?
?
Awkward phrasing, but whatever. Maybe, “No posting of someone else’s personal details without prior and explicit permission” ?
1 Like
That is a more than good enough list to leave it to the lawyers to nitpick. Good job.
1 Like
Just say gender identity. “Transgendered” is not the preferred nomenclature.
1 Like
This is well traveled, but do we want to pin this down any further?
Is SA going to be fine?
imo, no. His avatars are unacceptable. But we will need to debate this.
3 Likes
I would remove any language in the rules such as “at the discretion of the moderator” (I see it rule 7 but I think it appears elsewhere too). These are supposed to be the proposed rules. Saying in the text of a rule that its enforcement is up the judgment/whim of a moderator is problematic at best for obvious reasons.
I really dislike the way rule 7 is worded, but I think it may be because I don’t think we should have a rule like that. As worded it is the opposite of a bright line rule. I can think of several issues for which “discussion of violence” would be natural or even appropriate. Gun control is the obvious example but there are others.
I know we are not supposed to be word-smithing the above proposed rules, but rule 7 stands out as being very unclear and poorly worded (no offense to anyone who had any role in drafting the rule).
I’ll be happy to talk about it if it’s time to talk about it. It was a draft of a rule that’s supposed to address the types of posts that cuse started banning NBZ over. Stuff like how some unspecified head of state of some unspecified country (but he’s orange) is likely to be shot if he resisted leaving office, stuff like ethnically cleansing Republicans, stuff like wondering if millennials killing baby boomers would shift the opinion on gun control; basically all of the joking/not joking posts where the punchline is the direct killing of somebody in power or your political enemies. I’d like the standard for that stuff to be pretty strict, but it would still be up to the mod to make judgment calls.
‘Where most of all live’ means most of us live in a country where serious threats or even jokey threats about the head of state are either illegal or could earn you a visit from the secret service. If one made threats or jokey threats or was otherwise edgelording around killing a leader of some remote island, I guess I would not be that worried about it.
I don’t know what the laws/lines are about advocating violence with respect to neo-Nazis here or in general. I guess if you advocated Nazi-punching that is not a problem, but if you had a dozen posts calling for the death of a specific neo-Nazi that may be a problem?
I imagine calling for a civil war is abstract and not concrete enough to worry over, but if you started calling for or joking/not joking about storming a police office or a DHS facility that may be touchy ground. I encourage/ask law people (jman/simp) to weigh in here whether there is a better way to state the standard I have in mind.
The rule is meant to begin the conversation about addressing what precipitated the NBZ brouhaha, and if there is no support for it, it will not be adopted.
1 Like
Maybe we should go on to a discussion and vote on each of the items then. Would suggest saving item 7 for last too.
Thank you for managing this, JT
1 Like
Yup, we’re getting there. I think we should give it a day (?) or so for anyone to add anything more.
Weekends are by far our lowest traffic periods. We peak on Thursdays and Fridays.
Ponied by the cookie.
And in the meanwhile should we come up with voting procedures? Something like:
- Each item has its own thread
- Item with poll in OP
- Each poll open for 72 hours?
- Posters eligible to vote include … (any restrictions?)
- Notify posters of vote on cite rules?
I’m sure there’s stuff that’s missing
1 Like
People might get poll fatigue voting on every line item. I’d suggest working through the whole list until all significant objections have been addressed, then voting on the whole thing.
Agree with this. Attempting the whole thing at once tho seems problematic bc one issue can slow the whole thing down. And we already know item 7 is going to result in significant discussion.
Also, dealing with the list a bit at a time would be a chance to give clarity on each item. Looking at that wall of rules might be tl/dr and keep people away.
2 Likes
This looks good to me, it seems to address everything that has come up and everything important that I can think of - so that leaves getting approval and pinning down the exact language. Great work, JT!
Fuck off with the no fuck off rule sometimes people need to be told to fuck off. Im mostly but not entirely joking.
The Colonel is famous among K.F.C. people for the force and variety of his swearing. The Colonel says he has been able to cut way down on his swearing since he asked the Lord for help at a church service some time ago, but he still has great difficulty calling a no-good, God-damned, lazy, incompetent, dishonest son of a bitch by any but his rightful name.
When I say fuck, you say off!
Me: Fuck!
You:
I am all for a no “fuck off” (or other personal attacks) rule but we should make sure that we have rules that we are actually willing to enforce. Fuck offs tend to be handed out like candy at halloween. This could result in a lot of bans to otherwise good posters.
Offff.
Im very stingy with my fuck offs. If you overuse it it takes away the effect.
1 Like
What if we gave everyone one “fuck off” per week/month to use as needed? Thus requiring us to use our judgment on whether it was really warranted… We could even cap and trade it, allowing our more polite posters to barter their “fuck offs” away.
“You’re not even worth my own, but I did happen to purchase RiskyFlush’s ‘fuck off’ in exchange for liking five nunnehi posts, so allow me to use RF’s and tell you… fuck off.”
2 Likes