• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Clarifying Death Threat Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
I haven't been paying that close attention to the various votes.
 
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.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Yes. Agreed. 🙏
Click to expand...
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."
 
Random-Helper323 said:
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."
Click to expand...
That seems very reasonable to me. 🙏
 
What is the consensus here so far, and should I call for more staff members to hopefully offer input here? 🙏
 
Think a lot of staff members might have shown favor of Agnaa's new proposals.
 
Okay. Should somebody here apply that then? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

FinePoint
  • Locked
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
22
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
We Should Define Insanity
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
Cipher72
  • Locked
Instant Death Verse Discussion Rules (Accepted)
Replies
18
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
If we can add games to profiles, then we can add fights with restricted standard equipment, too
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jin2188
  • Locked
Dedicated Immunity Page Creation
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top