Rule #0 Policy Refinement Feedback Thread

I don’t care about ACAB, personally, even though I dislike it. I try to navigate within the context of the proposed rules, so imagery suggesting a call to violence and targeted content.
 
So it’s interesting that both of the images suggesting violence against or because of cops would survive. >>2385781 (deleted) was an edge case, at least, but >>2364231 was spared.  
Combined with the wootmaster ACAB picture being slated for removal, this reeks of tokenism.
 

 
Also, here’s a better look at the propaganda parody’s upside-down text:
 

 
I still don’t think I see anything that would violate part of rule #0 other than the excised propaganda ruling, but I provide this regardless for other interpretations and ease of access.
 
This is beginning to feel sketchy again.
 

 
@Princess Luna  

 
this is unfortunate to hear.
 
@Moonatik  
Sensible as always.
 
@Princess Luna  

 
I don’t think you understand how Tumblr felt about bronies back in the day, then, if you say something like this. The original source was indeed Tumblr (what a shock), though it’s now down. But with a bit of searching, here is some bonus context. This artist (prikle) was certainly among the type of Tumblr users that were (possibly or possibly not, but in this case probably because they made this artwork) fans of MLP, but distanced themselves from the brony (i.e. adult male fans of G4 MLP) label, primarily to express vitriol about them.
 
@Princess Luna  

 
And as others have said, this is hilarious because zebra supremacy (not merely zebradom, zebra supremacy) exists.
 

 
As others have expressed, I really do not want most of this gone. But there is some weirdness that is starting to develop here, IMO.

@Background Pony #85AC  
Oh, I had missed those little bits there… I suppose this image is a case for why we shouldn’t be fast to judge things.  
Uncertainty isn’t great, but I think we’ll be better off by going through this.  
Good point on the AJ thing.  
There is definitely weirdness. Right now, I’m working on wording of the proposal to try to counteract some bias.
 
I would further like to note that it’s looking like the poll results can’t be relied upon for what to delete for anything under, perhaps, 70 or even 75%. Too much is in flux. Once we do have a finalized wording, it’s going to be a long process (possibly even a few weeks) to review old images and find agreement. We are also again considering having a dedicated role for arguing against any deletions, which would be given to non-admin staff and change who it is regularly; that will probably help prevent us from going crazy on deletions.

@Princess Luna  
Until (or, really, when) you start ignoring whoever has that role or just repeatedly give it to people who will be Yes-Men for you.

@Princess Luna  
And if the person that is assigned that role for the week just suddenly doesn’t respond to anything? What then?

@Miss Shy  
Then it would have to go to a different staff member early.

@Princess Luna  

 
 
In case of deleting old(from before rule change) images it might be a good idea to also do it with input from comunity(there sholud not be so much of them ideally so it could work and if there were more of them you could try to deal with them few at a time) by for example publishing a list of images that are considered for deletion to the forums and leting regular users make arguments for and againtst deletion acording to (new?) Rules for like a week(i think its a decent amount of time) and then take this input and use it in internal debate about those pictures before deciding.
 
It would help put at ease people that will fear that you will quietly abuse your power and delete things from the past that you dont like( because ewerything will be posted beforehand on forums to all to see so there will be less room for abuse of power)

@Princess Luna  
The idea of having a “devil’s advocate” of sorts doesn’t sound bad, until a moment when someone who believes every image with as little as the word “heck” should be removed.

@CHurricane  
Hmm, an interesting idea, but seems a little too much (a week is a lot of time).
 
@Angius  
Such a person would be there to impede deletions specifically.

@Princess Luna  

 
Yeah, unless they didn’t want to.
 
To play the part of assigned devil’s advocate requires them to disregard bias and be impartial. And the results of the poll are not promising that they’re going to see things through an objective lens.

@Princess Luna
 
Mayby then 2-3(i think 2days should be a minimum that allows people to join in on discussion) days of public consultation before moving to internal debate per group(lets say 10-30) of images and then next group and so on. It would allow to get through with consultation of all problematic images in like a month or two(i am guessing here)
 
But if you dont have some sort of time deadline over your head then taking things slower would in my opinion be good because it would allow users( and more importantly staff members) to take their time to familiarize with the matter and voice their opinion.
 
I am going to sleep now so i wont be able to answer any comments for next few hours so sorry for that

@Princess Luna  
So far every WIP rule was met with broadly negative reaction, on the process you seem to have lost some supporters. People are also pointing out holes and inconsistencies with them. Where are you getting that deadline that prevents asking users besides a few people on forums?  
Same with the rules themselves - are you sure you would create better-than current rules with a 16 people focus group and so strapped for time? If not why are you so damn hurrying?

So lets say you created a poll and asked people to vote based on what they think should be banned ideally rather than what is currently banned under the current rule set. I don’t recall what staff post gave me that impression, but I am fairly sure something along those lines was said.
 
Ok, sure, that appears to make sense initially. You are, after all, trying to redefine the rules to be more “ideal.” Thing is, you’re now specifically asking people to go based off of gut feeling for the express purpose of making the rules match that aggregate gut feeling later. It seems apparent from the way you talk that staff is at least asked to match their vote to a rule as a loose justification, with the knowledge that the goal is to make that rule bend to accommodate their votes later.
 
There is a word for that unjustified gut feeling which uses a rule to sorta half-justify itself. The word is bias. You’re unknowingly creating a poll specifically designed to display staff bias so that you can later intentionally enshrine that input as rule. You’re codifying bias into your ruleset by taking your two most arbitrary and subjective rules and sewing your bias directly into them.
 
Whoops, guess applejack’s plantation was “intentionally antagonistic content” that was “abusive” in a manner “similar” to a “racial slur” and it definitely wasn’t a neutral depiction of a ponification of a slave plantation rendered in a pretty cartoon manner.
 
Meanwhile, some fucking how, the jo-jo reference animation that glorifies nazi imagery and weaponry like nothing I’ve ever seen gets to stay.
 
You start on principal and move on to rules and derive results from that. You don’t start from results and then derive rules and then make up principals.

Hey, if i would draw, this:  
 
But instead of Tom, it is a Griffon, would this be ok?  
I am asking because it is something that Nazis actually forced jews to do.  
It is unbelievable, but it happened.  

@Background Pony #EA07  
This makes no sense.
 
New wording proposal:

Basically just puts things more like US law on incitement (likely and imminent), rather than vague stuff with violence is presented as good.
 
@Background Pony #D05A  
The plantation image we voted on was one where instead of slaves, she had a bunch of dead bodies with various labels indicating what they are as why they were killed…
 
@Background Pony #97FF  
If your art made it seem like a good thing, it would be a problem for Rule 0.

@Princess Luna  

 
So, ACAB.