Clarifying Death Threat Rules

[Random-Helper323]

We must make sure that jokes and silliness are still allowed within reason. The rule about reasonable belief is fair. Basically anything short of a believable threat of violence or something that qualifies as a call to action for violence should be okay.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that Agnaa's suggested wording is probably acceptable then.

 

[FinePoint]

Is there enough support here yet to apply something?

 

[Antvasima]

Is there enough support here yet to apply something?

@Agnaa

 

[Agnaa]

I haven't been paying that close attention to the various votes.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Given that the comment that spurred this thread was more like a call to action than a death threat, it's probably a good idea to include calls for violence in the rules as well. Encouraging violence is already disallowed, so this is a small step.

 

[Antvasima]

Given that the comment that spurred this thread was more like a call to action than a death threat, it's probably a good idea to include calls for violence in the rules as well. Encouraging violence is already disallowed, so this is a small step.

Yes. Agreed.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Yes. Agreed.

Well, under the free speech laws that already exist, calls to action are any words that are directly calling for action that harms others. Encouraging harm of oneself or others fits this frame, obviously.

Perhaps something like:

"Comments that intentionally encourage harm to others or oneself are not allowed and will be treated seriously. This includes telling people to seriously harm themselves or calling for real life violence towards them."

 

[Antvasima]

Well, under the free speech laws that already exist, calls to action are any words that are directly calling for action that harms others. Encouraging harm of oneself or others fits this frame, obviously.

Perhaps something like:

"Comments that intentionally encourage harm to others or oneself are not allowed and will be treated seriously. This includes telling people to seriously harm themselves or calling for real life violence towards them."

That seems very reasonable to me.

 

[FinePoint]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What is the consensus here so far, and should I call for more staff members to hopefully offer input here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Think a lot of staff members might have shown favor of Agnaa's new proposals.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should somebody here apply that then?

 

[Reiner04]

Okay. Should somebody here apply that then?

I can if the Site Rules page is unlocked

 

[Antvasima]

I can if the Site Rules page is unlocked

I have unlocked it for you. Tell us here when you are done please.

 

[Reiner04]

I have unlocked it for you. Tell us here when you are done please.

I applied the changes

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Site_Rules?diff=prev&oldid=9452602

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for your help.

Are everybody here satisfied with how our new rules are worded, and if so, should we close this thread?

 

[FinePoint]

Thank you very much for your help.

Are everybody here satisfied with how our new rules are worded, and if so, should we close this thread?

I'm fine with it, but shouldn't it replace the old text?

It doesn't make sense for the first bullet to say 'any form' but then the second bullet to specify a form.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that seems reasonable. Should I handle it?

 

[Reiner04]

Yes, that seems reasonable. Should I handle it?

I handled it based on Finepoint suggestion.

 

[Just a Random Butler]

Yes, that seems reasonable. Should I handle it?

I handled it based on Finepoint suggestion.

We got it reopened and the new changes were applied:

Loading…

vsbattles.fandom.com

Is this good now?

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think so at least, yes.

 

[FinePoint]

We got it reopened and the new changes were applied:

Loading…

vsbattles.fandom.com

Is this good now?

I believe so.

 

[Reiner04]

Closing then.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.