Name-calling is now against Saidit Rules

submitted by thoughtcriminal from (self.whatever)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

This post is full of errors, misinterpretations, and some valid concerns.

Seems like M7 wasn't really in favor of the change.

Read deeper and you'll see M7 is of two minds.

https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/8vws/rules/

This rule was added in the last 24 hours, you can see it along with the revision history here: https://saidit.net/wiki/index

This rule has been in existence for almost 4 years, largely unenforced. The clarifications were added for the admins to more easily deal with fringe problems without being dragged into a subjective quagmire.

Rules

Q: What is allowed and what is not permitted?

A: SaidIt.net is for open civilized discourse with very few rules:

  1. By the Terms And Content Policy, "If a person is caught repeatedly dragging discussion in a downward direction on the Pyramid of Debate, they will be removed."
    1. No advocating violence.
    2. No name-calling without adequate efforts to debate.
      • Present logical arguments rather than only insulting users.
      • Name-calling is unnecessary and always weakens your case.
      • Admins will avoid biases and not subjectively judge presented arguments as good or not, nor weigh insult severity against argument logic.
  2. No pornography. It's too much trouble to monitor and there's no shortage elsewhere.
  3. No vending of illegal weapons, illegal drugs, and stolen goods, nor discussion about, nor links leading to sales of illegal things according to US law.
  4. No astroturfing or artificial amplification of your free speech voice. For example, do not upvote yourself or others using alternate usernames or sock-puppet accounts.

instead of the admins making a unilateral decision on their own.

This is quoting the bullshit that M7 pinned.

Previously the POD was the standard.

It still is.

If you want to have a shitposting sub where you all insult each other, that's completely fine.

We've already had Opie & Anthony, Ice Poseidon 2, etc. They were not allowed on /s/All and they had rules in their sideboxes.

calling someone like Trudeau a tyrant or a retard, calling Biden braindead, etc.

"Present logical arguments rather than only insulting users."
This clarification is so that users don't just insult other users.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Even r*ddit allows name calling. What do you guys think of this rule? I think at the very least it needs clarification, but honestly I'm strongly against this change. I have no problem with name calling in the correct context.

IMO, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

It incorrectly assumes all conversation is debate.

I completely agree and also see this as an issue.

Edit: Hasty typos.

[–]thoughtcriminal[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This rule has been in existence for almost 4 years, largely unenforced.

If the rule wasn't enforced or documented for the last 4 years it effectively didn't exist. I'm not sure how you can in good faith call my post misinformed or in error based on an undocumented rule that was never enforced that apparently you already knew about.

It still is.

POD dragging isn't the standard anymore. The bottom tier is now outright banned.

We've already had Opie & Anthonie, Ice Poseidon 2, etc.

IP2 was forcibly removed due to Saidit's host iirc, not a specific rule violation.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Cool interpretation, I hope it's right. Would be nice if the rule explicitly clarified it.

IMO, you're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I think there's a significant difference between allowing discourse at any tier of the POD and banning dragging down, versus just straight up banning any discourse in the bottom tier regardless of context. The former is an imperfect but effective way to control discourse. The latter bans an entire category of speech, a category which is allowed even on r*ddit, without taking context into account.

[–]JasonCarswellMental Orgy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If the rule wasn't enforced or documented for the last 4 years it effectively didn't exist.

There's copious evidence riddling SaidIt of examples of "rule breaking" for name-calling without it being explicitly written in the rules, as it has finally been added to the FAQ.

Further, there have been great conversations in the chat about the name-calling rules. Years ago the chats were more active. There was a long spell with nothing happening there, largely due to the shadow M7 cast over it. Only in the last half year has there been more chat activity again.

None of this is new.

I'm not sure how you can in good faith call my post misinformed or in error based on an undocumented rule that was never enforced that apparently you already knew about.

I have 2 strikes, for name-calling, 1 objectively, 1 allegedly. You can't explain these without understanding that it is, and always has been a thing here.

Look at these discussions and links within, including coverage of this topic:

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8tvc/shalomeveryone_is_a_full_of_shit_enemy_of/

/s/AskSaidIt/comments/8euo/saidit_survey_ban_usocks_and_uactuallynot_or_keep/

POD dragging isn't the standard anymore. The bottom tier is now outright banned.

Advocating violence has always earned banishment as it's illegal, is very problematic for SaidIt, and violence is the slipperiest slope.

IP2 was forcibly removed due to Saidit's host iirc, not a specific rule violation.

Correct. They were and others are free to be low-tier within their subs.

So far as I know "leaders" and public figures are fair game.

Cool interpretation, I hope it's right. Would be nice if the rule explicitly clarified it.

We can ask.

/u/magnora7, /u/d3rr, /u/AXXA - What are your opinions on name-calling "leaders" and public figures as fair game?

I think there's a significant difference between allowing discourse at any tier of the POD and banning dragging down, versus just straight up banning any discourse in the bottom tier regardless of context. The former is an imperfect but effective way to control discourse. The latter bans an entire category of speech, a category which is allowed even on r*ddit, without taking context into account.

You may think there is, but the 3 admins, can tell you for sure if they like. You are free to hound them for answers if you like. Repeatedly comparing SaidIt to Reddit is certainly not the winning argument you may think it is.