I've created a list of rules as below, they will likely change later, but they are here for the purposes of establishing a base level of social order:
ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity. Also, do not post any manifesto's done by terrorists, active shooters, serial felons rationalizing such things, or promoting such things, even if your content does not endorse the message.
TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
THREE: Do not threaten, harass, or bully users; and do not encourage others to do so on or off-line; nor make per se defamatory states at users.
FOUR: Do not post ISM. Involuntary Salacious Material means NSFW material of a manner that was not intentionally made public. This is the "upskirt", "revenge porn", and "private intimate photos" rule.
FIVE: Do not post Porn
SIX: Content that contains nudity, pornography, or profanity, which a reasonable viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace should be tagged as NSFW. Any material of a titillating nature must be marked NSFW.
SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts, individuals who's twitters are less than 500 followers, private/personal information that is not publicly available, addresses, or participate, encourage, or engage in any doxxing campaign.
EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another. This does not apply to satire.
NINE: No person shall use communities.win sites (including kotakuinaction2.win) to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals
TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
ELEVEN: Do not post spam. If you are self-advertising, you must have sufficiently engaged in the sub prior to your post, and you must engage with the users when they comment in your post. Spam will also include repeated messages and comments that are done with no effort to add to the conversation.
TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this. If your POST is arguably false by the user-base, it may be marked as either misleading or unfounded based on it's factual assertions, particularly in the title.
THIRTEEN: If you have reposted something, it will be removed
FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided
SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.
Rule 12 is bad because it's incredibly subjective and biased. Please just get rid of it and let the userbase decide without a heavy-handed ban excuse built in. We're smart enough to downvote virgin flat earthers and upvote chad hollow earthers.
Rule 16 is incredibly bad and shuts down discussion. Without needing to care about cucked Reddit admins we don't need it.
Rule 4, 5, and six are the same thing.
Rule 2 is dumb when it kills memes like giving commies helicopter rides, or real discussion on advising people of their legal right to shoot looters.
The part of Rule 1 forbidding discussion on the manifestos/posts of notorious shooters isn't needed now we're off Reddit. Some of them contain very interesting discussion topics, like Ted Kaczynski's.
Rule 15 should just be a part of Rule 3.
Agreed, fully agreed!
These anti-free-speech rules exist because this site is controlled opposition. Find out who you're not allowed to criticize to find out who rules you.
You mean the Epsteins? gets reported
šThese posts are from TWO YEARS AGO, people.š
These are NOT new rules, they are established boundaries. Kindly respect the boundaries. Aliens will be deported.
Why are you replying to a two year old comment? You never even post here.
At first I thought it was current! So I started reading it, until I noticed and then I thought it was a re-post, like a reminder? idk, I somehow clicked on something that brought me to it, so I read the whole thing since it was about forum policy. I honestly didn't realize it wasn't even my usual haunt until I was done and scrolled all the way back up to click on New, and I'm like, "what the hell is KotakulnAction?!" It's my first time being lost š I did learn a thing or two
I agree conditionally. We do need such a rule, but it might need some improvement so that it will only target demonstrable falsehoods. I've been on the receiving end of abusive Rule 7 removals on KafKiA far too often to believe otherwise.
But also keep in mind that it won't be enforced by giant idiots.
My interpretation: note that it talks only about talking about people as 'inferior'. This does not prevent talk about characteristics that one group may have that is better or worse than another group, whether it's blacks being better at basketball or average IQ scores of Koreans vs. white (or any other group).
"Group X has a lower average IQ" is OK.
"Group X is subhuman/inferior" is not.
This is absurd. Banning revenge porn does not 'shut down discussion'.
Perhaps it could be rephrased as 'illegal violence' or 'illegal acts'.
It might make us a target, so the mods definitely should have the discretion of banning manifestos.
Like I said, my issue here comes from bias and available information.
You look at things like the Trump-Russia conspiracy, Wuhan Coronavirus origin, or even just environmental issues and it's often split hard on "fact or fiction."
Something is probably wanted, it should just be something that's part of another overarching rule.
I agree with that idea, I just also think in that case it should be more considered to be part of a general harassment rule. Basically it's fine to criticize and argue, just don't be a massive dick about it.
I didn't say that to be about shutting down discussion, I'm just noting that those three rules are basically the same thing and all fit pretty snugly under the "No porn." rule. Why do we need three separate rules for that?
That'd be a good general rule. "Do not advocate for illegal activities."
I get that. There's been a lot of contention, especially after the NZ shooting where the government went crazy and went after a ton of sites and individuals for hosting the manifesto.
I just personally feel there's often merit in discussing what people claim leads them into committing such massive acts of violence.
Also I will never get tired of laughing at Randy Stair.
inhaaaaaaaaaaaaale
THE MODS ARE FAGS! FAAAAAGS!!!!
Exactly how egregious are these identity-based slurs (you forgot the hyphen, you illiterate twats) you speak of? I'm bi, and I don't give a shit about the word "fag" in normal use. I don't think I can define "normal use," but I can define unacceptable use:
good faith user, n. A person who games and doesn't want those games subsumed by Political Correctness, IdPol, or SJWism. (Or the Moral Majority, but I find it hard to believe they will try banning games anytime soon, what with America suffering an attempted Cultural Revolution.)
promotion of certain ideologies, n. Well, let's face it: a significant minority of our users are political freaks. I know a lot of KiA's Lefty users hate (what they think of as) capitalism enough that they would qualify as old-line Marxists. We also have a group who think Mussolini was a right-on dude, and even some who think "Uncle Adolf" was misunderstood.
