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?
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.