As we have seen a rise of toxic behavior we have decided that it would be time for some rules. We would love other ideas too and feel free to discuss it here.
Also we are thinking about, to put in an Automoderation tool that could help us a lot. Because its currently not easy for us to scan every new comments and reports are rare currently. We want your opinons on that too, because its important to us that this community is based on the people here.
The shortlist that we have currently as idea for the Rules:
- Be Kind to each other
- No Hate speech
- Dont harass people
- No Racism, sexism and any other discrimination
- Dont attack other people just because they have differnt opinions (Stay on Topic)
- Do not double post
You must log in or register to comment.
Should also include: don’t invite violence against people who simply own cars.
I don’t think it needs to be as specific as that why bit just don’t incite violence. Period. Otherwise, it’s making a statement about the community as a whole. (also, this is already covered by the rules)
Yep. Even the Netherlands makes their car appropriate paths great for cars.
Cars are still needed for distances too far to walk or to cycle at times when public transport doesn’t run
I wish it weren’t so, but it is so.
A blanket rule like that is deeply troubling. I’m glad the mods ignored you.
Our goal is to peacefully encourage more people to cycle and convince car owners to use their car for less trips when viable to do so. A lot of people own cars, would calling them Nazis really help our cause?
My vision is we make cyclists and public transit users look like responsible happy citizens and attract jealousy of those stuck in traffic.
Then why call it Fuckcars? Call it CuddlyPussDriverLove
I find it good too vent at arseholes who drive. They hold all the power, we’re not punching down here by making fun of, or laughing at them and it can be a relief valve to vent at their choices both directly and indirectly that enable the car centric shit show to.continue. I wouldn’t go into /c/cars and expect angst against cars and drivers but /c/fuckcars ? Yeah… it’s in the name
Most of my friends got hit by cars. My best friend is gonna stay crippled because of some text-and-drive vroemer. Is you guys goal to convert drivers or to allow people to vent and organize against car-centric policy? Because if it’s the former, it might not be a community for me.
I’m concerned about the definitions of some of the terms in these rules
-
What does it mean to be kind? Do you have to agree with everyone? Are you allowed to say the fuck word?
-
What does it mean to attack other people? Are we talking ad hominem, or is making an argument with a stern tone of voice an attack?
-
Where is the line between opinion and action drawn? Is it okay to attack people for driving cars? That’s not an opinion, it’s an action, and it kills people, but I have a feeling certain people would say no anyway
-
What is a double post? Do you mean repost or crosspost?
These are the guidelines that the human moderators are going to be using to make their judgements. They’re not binding law. Is it really so important that you need to drill down to such tedious minutia? Just be good and if you do something wrong while acting in good faith, I’m sure they’ll just tell you.
Yeah you are right, its my first time being moderator for such a big community. I just wan’t to make the thought process behind my/our decisions more clear for everyone and I think that would not hurt. But thanks for your feedback! I really appreciate it
Meanwhile these people in criminal courtrooms:
“What does ‘murder’ mean? If I happen to own a knife and like to toss it, but someone moves in my way when the knife comes down, am I suddenly considered a murderer? Won’t some people abuse these rules?”
It’s naive to assume all moderators will make sensible decisions when you don’t know them.
Rules lawyering will not protect you from unreasonable moderators.
Rules lawyering usually results in harsher punishment
Okay I will try to give a bit more insight and it seems that we should add some explanations to the rules.
- You don’t have to agree with everyone. Disagreements are a fundemental part of a community and its important that we can discuss about things. Of course the fuck word is still allowed. In my opinion at least in the context of this community. I meant its in the name.
- That is a really hard thing to differenciate for me currently. And I am working on it. But nontheless I would say that you can make a point, probably a far better one if you do not attack the person directly. You can attack the believes or the things that they write but not the person behind that. If you think someone else is going to far and you feel the need to get onto an personal level, you won’t win anything.
- The line is also not easy, I understand what you mean. It was meant by me in a more general sense to like what I wrote in the point above. We should all be able to make our points and discredit other things without being dicks to other people.
- Could rename that clearer. Crossposts are completly okay so far. I wrote that in because we had sometimes, but not very often the case several people posted the same video in a short time. Its just there that we can make an easier call on that and delete things that are double. So probably no reposts?
Thank you very much for your input and I hope I could make my thought process a bit clearer
I just subscribed today but I think these rules feel very solid, along with the intent behind them. I especially like the rule about reposts as I don’t like seeing repeated content over and over, regardless how much time has passed in between said posts.
Thanks for the response, that all sounds reasonable. One more question:
What happens if I attack someone’s actions and they feel personally attacked? For example, I might say that driving a petrol car, in 100% of cases, will contribute to a child’s chance of developing lung cancer. Another commenter who drives a car may then subjectively feel that they are being called a child murderer. I have stated an unbiased fact, but they have come to a completely logical conclusion and feel upset by that conclusion. So do we act as though I stated the emotional conclusion, or just the unbiased fact?
Of course, I am pretty happy that at least one person had some questions so far. Its in our all interest to make such questions a community thing (:
As you say, it is nearly impossible to write things, so that no one feels attacked by it. The goal is just to make obvious attacks against specific people against the rules. If someone feels attacked by unbiased facts, then its his problem. Because it would make it nearly impossible to make any discussions. So I would say we act by the unbiased fact.
-
