Rule #0 Policy Refinement Feedback Thread

Like if switching to a filter that doesn’t include certain tags brought up a prompt saying there’s very bad things etc. and actually requiring you to click agree.

Even this, however, may only serve to annoy people

it’s uncertain how it’d work in practice.

As in if you complain about triggering content and you will NOT filter it then you will be banned.

Do not troll, attack, insult, name-call, or otherwise try to intentionally antagonize another person or group of people. This includes making racial, sexual, homophobic, or otherwise demeaning slurs, or posting similarly abusive content.

I mean, that sounds like there’s a proper context for certain kinds of speech and that some speech in some contexts should be bannable.

maybe complaining about actual real-life races/sexualities/identities of people in the comments and forum posts should be considered for a potential violation under rule 0 as well.

And now you’re literally saying that just interacting with people who enjoy Aryanne art is encouraging Nazism, and this is exactly what’s happening on Twitter with the anti-censorship art pack — there are literally people on the left sharing the list of artists who contributed to the art pack and telling others not to support or commission them. These people, for the most part, are not Nazis or even political extremists, they’re just artists asserting their right to draw whatever they want — something that, twenty years ago, they would have had the full-throated support of the political left for doing.

Citation needed. I’m a right-libertarian Jew, I spend as much time arguing with Nazi totalitarians as I do arguing with leftist totalitarians, but it isn’t the Nazis who are here trying to prevent people from posting ponies they don’t like. If you want to talk about silence, where is the left-wing criticism of the millions killed by communism, of Islamic terrorists, of Antifa, of the killing of David Dorn?

1. Self-censoring art and/or linking it to other sites.
    
    
   What I mean by this is that there is a tendency for people from art sites across internet(I will provide derpibooru example) to censor their art according to site rules( for example by putting black bars on stuff) or posting only version of said art that are allowed with site rules and at the same time linking or mentioning where to find uncensored version of the art on other sites)
    
   For example:
    
   
   This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

   

   your current filter.

   
   
    
   The picture above is fine(safe) according to rule #5 but in the description of that picture there is a link to other site with “naughty” version of the image that in my understanding would not be allowed to be posted on this site. If I recall correctly there were other such examples on this site in the past but this one is the only one I could remember where to find easily.
    
   The main thing that I want to say in this point is that there probably should be clarification of allowing such practice (I am not for banning it) because although it is used for mostly good things and might be a good alternative/solution in future for more concerned artists to be able to still share with community some stuff that is/will be considered against the rules without posting directly prohibited content to the site it could also be exploited(in fringe extreme cases) to link to the most vile stuff on the internet.( of course the best thing to do in my opinion would be to consider it by case by case basis but I understand that there might not be enough manpower on staff to do that efficiently).
    
   The method described above could be used to in theory “bypass”(there is place for discussion if its really bypassing) any rule by doing things like in folowing example(I would like to get some feedback on it if possible):  
   1.1  
   Lets say we have the following picture from the poling:
    
   >>693704s (deleted)
    
   This picture was found to be considered unacceptable by the staff (84%)(I personally think that it should not be removed because it’s clearly parody of “no fun allowed” picture). So lets say for the sake of argument that we “censor” the image by blocking out the sign with black bar or by removing text on the sign and leaving it blank(because I assume its mostly about that) then would that picture be allowed to be posted in opinion of the staff? And if the answer is “yes” then what about pointing people to the original image in one of the following ways:
    
   1.2 By posting direct link to the art in the description.
    
   1.3 By posting link to the artist profile on other site in the description and saying that other/uncensored version is out there(indirect linking to it).
    
   1.4 By not posting any link in the description but saying that there is other/uncensored version on site “X“and the artist is using Nick “Y” on the site(describing how to access such art without linking).
    
   In my personal opinion Self-censoring art and/or linking it to other sites should be allowed because it would definitely allow alternative for artists scared of censorship(or creating art that is on the border of what rules allow) to still share their art and at the same time none of the (controversial) art would be “on the site” and although it could be exploited I don’t think scale of such exploit would be big enough for the staff to net be able to handle.
    
   The only point I think would warrant a debate is direct linking “1.2” but I think that indirect lining “1.3” and describing where to find alternative version“1.4” should be allowed because it would discriminate against the artists that use only one “other” site to post their art by not allowing to link to their profile.
    
2. The second thing I like to talk about is one of pool result.
    
    
   The following picture was deemed to be “bad” by the result of the 3rd poll:
    
    
   
   This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

   

   your current filter.

   
   
    
   I am opposed to banning it because it is clearly a fetish(nazi latex bdsm) art similar to following picture from the other “side”:
    
   
   This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

   

   your current filter.

   
   
    
   Both of those pictures “fetishize” oppressive totalitarian regime responsible for death of millions of people and are using it’s symbolism(i think that Hammer and sickle are representing Communist countries like soviet union and not communism as ideology) . And although we could argue about the amount of swastikas in first pic I don’t think that those pictures and pictures of similar kind should be banned purely because of amount of symbols associated with” Evil things”(I think that was the reason) because ponies in them are not doing anything hateful and I would even argue that first picture is mocking Nazis for using their symbols everywhere.
    
3. The third thing I would like to discuss is about that coment:
    
   @Princess Luna  

@Minus
So long as the context isn’t saying for the viewer to be racist, yes. You can portray stuff, and it’s when things are basically a mouthpiece where there’s an issue.

@Background Pony #85AC
It seems I missed this earlier. I am almost certain that we will delete the first image (pretty clear call to kill cops)