Rule #0 Policy Refinement Feedback Thread

@Background Pony #F329  
I would have to agree here, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.  
Simply showing somebody being punched isn’t incitement, but framing it as a morally righteous thing to do is.
 
I would see incitement to commit violence is more like an image saying “Do your duty, punch X group” or “ or ‘killing all X people is a good thing.’.
 
It really depends on if the art is implying that disagreeing with the violence taking place is the wrong interpretation of the art.

@Princess Luna  
What about “punch a Democrat” or “punch a Republican”?

@Filiecs  
Hmm, maybe the “do your duty” thing is pushing it. I’ll have to consider that one.
 
@Frosku  
Seems fine.

@Princess Luna  
For more clarification, “punch Donald Trump” or “punch Bernie Sanders” would be treated the same, or as targeted calls to violence?

@Frosku  
That seems pretty targeted, which is more of a problem.

Do we have any guarantees that no “boil the frog” situations are being planned/will happen in the future? Like, a slow rollout of banning things in a way that people would not notice as much as a sweeping rule change?
 
I think that’s the biggest concern to people rn and what’s in the way of restoring trust in staff

@Princess Luna  
As an addendum to Datte’s question, would the staff consider some transparency around removed images, i.e. allowing volunteers from the community ‘read only’ access to resolved reports without names/ability to take actions? I think something like this would go a long way to ensuring trust and accountability.
 
Failing that, some kind of regular metadata release would be useful, i.e.
 
X images with the nazi tag were reported, and Y images were deleted.
 
And the same for other tags with a large number of reports/deletions.

Regarding the rule on not advocating for discrimination, would you say it is more just required to not explicitly show discrimination in good light? And when would something be considered showing discrimination in good light? This could definitely start interfering with a lot of edgy humor. How would these images be treated under that rule?  
>>1119440 (deleted)  
>>889319 (Aryanne says, “Let me go you dirty Jew”)  
>>878614 (deleted)
 
@Datte-Before-Dawn  
I agree. I feel like optimally there would be some way to see the rulings staff make on reported images for a while to see if the community agrees with how the rules are being enforced and to know if enforcement then changes over time. Maybe that’s unrealistic though.

@SomeDerpibooruUser  
I don’t think any of those images are casting discrimination as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, just ‘the punchline of a joke’.

@SomeDerpibooruUser
 
The first one isn’t calling anyone to gas someone, and it doesn’t imply it to be a good thing.  
Just a very edgy dark humor.
 
So I’d think it would be fine. But let’s wait for Princess Luna’s answer.

Honestly, this whole attempt at “refinement” has been a trainwreck. You should start all over from zero, with the power of v2.

@Background Pony #5C8B  
100% disagree. It’s not more acceptable to censor art because you do it more slowly, it’s just as unacceptable but more pernicious.

@Background Pony #5C8B  
This still doesn’t seem like a good justification to “boil the frog” at the very least. If the staff want to change what’s allowed that should have to come with some explicit announcement.

@Background Pony #5C8B  
Are you implying we should alter art as time goes on?  
This is literally out of a guide on how to make art utterly meaningless.

@Datte-Before-Dawn  
I’m not sure how we could even begin to guarantee the lack of future actions. All we can really do is do what we do now and make sure it’s good enough that nothing huge throws it all into question entirely.
 
@SomeDerpibooruUser  
Seems like humor and not advocation to me, especially the one where Aryanne’s racism is directed at someone who themselves is seeking the approval of racists (casts them all as hypocrites).

@Frosku  
@Background Pony #5C8B  
People’s outlook on concepts changes (e.g. it was okay to hate jews and, more pertinently, “fascists” in 1930 in Germany, now it’s okay to hate nazis), acceptability of censorship does not (even if outlook on censorship is different).  
It is not acceptable to block something because you, or even a group of people, have decided that it is immoral or unjust; an acceptable basis is actions that can result from said something (spoiler, nobody has provided any proof that looking at nazi pictures makes you a nazi, or proof that looking at non-nazi pictures DOES NOT turn you non-nazi).
 
P.S. I find it quite morbidly hilarious that this exact thing, a bunch of communists branding their opposition as “fascists” and enacting violence against them, is what resulted in Hitler’s rise to power. Not shit father, not being rejected from art school, but leftists being authoritarian assholes.

@Princess Luna  

 
The mental gymnastics, technicalities and wordplay you’re employing to somehow rationalize “All cops are bastards.” as being compliant with “Be excellent to each other.” is throwing that into question before you’ve even got started.  
Why is this such a point of contention?

@Barhandar  
This is both completely off topic and insanely ahistorical.

@Barhandar
 
@Frosku
 
@Moonatik
 
Yeah, I’m sorry, but it seems like this conversation can’t be productive if we’re really about to dive (even deeper) into geopolitical history, I think this conversation need to be rerailed.

@Background Pony #01B6  
This  
I’ll start by reiterating how damn arbitrary this seems. If you do use the polls to change the rules, make sure to use the helpful chart about the no swastika zone thing that was posted pages back.