Clarifying Death Threat Rules

[FinePoint]

A recent incident essentially brought up that our current rules regarding death threats may not make it fully clear what our stance on 'jokes' are.

Death threats of any form, even obscure ones, will absolutely not be tolerated.

This is the current rule. Below are some options for addressing it via a subpoint.

Option 1 (No Jokes Allowed):

Threats or wishes of death made in jest should also be avoided to prevent confusion.

Option 2 (Some Jokes Allowed):

Threats or wishes of death made in jest should also be avoided, unless so absurd and comical that their nature as a joke is blatantly obvious.

Option 3 (All Jokes Allowed):
This would essentially be leaving it as-is, in that a joke is not technically, inherently a 'real' death threat.
Of course this still wouldn't protect 'jokes' clearly made with malice, or that are very graphic, as that would still be a violation of other rules.
Option 4 (Agnaa's Proposal):

Death threats that could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended are not tolerated, even if allegedly done as a joke.

---

Personally, I prefer Option 1, since I don't trust most people to make a joke 'obvious'.
Options 2 and 4 are also reasonable to me.
Only Option 3 feels to me like an actual mistake that I would not support.

 

[Random-Helper323]

The problem with option 2 is that the standard for how absurd it would have to be is open to interpretation.

If someone declares a desire to go Super Saiyan and Kamehameha someone else into the Sun, or grow ten storeys tall and step on someone else, these are obviously silly and absurdist.

But what if someone describes an over the top act of violence that is possible? This option might be safer if instead of just being absurd, the threats are physically impossible as well as clearly silly, or something like that.

 

[Reiner04]

I would recommend Option 1, as Option 2 leaves a loophole. We cannot objectively differentiate between what qualifies as "light joks" and what does not, that distinction is far too subjective and varies from person to person.

 

[FinePoint]

The problem with option 2 is that the standard for how absurd it would have to be is open to interpretation.

If someone declares a desire to go Super Saiyan and Kamehameha someone else into the Sun, or grow ten storeys tall and step on someone else, these are obviously silly and absurdist.

But what if someone describes an over the top act of violence that is possible? This option might be safer if instead of just being absurd, the threats are physically impossible as well as clearly silly, or something like that.

I'll just change it to 'and' comical instead of 'or'. That should address this.

 

[Antvasima]

I also prefer option 1. Death threats made as a "joke" are still not part of the kind of environment that we should wish to encourage here.

However, we can mention that ones obviously made as jokes will obviously be considerably less severely punished.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

We need your input here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

I'll just change it to 'and' comical instead of 'or'. That should address this.

Context in general does matter, but overall option 2 is very subjective. There's also a matter of what's a threat, or genuinely violent words, versus what's complete nonsense.

For example, saying you're going to throw someone out of a moving car is a threat, while saying you'd like to throw them out of a moving car is still an expression of violence. Saying you feel like turning into Godzilla and rampaging through their kitchen is more silly, on the other hand.

 

[FinePoint]

Context in general does matter, but overall option 2 is very subjective. There's also a matter of what's a threat, or genuinely violent words, versus what's complete nonsense.

For example, saying you're going to throw someone out of a moving car is a threat, while saying you'd like to throw them out of a moving car is still an expression of violence. Saying you feel like turning into Godzilla and rampaging through their kitchen is more silly, on the other hand.

That's true, but we'll pretty much never be able to account for all possible interpretations with Option 2. No matter how we word it there will be some room for interpretation.

That's part of why I prefer Option 1.

 

[Random-Helper323]

That's true, but we'll pretty much never be able to account for all possible interpretations with Option 2. No matter how we word it there will be some room for interpretation.

That's part of why I prefer Option 1.

Option 1 is safest overall. Maybe with some leniency for absurdity humour, and preferably a distinction between jokes that involve hypothetical physical harm even if silly, like wanting to send a dragon to eat them, as opposed to jokes that don't, like wanting to send a possum to live in their roof.

 

[FinePoint]

Option 1 is safest overall. Maybe with some leniency for absurdity humour, and preferably a distinction between jokes that involve hypothetical physical harm even if silly, like wanting to send a dragon to eat them, as opposed to jokes that don't, like wanting to send a possum to live in their roof.

The way we handle punishments always considers context, so we can certainly be more lenient for sillier jokes.
This would just cement that it is indeed a rule violation.

 

[Vietthai96]

if someone declares a desire to go Super Saiyan and Kamehameha someone else into the Sun

I honestly don't even think this count as death joke

Anyway, personally I go with option 1; we can't guess intention, guess when this "threat" is a joke, or this is not a joke anymore. So better not making joke in the first place

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We should just go with Option 1. Death Threats and Suicide Encouragement letters are far too serious and extreme to take lightly. And this is NOT to say jokes should be treated as AS Bad as the serious context ones, but it is still a rule of thumb that even joking about it shouldn't be tolerated. I am also focused on the going forward, not saying we need to punish people who joked about it long time ago or in recent memory any further than we already have. But there should be a written rule that even joking about it is a serious violation. And it's especially users who have been with us for a very long time and are older/more mature people where it is mandatory that they should know better before making such comments.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Also prefer option 1, option 2 is too subjective.

