but otherwise I think it's OK.
The first half of this is fine, though '500 followers' is a bit arbitrary. The second half should be kept inline with sitewide rules, but otherwise shouldn't be needed.
I think the spirit of this rule is fine, and I don't think it was ever abused in practice, so I guess we can keep it.
This looks like a direct restatement of a sitewide rule.
Probably also a direct restatement of a sitewide rule, but if it isn't, I'm fine keeping it.
I don't recall this rule ever causing issues, and there are certainly a few users that would have caused issues if they weren't limited to 5 posts/day, so I'd say we keep it.
I don't like this rule, because it rarely seemed to be used to remove intentionally misleading content, as opposed to just content that one of the mods didn't like. I say we remove it and, if necessary, replace it with a re-worded 'misinformation' rule.
This needs to be adjusted, because the same content will often be posted twice (rarely more) in the same day/week, and the second/subsequent posts will attract more discussion due to timing/title/whatever. We should keep some form of this rule, but enforcement should take care to not quash discussion.
Oh, this is the actual anti-spam rule I've seen applied. We can keep both, I guess.
Fuck right off with this shit, you kike faggots.
Hmmm, "Removed by scoredinternal" is a new one.
Best case scenario, you did just describe a bunch of sitewide violations all at once, maybe it triggered an automatic removal?
I'd say ask the admins what triggered it, or DoM, but I doubt either is going to give you a response. Without knowing how Scored moderation works, my guess is as good as yours, but I'd agree that it's almost certain that this was some sort of auto-mod triggered by keywords or somesuch.
I want this to be a Gamers only clubhouse.
Aside from the obvious #16 that was generally only enforced in defense of one group, what about #12? How do you even enforce a rule that's based on the poster's intent? What if they honestly and wholeheartedly believe something the mods think is a hoax? What if the mod team disagrees on if something is a falsehood?
Yeah, I mean, nobody is ever going to admit to lying, so that rule seems impossible to violate.
You say that, but that's pretty much the entire basis of most actual prosecutions for falsified rape allegations, where the stakes are far higher. But as another similarity to those, it probably does only catch a tiny fraction of the dumbest/most arrogant perpetrators.
A potential middle ground I thought up is, require the declaration of jokes/shitposts as such.
Maybe add the ability for posters to flair their threads that way? You could even add a "natalism" flair for threads mocking imp.
Follow up.
I wouldn't mind a ban on screenshot posts that are completely without source. Screenshots are fine, but also provide a source or archive link. There's a lot of room for fuckery with screenshots.
I'd want a rule like that to allow for reasonable exceptions. I've posted screenshots when I believe it's credible and made an honest attempt to find the source. Maybe require an explanation of why you have to post a screenshot if you do post one.
I would also add: "do not be an asshat. Mods retain the right to suspend or ban asshats at will."
OK, here's the first draft of the new rules. Everyone made thoughtful contributions - thank you.
Notes:
In-thread stickies still aren't working. So, if you want attention, you may want to do a 'proposed rules phase 1' new thread or similar.
First thing that springs to mind regarding "illegal violence" is it could actually be less clear, as opposed to more. Maybe something like "legally unclear violence," although that's getting wordy.
But, with "illegal violence," I could say something like "you should be shot in the head," and, if called out, say that I meant by a firing squad after being found guilty, or similar. It's easy to modify 'legal violence' into a threat. Although that would still be a R2 violation, so I suppose it's covered. Still, something to be careful of.
I get what you're going for with R3, but it's a little verbose and unwieldy. And already largely covered by R2. In my opinion should either be reworded or removed.
Other than that, looks good!
One potential addition I thought of, some notification that new arrivals are on probation, and will be held to a higher standard. Gives us a bit of wiggle room to smack a bitch, while still keeping us accountable to the regulars. Something like "New arrivals are expected to behave in good faith." I hate good faith rules, but if it's specific to new people, I think it would be fine.
Yeah, that could pop up. I agree that would be covered by R2.
I ended up rolling R2 and R3 together and shortening it (see the top of the page).
Sorry to nitpick, but new R2 is both too vague and too vulgar. As funny as "don't be a fag" is, it's not really the tone I personally would like to go for.
Other than that, it's looking good. We trimmed a lot of the fat, while still keeping the necessary stuff.
Yeah, I could see that. It needs to have a general purpose clause though. I will try combining with the original.
Change the header to Vivian dressed as Cammy White.
15 and 16 are broken all the time and the sub seems fine. It seems like an ancient hold over to when gamergate was “classic liberals” trying to hold onto their morals.
delete rule 16, 15 and rule 3 (because some faggots DO deserve bullying)
since 97% of the userbase is already /pol/ tier these rule-sets are pointless and reddit tier
My current thinking is that we now have an active mod team, and I would let people settle in for a month or two before making any big changes. Given the people involved, I'm not expecting any bad actors, but let's let users and mods alike get calibrated.
While I agree with many others that R15 and R16 can be a problem, I'm not sure removing them entirely is the answer. I've been on here for a long time, and I find it gets boring when everything is about, for instance, Jews (or natalists or pedophiles or whatever).
I'd say get rid of 15 and 16, mainly because they don't get enforced anyways, so why have them.
Drop rule 7. Either its true information or not. let the votes and comments decide
You can just keep Rule 16 and only enforce it on the low IQ obsessive retards. You have to have a general purpose "don't be a fag" clause.
If someone's obsessive and obnoxious, then they're probably breaking the rules on spamming and reposts. No need for redundant rules that give privileged groups double protection.
Keeping rule 16 is low IQ obsessive retard behavior.
Smirking and repeating back what somebody just posted is always a 100% accurate indicator that you didn't understand what you just read + got genuinely mad about it.
I understand that you have a group you want to protect so you want to keep that rule.
Uh huh.
>Rule 15
You're mods now; which means you're fags. Just accept it.