Site Rules Rewrite

@JP  
JP made an interesting point about not direct linking to the image file itself. I have once or twice run across an image that was linked directly to some sort of tumblr content distribution network, and it was quite hard to find the source post with the comments and context. That said, I haven’t kept track of percentages - it thankfully seems fairly rare.
 
Perhaps phrased like:  
“Whenever possible, please link to the specific webpage or post the image is displayed on, rather than linking directly to the image file itself.”
 
 
@Background Pony #CA41  
Although one can inadvertently say something obnoxious without meaning to, the principles of being excellent to one another tend to be globally applicable; not site-specific.  
The Google search results for how not to troll turned up some good info.

@TexasUberAlles  

 
Also Derpibooru has a .ru mirror - and in Russia nazis symbols is prohibited by law too.

@Background Pony #33C6  
Not really. It’s only prohibited if NatSoc symbols are used for propaganda.

@Doom Grey  
It’s only prohibited if NatSoc symbols are used for propaganda  
Tell it to the Russian court system.

“Comments complaining about inadequate tagging or sourcing will be considered spam.”  
I was a bit iffy about this, because it feels like I see more uploaders who ignore important tags like “gore” and such, than I do complainers getting mad over a missing “solo” tag. It can feel kinda silly to report them over it if it’s just a mistake. But at the same time, they ought to be reminded and notified of it, so they don’t do it again.
 
It sounds like this is discouraging people from teaching others about tags. Or letting them know that sourcing shouldn’t use a direct link to the image. But when I think a bit more, I realise that PMs would be better anyway for letting an uploader know without them getting in trouble with the mods. No need to complain in the comments or report!.. Unless they’re an anon. And now I’m back to not liking the sound of this rule.
 
Unless we’re allowed to complain only when the uploader is a background pony.

@Background Pony #33C6  
derpiboo.ru is not a mirror, it’s just a novelty address that points to the same place where derpibooru.org and trixiebooru.org point. I think derpibooru.org is the official address now, the .ru is a leftover from the early days. .ru could be theoretically seized and made defunct by the Russian government, but .org should be safe.

@Minus  
I wonder if it would be seen as complaining if one commented, “I took the liberty of adding the gore tag. Hint hint.”
 
Hmm. Maybe:  
“Comments complaining about inadequate tagging or sourcing will be considered spam. Commenting that you corrected the tag is OK.”  
(I’m not saying that it is OK - just a proposed idea :))

Can there be a rule where you can’t post fetish-related stuff on non-fetish images? I am tired of seeing people say “this would be better if he/she pissed on him/her” or “now fart”, even if the image is explicit.

@Minus  
I occasionally make a comment about such if I notice the uploader repeatedly makes a tagging mistake, such as adding solo male/female to safe images. I just leave a single comment after fixing the tags since I figure that way people that might not know about it can be informed too.

@race’emhard  
‘how dare they like what I dislike? Ban this!’
 
I’m against making the ruling on this even stricter than it already is. if you can’t handle some different opinions stay away from the comments.  
Besides, if someone does this really all the time ot already falls under spam.
 
@Minus  
I must say I didn’t think much about that one yet, but now that I did I’m really not sure about that rule either.  
Unless it means ‘don’t whine about tags, change them’. But even then it’s still a good idea to let the uploader know.  
I do that pretty often actually (although i mostly use PMs).

@patec
 
It’s more about the attitude. “Hey, you missed these tags/added the wrong tags, but I fixed it, keep an eye on that in future” vs “fix your tags faggot”.

The site doesn’t have a Russian mirror, just a .ru vanity domain name; if Putin ever takes a moment to stop jerking it to topless pictures of himself and gets offended and shuts the domain down, oh well; given how many times the site has been banned in Russia already, we really don’t care what Putin and his cronies think.
 
As for Germany, use of the swastika is forbidden for use in propaganda-related materials; that is, anything intentionally using it for the serious promotion of nazism. Notably, this does not apply to its use in art or parody, even if the use itself could be considered to be promoting nazism within the context of the work. Contrary to popular belief, you can walk around German cities and see swastikas everywhere; movies about WW2, comics and books parodying Hitler/nazis, posters advertising for events or theater plays, flyers for rallies to protest right wing parties, toys of Hitler pooping, etc.
 
As far as we’re concerned, 90_{+ of images using Aryanne mock nazis by infantilizing nazism to a comedic degree or would be taken as an insult by a “true nazi” seeing their symbol on a silly pastel colored My Little Pony character. The 10} that aren’t and are straight-faced promotions of nazism should already be deleted, and if not, should be reported; preferably by unbiased individuals so as to not spam the report queue.

