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'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.