At the risk of being suspended for 79 minutes, I’ll remind you that one of the rules is not talking about the rules. [ducks]
NOW I know what this Tull song is really talking about.
I’m Jack’s confusion. Doesn’t that mean Jason needs to ban themselves?
That’s like some kind of ban-ception.
While we’ve always moderated violent comments, the first point now explicitly calls out encouraging or posting violent remarks as against our policies. This policy update (our first since 2014!) just makes that moderation policy more transparent.
Be cool. Don’t post insulting, bullying, victim-blaming, racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks.
Be cool. Don’t post or encourage insulting, bullying, victim-blaming, racist, sexist, violent, or homophobic remarks.
Ok, I’ll bite. What is considered “violence” under the rules? Threats toward other users (ok, cool), or posts of a violent nature (ummmm).
For example, wishing that Donald Trump (either one) would fall/trip into a wood chipper is violent, but is that against the rules?
I think we need clarification here since “violence” in of itself is pretty vague and subjective. Maybe “threats” would be a better choice of words?
Banning the advocation of violence will make certain debates about “foreign policy” rather one-sided…
We’ve never accepted calls for physical violence against anyone, nor hoping for violence to befall anyone. There are lots of other places to do so if one feels the need.
Enforcement may be lax or draconian as befits the whims of the Entity. The rude will be eaten first.
Otherwise, as with the rest of the guidelines, the mods will use our best judgement. Don’t wish or encourage physical harm to others.
Lastly, as I said, we’re not changing policy here. If your post was fine before, it still is. I’m just not interested in arguing with violent trolls about how violence isn’t specifically against the rules.
But it’s ok to laugh about violent acts that befall others? Got it.
Still, it reads to me like the policy is referring to threats of violence versus some nebulous standard of violence.
@facile has been given a timeout for intentionally disrupting several topics over the last hour.
There goes my latest cathartic exercise. I shall now have to resort to quoting Jethro Tull and replacing the “target” as needed:
“Flee the icy Lucifer.
Oh he’s an awful fellow!
What a mistake
I didn’t take a feather from his pillow.”
Make that “forever” as the user has unwisely attempted to evade the ban.
Oh that was who I just flagged. Thanks for all the icky work.
Tough day, Ken. My sympathies!
Purely my five seconds considering BB’s redefined policy: They may be fearful of possible legalities regarding inciting violence.
We wish them the best in their search for the kind of forum where that sort of unchecked aggression would be welcome.
@forceblink anonymized at user request.
@TomSwift has been asked not to return after making multiple bigoted or victim-blaming posts and clearly showing no sign of trajectory correction on that front.
The ban reason on that one is going to have me giggling to myself for the rest of the day.