This post is a part of the series NSQ Posting Guidelines, and aims to further explain & clarify the implications of this rule, and how it takes effect. It is not definite, and may be improved by any moderator upon any time of need.

Rule 7 is one of those rules that we take very seriously, and is the only way a human member may be removed without any warning. Before diving further, let’s recall what the rule exactly says, as listed in our sidebar:

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members. (click to extend)

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

This is how it is listed in our sidebar, and we’d like to think it succesfully presents our main approach. To further clarify each section of it and avoid confusion, let’s take a closer look together.

The First Paragraph

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Now, what does “vocally” exactly mean here? Anything you publicly expressed in this community counts as vocally expressing it. This may be via creating a post, commenting, using your username/display name, or your avatar to communicate your views on various things.

How do we determine what counts as harassment and discrimination?

If a participant attempts to vocally persecute, call names at, disrespect opinions of, patronise, or knowingly offend another participant, then it will be considered to be harassment.

Likewise, if a participant vocally attempts to harass, isolate, deny essential rights to, bully, or deny the existence of another participant based on their personal(or inherited) qualities, then it will be considered to be discrimination.

The Second Paragraph

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Even though this paragraph is fairly self-explanatory, there are some clarifications to be made to prevent confusion.

By “movement” here, we mean a group of people who share the same beliefs, worldviews and aims.

By “provably vocal” here, we mean that a moderator must have proof of behavior that a specific member has broken Rule 7, and must be able to present it to other moderators upon request, and if our members wish, to the community.

Set to be improved upon being tested.

Thanks for reading! Do you have any questions, concerns or suggestions in mind regarding this rule? Please feel free to let us know.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    131·
    1 year ago

    Sounds good, this can really be summed up in 4 words: Don’t be a dick.

    If people have to be told what not being a dick is in that much detail, they are not going to stop being one. Furthermore, long rules create more edge cases https://novehiclesinthepark.com/ style.

    • clueless_stoner@lemmy.worldOP
      91·
      1 year ago

      Not if you don’t want people to come up with their own definitions of being a dick :)

      Oh, you edited your comment as a reply. Rule 7 is “You can’t harass or disturb other members.” and the rest is extendable clarification of it, and this post is further clarification of both, it’s also a necessary measure. You have to build a context so it can’t be taken out of that context. This is a precaution, saved for future reference and also intended to protect this community’s moderators from being targeted. The responsibility of enforcement, along with useful additions and perspectives taken, is described here in detail.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 year ago

    For this rule, you have to watch out for Kafkatrapping since this kind of rule is often what’s exploited to stir up conflict.

    I think it’s best to follow the spirit of the rule rather than rule lawyering, since concern trolling is very much something that’s “know it when you see it”, and malicious wild accusations should also be considered harassment.

    • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      Lemmy give an example (simplified and exaggerated for effect)

      Person 1: “I support BLM.” Person 2: “You are a racist who wants to take the lives of all non-black people, and if anyone defends person 1, then they are racists as well.”

      Nobody wants to be called a racist, so people will get very angry and start arguing that they are not racists, and the troll will get what they wanted.

      Very common tactic to watch out for.