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?
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!