@Minus  
The problem isn’t “Hey, you forgot to add the gore tag. [adds tag.]”
 
The problem is “Why doesn’t this have this tag I’m filtering, ugh. [doesn’t add tag.]” Often followed up with a “Well why didn’t you add the tag then? [ALSO doesn’t add tag.]”
 
@race’emhard
 
Depending on how they ask, it’s already against the rules. “I would like to also see a version with [fetish]” is fine. “this would be better if it was [fetish]” is much less fine. “this is garbage, it should have [fetish]” is definitely verboten.

I agree with @Keith Mowz.

@TexasUberAlles  
No, nobody cares about one butthurt schmuck who’s whining about something he could grow up and filter.

@Keith Mowz  
To be fair, I’m not sure all the show’s staff (including animators) are happy with everything in the fandom, either.
 
@Princess Celestia  
To be fair, in principle you really shouldn’t silence dissenting views, however terrible they are (people love free speech until they realize it means other people can talk, too). Communism has killed a lot more people than the Nazis ever did. Are communist messages banned?
 
Can we ban any political view that promotes killing? But then pacifists would be the only ones that can talk.
 
Though I get it’s probably more a thing of German servers / German law than site philosophy.

@Cirrus Light  
Did you just bring up free speech on a privately owned site that follows multiple countries laws? If you act like a dick and or say homophobic or racist stuff your getting banned that’s all there is to it do not try to use “but muh free speechums!!” as an excuse on a site that doesn’t have to allow you to say anything.

@Cirrus Light  
>I’m not sure all the show’s staff (including animators) are happy with everything in the fandom
 
But the show staff sign away the rights to the content they produce for Hasbro/DHX/IDW/etc to those companies. I doubt they have a leg to stand on if they wanted to prevent someone from using said creative works. (And if the company that owns that content wants to lodge a complaint with this site, I imagine they have more than adequate legal representation to do so.)
 
Fan artists are usually under no such contracts, and don’t have access to anywhere near the legal expertise. It’s really no surprise this site would play nice with them, considering they produce it’s staple content.

@Pagan  
Doesn’t mean you can’t stand up for a principle just because a group isn’t legally obligated to respect it. But I wouldn’t mock supporters of free speech like that.
 
By your argument, though, YouTube could remove any videos that represent your political ideology, and Facebook could ban any users who promote your views. Google could make them not show up on search results. They’re all private spaces.
 
It’s one thing if someone is just saying “all Jews should die,” it’s quite another if they’re willing to talk. By immediately antagonizing them you alienate them, and there are actually people that would be open to talk and may even come around, but by removing the ability to talk, you remove that.
 

 
@Exedrus  
Fair enough, though. I understand not allowing unwanted edits. It was mostly the “be a dick like that” part that elicited my “it’s not that terrible” kind of response. Seems almost hypocritical of a complaint for a r34 artist to make if the original content owners don’t approve of his stuff, either.

I would like to know something.  
There was this edition of the episode of Trixie in which she gets eaten by the Manticore and the credits roll.  
The gif itself was funny and I believe it was upvoted to +100, yet you guys deleted it.  
What rule is that? There’s a tag for trixieabuse.  
And when are you guys going to change the logo of the website back to Derpy’s cutie mark?  
And to that new “Don’t downvote a picture, hide it in your filters”, can’t you add a feature which hides a picture you downvote? Would be easy to search something you like yet the picture dislike.

@marconde  
It’s right here. Maybe you filtered it accixentally.
 

@Cirrus Light  
Facebook is trash and youtube already does that so that doesn’t help your argument and I’ve tried speaking to people like that and explain it to them it doesn’t work they only go at it harder if you try, banning idiots who break the rules and intentionally act like dicks is the best way to go about it, having free speech is fine here in America to say whatever stupid thing you want but on this site you can either follow the rules and behave yourself or you can leave.

@marconde
 
Actually, it’s still around:
 

@Pagan  
But I’m not talking about “idiots who break the rules and intentionally act like dicks”. I’m talking about people’s moral right to hold unpopular opinions, even if not a legally assured one. You can ban someone for being obnoxious, or “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” as it has been put. But I don’t see any principled way to say what opinions shouldn’t be allowed.
 
(though they are beholden to Germany’s laws(?), so it’s really a topic of principle more than anything that can be done about on the site. But the principle does apply to about everything. But if this is going to go on more than a few posts it might be best to move it)
 
Really, Nazis in particular could fall under rule 0, though. Eh, it gets into sticky stuff.

@Mildgyth  
:p