Rules

submitted by AXXA[M] from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thoughtcriminal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So is name calling just completely against the rules now? It used to be fine as long as it wasn't dragging down the POD, so if you were already conversing there it wasn't an issue. At least this was my understanding from asking mag a few years ago. A sub like /r/roastme (allowed on r*ddit) would be completely banned from saidit in this case. This automatically rules out an entire class of subs around shitposting, memes, satire, etc.

It says you won't consider severity of the insult. So saying "you are a bit silly in the head" is the same severity as "you are an abject retard"?

Does the name calling rule apply to public figures?

Also is there anyway to see the previous version of the rules so we can know what changed?

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The rules weren't changed, just clarified to include formerly unwritten understandings. M7 may soon remove or modify them.

FAQ:
https://saidit.net/wiki/index

FAQ history to compare:
https://saidit.net/wiki/revisions/index

[–]thoughtcriminal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I would argue that if the rule as its being enforced is different enough than what's written that it requires clarification - that's a modification to the rules. I'm not sure who falls into the category of knowing these "unwritten understandings" but I didn't and it doesn't seem M7 did either.

The written rule also doesn't answer any of my questions about it above. Does it apply to public figures? Is satire allowed? How about meme or shitposting subs, should they follow cordial debate rules in the comments? Name calling is allowed even on r*ddit.

I've called people names without being warned or banned. So if this is an existing rule it's not being enforced unambiguously, or at all. A clarification implies the enforcement standard will change, or it would be pointless to call out.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

it doesn't seem M7 did either

He gets creative in his recollections. If you doubt me, ask /u/d3rr or others.

If you read the original discussion thread where this all sprouted from, which I had as a citation that /u/AXXA removed, you can see that user on user insults were the primary issue to maintain forum civility. The language was truncated for brevity and maximum civility. We hadn't considered nor discussed low tier subs so additional exception clarifications may be necessary in order for low tier subs to exist. Perhaps this may include concepts like 1) not be on /s/All, 2) keep their low-tier culture within their sub(s), 3) have strong reliable moderation to keep it from becoming a problem for SaidIt in any way, 4) have sidebox/rule requirements, and/or 5) other things. Feel free to recommend ideas to ponder.

Personally, IMO, "leaders" and public figures are always fair game.

So if this is an existing rule it's not being enforced unambiguously, or at all. A clarification implies the enforcement standard will change, or it would be pointless to call out.

This has been a problem for years. This clarification is for the admins as much as the users. I wondered (see that threat linked) whether it was even necessary to call it out, but felt it was worth sharing to get feedback on.

Though I think this is a terrific improvement for SaidIt, the admins, and the users, your concerns are very valid. Most likely you'll not even see any difference in the vast majority of typical SaidIt interactions, but in the fringe cases you'll find a more consistent management when it comes to user conflicts. Your input can help keep things fair.