I wouldn’t worry about specific wording at this point (especially in the Introduction). The introduction is not really part of the rules (in my humble opinion) but a “preface” to the rules.
Anyway, I think this is a very good process. Identify and set aside the no-brainers (either clearly yes or clearly no). Spend additional time and energy on the “close” ones.
If you think discussion on any rule is moving too fast, you can vote for further debate. That’s what I did, with the option to change my vote after having thought about it and discussed it ITT.
Great work to those that put this together.
Only one I feel strongly about is that Rule 1 needs to be a more defined.
Say someone is posting here with mainstream Fox News views. Are people allowed to call that person a racist?
Switching from support to needs discussion for rule 1, just probably worth clarifying that it’s no personal attacks on your interlocutors here, although maybe it’s worth adding that needling your opponent is often fine and part of the spirit of the site, but the standard should be about one step more strict than obvious verbal abuse.
The majority of them are pretty solid though I think a few could stand to be revised.
I voted to accept as written for all of them except Rule 1, with the understanding that the moderation will be conducted as laid out in the preamble. The personal attacks rule is liable to lead to nonstop squabbling about who is personally attacking who, since it’s generally a two way street. I think it’s better to say “don’t be abusive” and not really define that. There are some posters who I will get more combative with than others, because that’s their posting style, so I think it’s a bad idea to try to make hard and fast rules about that stuff, it’s always going to involve moderator judgement.
The other thing, and I’m not sure if this should be in the preamble or be a rule, is that I think there should be a mission statement of sorts about what the purpose of posting here is, which to to make posts that you think other people will find fun, interesting, educational, or otherwise enjoyable to read. There are times where no rules are being broken but people are posting in a way which is just annoying to anyone trying to read the thread. Some of the nunnehi meltdowns come to mind (and some of his interlocutors as well as nunnehi himself), also the way people used to respond to the bot nonstop with like “oh yeah well FU orange” or whatever, although that’s improved a lot. This is much like the no-debunked-conspiracies rule in that it seeks to prevent threads becoming unreadable.
With rule 10, I think that ties into what I wrote above, in that it’s fine to be combative towards unpopular opinions but it’s tedious when it becomes a pile-on and the person with the unpopular opinion can’t write anything without it getting deconstructed by 5 posters. The skydiver Pete situation in the 2020 thread has been a bit like that, I’m at the point now where I just scroll past any posts about that stuff. Maybe it’s just me.
Most of these rules really suck as written (4&5 are ldo however). I’m hoping the preamble means these will be like the old 2+2 rules where they were something to point to when the mods wanted to get rid of someone truly disruptive but not really enforced on the regs.
If that’s the case then there shouldn’t be any rules, or only rules like 4 and 5. If they’re just to get rid of people the community doesn’t want but not to be applied to most other posters then just say if you post in a manner that the community doesn’t like you will be banned. Then have a vote or something on the poster.
The punishment is too extreme for lesser threats. And barring a clear, specific credible threat from somebody here, police aren’t doing fuckall about anything posted here. Nobody at a station is gonna fish around on a computer trying to learn what an IP address is. People post shit like that on 8chan all the time and you don’t see anybody arresting them before they can get going.
Obviously stuff like outing personal info or online harassment of forum members is permaban material. But threats in general is too vague. I shouldn’t be banned if my threat to Donald Trump involves free falling 30,000 feet onto FOX News HQ in order to ruin their broadcasting ability and send him on an epic tweetstorm.
No. Some people are pieces of shit and their deaths should be celebrated.
This rule kind of ties into rule 6 a bit as they both overlap at times. A specific, credible threat of violence should be bannable. Wishing that somebody poisons Donald Trump’s Big Mac and kills him isn’t something that should be bannable.
If you mean to think about them when responding, then sure I get that. If you mean that we should perceive all opinions as being equal when discussing them, then that’s messed up. Some opinions are shit and people should be called out on it. Coddling deplorable opinions is how America got to where it is now.
It’s illegal. You think it shouldn’t warrant moderator action?
Wishing that something happens isn’t a threat. They’re very different things.
It’s a fine line when directed at the POTUS. I think the way you’ve phrased it might be illegal.
No it isn’t. I never made that wish or threat. I only stated it as an example.
For the record, I do not wish for something like that to happen.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you made the wish. Just saying that if someone said, “I wish…” and then used your example, this is already in a legal grey area as far as I know.
The only wish that should be disallowed is a wish for more wishes
Could we stickie a thread at the top that’s a running list of topics with links to mega thread discussions? And just ask newcomers to familiarize themselves with that thread and any prior discussions to what they came here to talk about.
I don’t expect everyone to read everything, and some rehashing with new and old posters is to be expected and enjoyed.
What does it mean to be considerate of unpopular opinions? What does it mean for an opinion to be unpopular? Those two things need some degree of definition.
This is good.
I think too that it can be easy to miss how important the interpersonal dynamic is in an otherwise WTF post. If two people are having fun busting each other’s balls, things can get seemingly harsh while still being just good fun. It’s when the other person isn’t having fun but the other doesn’t stop that it turns into being unkind imo.
I suppose my point here is just that I don’t think it’s possible to have a truly black and white rule for any of these things. Context matters. Being familiar with the community matters. Those are two things that newcomers will understandably not get, and two things helped by a moderator being someone who at least actively follows the community.
I think illegal actions are easy to preemptively forbid, but what about merely unethical actions? Ethical but inconsiderate/edgelordy?
Fair enough.
I try to remind myself that “obvious to me” does not mean it’s obvious to anyone else. I wouldn’t want to go somewhere where I couldn’t be honest about my ignorance, though it would be a fair request that I come to the conversation in good faith and already making an effort to educate myself. But there are many things I need to discuss in order to advance my understanding. I like the idea that we’ll be accepting to others who enter a discussion from lots of different starting places.
As well, I remind myself that some discussions need only be about discussion, not persuasion. I mostly want to share perspectives and see what emerges from that.
Yes
The problem with this view is who gets to decide who we should be happy to see dead?
I’m fine with people toasting someone who just shuffled off this mortal coils death… I may have popped a bottle of champagne for Scalia. Wishing for the untimely demise for people who are currently alive is probably best left unsaid for the sake of the forum.
EDIT: Just as an admission of guilt I’ve already wished for an exceedingly public, state sactioned, death for all the executives and salespeople on the drug company side of the opioid crisis. I guess even I think there are exceptions to this particular rule. I’m sure some people would disagree with my posting about that though, and I mostly agree with that view. Even if I do want to see those people get the death penalty.