 

[DontTalkDT]

While I personally don't care about it being done in a joking manner it is likely too hard to enforce. So Option 1 seems best.
Needless to say, the same doesn't apply to conversation outside of the forum.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd ultimately prefer something like a complete rework to:

Death threats that could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended are not tolerated, even if allegedly done as a joke.

Like, I think me saying

@AKM sama Defenestrate this appliance.

When Sir_Ovens retired could technically be interpreted as a death threat (throwing someone out of a window can kill them), but I don't think reasonable users would believe harm was intended by that.

And similarly, I think Bambu saying

Yeah, didn't learn. I'll Old Yeller him.

Is pretty clearly just exaggeratedly alluding to euthanasia as a metaphor for a permaban, rather than something that should make that user concerned for their safety.

There's surprisingly many things that are technically death threats. I think we should tread very carefully about vastly broadening the scope of our rules against them, simply due to one ambiguous case in recent history.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that Agnaa makes good points here, so do you have any suggested wording based on what you and I said above?

 

[Agnaa]

I placed a suggested wording at the start of my post.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I obviously think cartoonish wordings of it, or referencing pop culture examples. For example, I wouldn't consider "I'm going to write your name in my Death Note" to be an example of a legit death threat. But some more direct/blunt examples are examples of comments that simply shouldn't be made even if joking.

 

[Reiner04]

What about phrases like "kys" (or should i say its about this phrase in specific) that are freq thrown around in a casual manner? Should we treat these as jokes, or categorize them as death threats?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I sincerely think the rules need clarified, not revised. Option 3 would be my ideal stance. We have the ability to interpret things as jokes or non-jokes. The sole clause I'd contribute is that these sorts of jokes are to be made with caution. Misinterpretation can lead other parties to not be aware of the intended tone. Option 2 isn't horrific, but Option 1 is silly in a community with the maturity to handle these things. We don't need to limit anyone's freedom of speech to such an extent.

 

[Antvasima]

I placed a suggested wording at the start of my post.

Thank you. That seems like a good wording, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

How about the following wording as a potential compromise solution?

"Death threats that could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended are not tolerated, even if allegedly done as a joke. However, ones obviously made as jokes will be viewed as considerably less severe violations."

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I dislike framing them as death threats from the outset. I also wouldn't agree with the baseline that anything that might vaguely come close to a threat (per the definition of this thread, not actual threats) would be treated as a rule violation, even if "less severe". This isn't a compromise. This is utterly in favor of treating this as a violation, when it ought not be so.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so how would you prefer to adjust the wording of my suggested text above, more specifically?

 

[Agnaa]

I like the phrasing of "reasonable person believe harm against them is intended", since the only jokes that would be caught by that are jokes that ultimately miss, and which reasonable people believe are actually invoking harm.

That's why I'm not really a fan of this addendum

How about the following wording as a potential compromise solution?

"Death threats that could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended are not tolerated, even if allegedly done as a joke. However, ones obviously made as jokes will be viewed as considerably less severe violations."

Since I think if they're obviously made as jokes, one wouldn't reasonably believe harm is intended by them.

But maybe some examples of things along those lines could change my mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am open for better suggested wordings.

 

[FinePoint]

Is pretty clearly just exaggeratedly alluding to euthanasia as a metaphor for a permaban, rather than something that should make that user concerned for their safety.

There's surprisingly many things that are technically death threats. I think we should tread very carefully about vastly broadening the scope of our rules against them, simply due to one ambiguous case in recent history.

I don't think our concern should just be whether people genuinely fear for their safety.

Saying you're going to bring someone out back and shoot them dead like the dog from Old Yeller is gruesome, and paints a hostile dynamic.

Saying someone should jump in a black hole for their opinion is silly, but still implies they deserve to die.

Also there's kids here, and neurodivergent people. What may seem silly to you can come off as serious to someone who I wouldn't call unreasonable so much as just different or unprepared.

No disrespect to Bambu, but I genuinely don't think we should be potentially saying we take a kid out back and shoot them if they break the rules.

 

[Agnaa]

Saying you're going to bring someone out back and shoot them dead like the dog from Old Yeller is gruesome, and paints a hostile dynamic.

No disrespect to Bambu, but I genuinely don't think we should be potentially saying we take a kid out back and shoot them if they break the rules.

If you describe it in such a gruesome way, perhaps, but with the way he wrote it, I really don't think it did. That's why no-one batted an eye at it when it was said. While someone obviously would if they phrased as you do it here.

Saying someone should jump in a black hole for their opinion is silly, but still implies they deserve to die.

It doesn't, it could imply something as mundane as "you just said something ridiculous".

