Rule #0 Policy Refinement Feedback Thread

@Background Pony #F8C5
 
I would agree with banning images that attack white people
 
But images that are anti-nazi are fine, especially if images depicting nazis as cute or otherwise in a positive light are allowed.

@Background Pony #56B5  
Then rule 0 really should be clarified, and this may be an attempt at that, because slurs can be an important part of an artwork. If you weren’t allowed to use slurs period, you wouldn’t be able to point out why said slur is bad and should not be used, or to discuss the usage of the slur in a news item or media.

@Background Pony #CB51
 
Quoting it in an academic context is different from flippantly using it.

@Background Pony #56B5  
Pony mouthpieces that are against everything and their mother is already a long standing tradition on Derpi, even when they’re extreme or violent.

@Background Pony #F8C5
 
No, there isn’t a problem with those.

@Background Pony #F8C5  
Can this also be strongly discussed and considered? If genuine Nazi hate-speech and supportive imagery is going to be banned, the same should apply to all comparable content, regardless of political affiliation. Calls to violence against a group should be discouraged. ACAB, Stalinism, Homophobia, tankie rhetoric. Extremist values should not be supported as a whole if some extremist values are not.

@Twilestia  

 
at this point that’s the only hope i’m clinging to

I generally think this does sound better than the original idea by a mile, altough…
 
“or promotion of or propaganda for prejudicial views”
 
I’m a bit concerned that this sounds a bit vauge. Some people feel like any art of OCs like Aryanne is concidered a “promotion of nazism” as in thier opinion, artist is presenting something related to hatefull ideology as cute or adorable. Even tough artist never intended for thier art to be promoting anything like that.
 
I would suggest adding something like “unquestionable promotion or propaganda who’se purpouse is to affect people’s view on an prejudital or hatefull ideology”.
 
I know this does still allow some level of debate for and against, but I feel like this idea needs a bit more wording into it. Just to make it so people are fully aware what art does and does not fall under this category.

@Princess Luna  
I’d arguably scrap the ‘propaganda’ part completely as it’d be covered by ‘Promotion’  
The actual rule seems fine, so long as it’s enforced equally for everything that can be considered ‘prejudicial’  
The ‘acab’ tag for instance contains a lot of ‘not okay’ pictures by this rulings standards.

Sounds good, though it’d be nice to include artist intent in there as well. Shocking/offensive material isn’t necessarily harmful, especially if it the intent was something more meaningful/nuanced and not meant to simply offend people.

To start, this is not me arguing for things to be removed, that’s the moderator’s call.
 
I’d simply like to state that, by definition, ACAB is a prejudicial view and propaganda for it would seem to be under the scope of Rule 0.

I can’t say i agree with the ruleset, the images on example i all consider parody.

@Background Pony #3CDC
 
I’m fine with banning ACAB as long as BLM itself is still allowed.
 
Also, still, ban all slurs.

@Background Pony #3CDC  
I would want to let it through. Tag it mouthpiece and let people filter it. But then that’s my preferred solution to all of this.

@Background Pony #8B3F  
One of the current admins has expressed his affinity towards communism greatly so that’s very unlikely.

@Archonix  
Oh, I’m against basically all proposed removal, I just wanted to put it put there that their wording catches things that certain users would likely complain about being censored.

@Yumenmita  
It is unlikely. But this is about the community standards and not the personal beliefs of a staff member, no matter how high in the chain they are.  
If the rules are not a fair compromise, it doesn’t matter which way they swing it will only serve to alienate the vast moderate majority. At the end of the day this is about the community and users of the website, of which there are many from all walks of life. Trim the edges but hacking off whole branches only warps the tree.

@Princess Luna
 
I guess you’ll be taking down all the acab crap aswell?

@Background Pony #56B5  
An image that is a mouthpiece for racism against whites would be treated the same as one against blacks; the wording will not care for which race is targeted; the images chosen were examples to help concretize things a little without being overwhelming by looking at every possible example.
 
@Background Pony #8B3F  
It can be considered, yes. I’ll try to work in calls to violence in general in what gets finalized, I think.
 
@AWGear  
Hmm, that is something to consider, and I’m quite sure at this point that Aryanne just standing there won’t be considered “propaganda”. That’s more a thing for the 3rd poll, which hasn’t finished yet.

I would prefer for all art to stay up and be allowed, but these decisions seem fairly reasonable if they could be stuck to and not expanded. The “not rule #0” images all have clear artistic or parodic intent, while the other three are more lacking, although if I had to decide to not keep all, I’d still keep the Aryanne one as it isn’t an outright attack.

@AWGear  
Seconded on the word “promotion”. If that’s gotta be the phrasing used I think the example pool needs to be at least a couple dozen go/nogo images, even better if the pool grows as images are removed/not removed on reports/discovery. I get that a pure binary isn’t realistic but being able to see what’s happening would help.

People complaining about seeing stuff they don’t like when filters exist…

@Background Pony #CB51  
The closest one to parody is probably the first Rule #0 item since it’s a fairly clear reference to No Fun Allowed. I generally lean on the side of the image being too directly antagonizing to be fair play, though.
 
So likewise, I find these results tentatively reasonable. I’ll keep following this thread as well.

@Princess Luna  
“Calls to violence” is excellent wording, it’s neutral, fits with the spirit of rule 0 and doesn’t overreach.

I’m glad things are starting to simmer down a bit and we are getting diplomatic talks. As for what I think would be a good way to refine rule#0 I agree with the people here who are saying to include some examples of what is and isn’t ok according to the rule or just clarify a little more, also I think images that censor themselves should get a pass like if an image includes somepony saying something but all the letters are replaced with random symbols if that isn’t already the case.