Thanks to the origins of GamerGate, we tend not to have Commies. (Yes, we're about ethics in journalism, but let's face it, the ethical violations we were protesting were all coming from the Left. And yes, the mainstream media (MSM) donates 85ā90% to Democrats, so them, too.) But we do have the latter. I do not want to ban them from the conversation. Also, I think tribalism is an important subject. (E.g., I'm not mad at Jar Jar Abrams for Star Trek or Star Wars. I'm mad that he portrayed the American military as murderers in Super 8, and I suspect very strongly that if I made a similar movie with a similar portrayal of the IDF, he would call me a Nazi.)
Now: I have seen some of the Nazi-posting (as opposed to satirical, 4chan-ish "swastika-posting") in KiA2. Their messages tend to follow a format (the actual content seems to be tailored to the individual receiver):
This style is attested by Vox Day's posting of The "Andrew Anglin" style guide:
I think once you see a few examples of the style, it should be very easy to distinguish the bad faith propagandizers from the few KiA2 oddballs who actually are "good faith users," loyal to the sub and its mission. I think it would help them to be among a motley crew who do believe in well-attested once-hidden groups with secret agendas and NDAs. (GameJournoPros, anyone?)
Say no more, you're an approved submitter now.
Same for me on both counts (it's amazing how many bifags there are in GG). But the admins have nuked comments calling people who weren't even on the site faggots...
Ugh. It's the same here?
What is the mothership of the .win sites?
Hey how come you didn't get banned for saying "the mods are fags" when anyone who gets too upvoted for talking about jews gets censored and banned?
This begs the question: illegal where? Even just clarifying that we're not stuck being bound by California laws (or their "laws") would be a relief. You know the kind of bullshit I mean, like not being allowed to say negative things about polygamists or cuckolds.
Maybe I'm just too beat up from my time on reddit, but I reflexively recoil from what should be plain and normal regulations because I'm so accustomed to it being misinterpreted on purpose. I've seen how you and Dom act as mods, so I'm not very worried, but we may have caught a lot of refugees that aren't familiar with you two.
Wherever the powers that be can put enough pressure on the people making such decisions.
So Facebook bans anti-Islamic content in Pakistan, because Pakistan can pressure it to do that.
If you like those mods, you've never said anything factual about the Jews.
It just doesn't come up for me much - I came from 8/pol, so I've seen most of the ideas explored. From there, I started focusing on culture, rather than race or religion. I always assumed that behavior (which largely comes from culture) was the real meat of the issue, anyway.
I know what you mean, though - I catch it with other users occasionally. As much as I'd like a free speech forum, this can't be it. They're very hard to make publicly accessible. Feds/JIDF are a serious threat. I saw how they handled 9chan; they just posted a ridiculous threat towards jews on the politics board and reported it, conspicuously gaining the attention of groups strong enough to take the site down within the hour. Null, being a big retard, decided it was legit and he didn't want to defend it.
So I'll eat the occasional unwarranted deletion in exchange for having a place to talk at all. Dom and Ant don't hold the same position, but it's easy for me to agree with them that a certain degree of anti-jewish sentiment is dangerous. When it's a known and proven strategy, I have to concede that it's dangerous.
I think a line needs to exist somewhere because if I don't draw one there will be a serious problem with people spreading open disinformation, even without them knowing it. Frankly, when there are concerted propaganda efforts, dissent is downvoted to oblivion in order to stifle it.
I do not intend for this place to be a foothold for Stormfront. When you mix this with rule 12, repealing both exists for the purposes of advancing propaganda offensives.
No they're not.
I'm using the real definition of those words, not the reddit definitions of those words. Meme away
Seriously, where's my Ken & Karen memes. Those were great.
It's reasonable to discuss historical documents, but I'm more worried about people posting "hot off the presses" shooter manifestos because we've seen major international action taken against sites that allow for it.
Rule 15 & 3 are different things, though.
I get that you need to have the ability to shut down crazy shit if it for some reason starts to pop up, due to astroturfing or some campaign.
That's fine.
My big issue is the rule as stated can directly be used to shut down conversations. I mean the example given is the Protocols, which can be a great platform for discussion going in many different ways. I've never met anyone who thinks it's 100% factual telling of an exact event that went down. It's a work of fiction meant to shed light on some of the shadowy parts of global geopolitics, and it applies to more groups than just Jews.
As a side example, anti-vaxxers. Most of them are either crazy or stupid. That doesn't mean there aren't arguments to be made about vaccine safety, usefulness, or Bill Gates conspiracies. Just that some people are fucking crazy and/or stupid.
I don't think anyone wants that lol.
My big issue is that it should be part of a general harrassment type rule instead of its own big thing.
We should always be allowed to criticize whatever person or group, but it shouldn't just be boring and lazy attacks.
"Blacks are dumb and they smell." is bad. "The average IQ of American blacks is very low." is good as part of a greater discussion, however if that's the entire post it's still just a lazy attack.
They all fall under the "No porn/sexually explicit content." rule, don't they?
I'm just wondering why they're needed past that.
Cool.
On that note, is advocating for people to arm and get weapons training considered advocating for violence?
Yeah like I said to AoV I understand there's been issues with that specifically. As long as discussion and quotes are allowed, maybe without directly hosting/top-level linking the content it'd be fine?
Same thing as 16, it just seems like it'd be better off as part of a more general harassment rule.
I'll always argue that the fewer the rules, the better. Much of what it is above can be consolidated and instead of 16, maybe 7-9.
I agree. Let people make use of the downvote button if they don't like something. We don't need to be coddled.
The rule against "stormfront users" is exclusively used to censor anyone who speaks ill of the Judeo-Bolsheviks because DoM does not believe in free speech and this site is controlled opposition.
You didn't need to break this up into 50 different sub comments....
Well, he was asking about it at the time.