Also there's kids here, and neurodivergent people. What may seem silly to you can come off as serious to someone who I wouldn't call unreasonable so much as just different or unprepared.

If we base our rules on the worst possible interpretation that any user could take, coexistence would be impossible.

If they are simply uninformed about other possible meanings of something, which they took an overtly-negative interpretation of, we could just tell them that when they're reported for it.

---

Really I don't want our rules to be overly asymmetrical, and I fear this thread would do just that. Should "Your wretched soul shall be reaped in due time" be treated as far worse than "A millennia in the torment crystal for thee" simply because the former implies death, while the latter merely implies torture?

And beyond that, treading so carefully in the arena of "If anyone could possibly interpret this as a death threat, we should disallow it" seems wildly out of step with how we address other unpleasant behaviour. Why should a joke which no-one was upset at result in punishment simply because it involves death, while aggressive and demeaning comments are allowed, even if upsetting, due to technically not being personal insults?

I think you're overcorrecting based on a recent incident, rather than studiously following principals in every place they'd logically lead.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm in agreement with Agnaa. I think this is a dramatic reaction. Nothing has been seen as wrong here for quite some time. All of you have certainly seen this language for years and never found it to be of concern.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Agnaa makes some good points. I remember I once referred to banning a troll with some colourful language like implying flushing them down the toilet. Not a threat, and not really mean spirited at all. Some things shouldn't be treated as threats when they aren't.

 

[Vietthai96]

I mean, that is really go into the territory of interpretation, i'm fine with not go with option 1, there is no better option, each have pros and cons, upside and downside

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, I'm with Agnaa and Bambu on this. I think at some point, it becomes rather silly to take the worst possible interpretation of what is obviously an exaggerated phrase. Of course, we should be mindful of when something is an actual threat or said with malice.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I absolutely do not like censorship of any kind. But at the same time, I believe not having firm standards invite future unnecessary conflict, and leaving these types of things up for interpretation is a risk and a half imo.

So while I'd normally prefer Option 3, Option 1 makes more sense to me as a community that wants to promote a particular environment (of cooperation, respectfulness, etc etc).

However, it seems the conversation is slowly pivoting to Agnaa's position. So the initial wording seems best to me:

Death threats that could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended are not tolerated, even if allegedly done as a joke.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I think Agnaa's suggestion gets to the point of why we would reason in tolerance/intolerance of such a statement being made. I'm open to counterexamples being brought up, as they certainly should be if they exist. But in my mind, it's fairly clear that we should act when someone makes a statement that "could reasonably make a user believe harm against them is intended, even if allegedly done as a joke", and that we conversely don't have much good reason to act on the various other types of statements within this broad purview that don't fit that description. So I'm fine with that phrasing.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa, do you have any new suggested balanced wording based on the views expressed here?

 

[Random-Helper323]

I absolutely do not like censorship of any kind. But at the same time, I believe not having firm standards invite future unnecessary conflict, and leaving these types of things up for interpretation is a risk and a half imo.

So while I'd normally prefer Option 3, Option 1 makes more sense to me as a community that wants to promote a particular environment (of cooperation, respectfulness, etc etc).

However, it seems the conversation is slowly pivoting to Agnaa's position. So the initial wording seems best to me:

Free speech is important, most definitely.

However, death threats are already excluded from free speech laws along with calls to action such as calling for violence or yelling "fire" in a movie theatre.

 

[FinePoint]

I'm in agreement with Agnaa. I think this is a dramatic reaction. Nothing has been seen as wrong here for quite some time. All of you have certainly seen this language for years and never found it to be of concern.

I did go 'oh, that's kinda dark' at the time, but didn't find it worth any potential conflict at the time to say something.

Lawmakers have been using incidents as inspiration to prevent future incidents since the beginning of society, so I don't think it's out of pocket to tighten a rule in response.

All that said, I do think Agnaa's wording is a good compromise between doing nothing and banning jokes altogether. I'll add it to the OP, and support it.

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

Just out of curiosity before I decide a vote on this, was there an incident for the reason this thread was made recently?

 

[KingTempest]

Just out of curiosity before I decide a vote on this, was there an incident for the reason this thread was made recently?

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

I was directed to report this comment here. In my opinion, I was using the VS subforum as intended, and got a personal attack from a verse expert I also wanted to work with in fixing errors and wording in some pages of Khimera-related content to improve future debates with it, which I stated to...

vsbattles.com

 

[Agnaa]

Agnaa, do you have any new suggested balanced wording based on the views expressed here?

I don't think I can.

If I see some examples along the lines of what I requested earlier:

Since I think if they're obviously made as jokes, one wouldn't reasonably believe harm is intended by them.

But maybe some examples of things along those lines could change my mind.

I might be inspired to suggest something that encompasses them.

And for those who wish this rule to be less open to interpretation, I can't personally think of more concrete wordings than ones already provided.

I think it should be fine to let things sit, and count votes.