As it stands it's WAY too vague and open to censorship. Plus it's completely unnecessary. I don't get this fear of speech people have. If someone's harassing you that falls under spam, stalking, and global rules, otherwise it's simply criticism or insult. Wtf is an "attack". Again, vagueness all over.

From what I'm reading in: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1tqfix/i_guess_they_think_the_usolidwhetstone_thing_will/, it's being applied all over the place. Fucking ridiculous in /r/conspiracy of all places.

I agree entirely! My primary account was just banned by u/solidwhetstone for "attacking" a user. What is this the playground at school, where r/conspiratard is allowed to come in here mocking and bullying and we can't stand up for ourselves?

You'd like to blame conspiratard, but nope- you were banned for your own actions. As always- you're welcome to send a mod message and ask for your ban to be overturned. Just because one mod bans you doesn't mean a consensus has been reached per rule 6. We have overturned 2 bans today.

So what's the point of giving out a ban just to have it overturned? That makes very little sense.

Because sometimes one person wants someone banned, but the whole team decides to let it go. It happens.

Bans are made by moderator consensus.

Can you clarify this rule for us? I just want someone to explain exactly what it means. It seems like you are saying the bans are just handed out haphazardly, then the un-banning happens by moderator consensus. If the mod who first handed out the ban simply doesn't want to consent to an un-ban, that means only one mod is needed to ban anyone they wish. If so, I think rule 6 needs to be worded better. Currently, it looks like it's just simply a false statement.

The fact that it was ever enacted as a rule and not protested by the users of this sub shows how shit this place has gone.

Reminds me of what is happening to the US constitution, Patriot act, NDAA, PRISM, etc.

Except the rule covers everything it needs to cover: disagree with opinions, but no personal attacks.

Just don't resort to name calling and you're safe from it, jeez.

that rule is meant to trap conspiratards since its their primary offense.

Unfortunately, various organizations of forum trolls and shills have conducted harassment campaigns against mods and other users who opposed their interests in the past. That has to be regulated somehow.

This is very true. I think the answer is to demarcate between attacking a user and making a general statement.

Example.

Saying one user is a piece of trash over and over should probably draw a ban hammer.

Referring to a group of evil people with vulgar slurs should never be banned.

A nuanced, but important, distinction.

I would add that I think there should be unrestricted criticisms of moderators allowed (no harassment though); as it's too much of a conflict of interest to determine what's an attack on a mod and what's a legitimate criticism. Let the parties speak their sides of the story, and then allow the downvotes and upvotes do the talking in that situation.

[deleted]

This is what Meister_Vargr is talking about: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1tqfix/i_guess_they_think_the_usolidwhetstone_thing_will/cear1ox?context=3

I called him out on his nutty conspiracy theory about an organized plot by internet shill propagandists as the reason for the Solidwhetstone drama.

You have no understanding of what I said, clearly. It was my assertion that they took advantage of the situation. There was no propaganda element to my assertions either, no matter how you try and glam up your lame take on my opinion.

[deleted]

this is a great point, i used to really trust and respect the users of this sub but unfortunately rule 10 has caused me to throw that view out of the window

HEAR HEAR

It's not that bad, provided it's enforced with an even-hand. Of course, it is open to interpretation and possible abuse, but hopefully rule 6 is there to deal with that.

You don't say what your particular beef is. You mention conspiratard and state that rule 10 is being used to censor some discussion of that? I saw one ban that seemed spot on and one that I thought was iffy and apparently got overturned by the mods altogether. You know better?

I agree but rule 10 in part covers this. Attacking this sub is a favorite tactic of the conspiratard trolls.

Single comments like "you guys are retarded for believing in any conspiracies with no proof" or "this conspiracy is retarded" or "this is why this sub has no respect", etc., are attacks on this sub and distract from the conversation and add no value.

Regulating attacks on other users or mods can be abused more because people get into heated disagreements and say stupid stuff (as they have against solidwhetstone) and I would rather tread lighter there. Of course it can cross the line like with stalking, etc.

are attacks on this sub and distract from the conversation and add no value.

Isn't that why there is a downvote button?

Isn't that why trolls are banned because their only intent is to throw poop at the place they are visiting?

Why should we allow trollish comments?

What site on the internet allows this? If someone went to I love puppies dot com and simply made comments about how people were stupid to love puppies and mocked them wouldn't they be banned?

Why should we allow trollish comments?

Because censorship is pointless and is open to abuse. If people want to say stupid shit then let them and they will be downvoted.

If I love puppies had an up and downvote system they wouldn't need to be banned as their posts would be downvoted.

But the upvote downvote system is compromised as well.

So you say. I don't see any evidence of that.

Yes, and getting rid of rule 10 is going to stop that? I'm not seeing it.

I think the rule itself is designed to combat that stuff. I don't think it's being used in the way you state. What's the evidence for what you are saying?

Went through the whole thread.

I agree that shadowstopfollowing should not have been banned, unless he has a history of poor conduct from times past or something. All his comments seem really reasonable. I should have been banned instead of him

Other than that it looks like everyone who got banned had it subsequently overturned by consensus?

I think the rule itself is designed to combat that stuff. I don't think it's being used in the way you state. What's the evidence for what you are saying?