I voted “strongly agree” because it’s a joke. If you change the statement to “I want cops to get hit in the face with molotov cocktails” I vote strongly disagree. If you change the statement further to “cops in [country]” I might strongly agree or disagree depending on which country.
2 Likes
So I just read thru a bunch of these replies and have concluded that while this topic is the hinge pin of the issue the forum is facing, it is not where it will be solved.
Basically, no we will not get a rule that represents the consensus of the forum with a bright line that is easily applied without bias. Too bad.
So that leaves us with the issue at hand. Mods will be using judgment. Their judgment should reflect the community’s wishes. I don’t think we can pre-litigate that and it is likely to change anyway depending on a lot of outside factors.
So, let’s get past this rule IMO and we will get to the final showdown at a later date–either when we discuss the enforcement procedures and guidelines for mods, or someone tests a mod again and we reach that ultimatum point we are all chomping at the bit for. Then people can do what they gonna do.
So, it is a needle in a haystack at this point to find the proposed rules. I am going to do my best to outline the choices I found, if I missed yours please repost it, if you have any feedback on edits or additions, shoot. I hope to get the final vote up today, otherwise, I can’t promise anything for timing as I am starting a new job and single dadding it the rest of the week.
Thank you all for your patience throughout. I was purposefully dragging this out at times to shed some of the urgent intensity around it, but I overdid that, also got distracted, and it got too non-urgent then reignited anyway. Observe the attrition technique over-applied.
-
No rule
-
Discussions of violence. Posts that entertain causing the demise or serious harming of a specific person or group for any purpose (whether to express anger, incite a rebellion, or troll people) are not allowed. If your post contains a violent scenario (or a scenario designed to create an opportunity for violence) in which a person or groups could end up dead or seriously injured, make it as fantastical and preposterous as possible, post it at most once in a while, but ultimately, consider not posting it at all.
-
Discussions of violence. Posts that entertain, support, or advocate the demise or serious harming of a specific person or political group are not allowed.
-
Discussions of violence. Posts that advocate the demise or serious harming of a specific person or political group are not allowed.
Let’s go.
I still think there should be a distinction between legal and illegal violence. The government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence and we should be able to discuss how that power should be used and to advocate for its use against people we consider bad actors. Terrorism is bad because it is a usurpation of the state’s monopoly on political violence. (It may be bad for other reasons, but that is the biggest reason for why the state should be concerned about terrorism.)
If I want to advocate that we should deal with Syria by droning Assad or that we should be willing to go to war with Putin over Crimea, under which versions of the rule would that be allowed?
I submit that these should be the only hard and fast rules about advocating violence, but we should always have something about how if everyone thinks you’re an ahole, you’re out. That could cover a lot of shit, but it wouldn’t be something a mod would just auto-ban someone over.
6 Likes
Sorry. Then no rule 7 needed as long as something else says you’re out if everyone thinks you suck, but then we probably don’t really need a rule for that either. That one could just take care of itself I think.
1 Like
Change “are not allowed” to “may be subject to moderator actions including but not limited to warnings, deletions, temporary or permanent bans”.
We can add additional language that clarifies what is or is not allowed.
Sure, makes sense. Scratch everything after “actions”.
We still might want to explicitly explain what moderator actions can be expected somehwere in the rules but once should be sufficient.
1 Like
Johnny, you’re doing great. You’re not taking this too seriously and you’re not treating it too flippantly. I feel like you are giving exactly the correct number of shits.
2 Likes