Ooo yay, subreddit drama, it’s like I never even left!

Generally I think:

• public figures are fair game for criticism or comment
• “public figure” to me means anyone who has been the subject of widespread media reporting by accredited outlets, or anyone who has put themselves on a platform
• hate speech is unacceptable in any form; racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc
• deliberate misinformation and disinformation should not be allowed
• in addition to sealioning, dog whistles should also not be allowed

Here's a list of example comments and whether I think it should be allowed. Big difference between allowing something to be said and approving of it though, before the pitchforks come out.

1. “Christopher Luxon is an idiot”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
2. “David Seymour is a fascist prick”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
3. “Marama Davidson is a racist”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = controversial but OK
4. “Chippy looks like he hasn't finished high school”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
5. “Grant Robertson is f***ing useless at economics”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = mean but OK
6. “Kyle Chapman is a f***ing nazi”
   • true statement + personal sentiment about a public figure = OK
7. “Jacinda Ardern is tearing NZ apart”
   • personal sentiment about a public figure = OK
8. “Gareth Morgan should f*** off and die”
   • wishing death on someone = Not OK
9. “Jacinda Ardern is a horse-faced b****”
   • derogatory sexist remark = Not OK
10. “the jab was a bioweapon that contained nanobots”
    • factually incorrect disinformation = Not OK
11. “lgbt people are child-molesting groomers”
    • homophobic hate speech = Not OK
12. “it is impossible to change your sex”
    • transphobic hate speech = Not OK
13. “a woman is an adult human female”
    • transphobic dog whistle = Not OK
14. “Māori are over-represented in crime statistics”
    • factually true statement, not necessarily racist depending on context = OK
15. “Maoris are all gang members and dole bludgers”
    • racism = Not OK

The only way to deal with this type of content is to remove it, and tell the poster why it was removed. Repeated breaches would indicate the person is acting in bad faith and should be removed from the community altogether with a ban.

I honestly do think you need a list of rules. "Don't be a dick" covers a lot of how we want conversations to be carried out, but there need to be some hard lines in the sand for what things are allowed to be said. For example, slurs can be a type of hate speech, but not always. A recent right-wing dog whistle trend has been to claim "Karen" is sexist anti-white hate speech (to disrupt conversations about privileged white people, and no, it isn't hate speech).

I have my ear to the ground a bit more than most on these things, so I am pretty sensitive to them, but communities can fall apart pretty rapidly when they're allowed. I think a list is helpful to community members to let them know what is acceptable or not, and make it clear what type of conversation the community is accepting of.

I think it would be great if we could just stick to the "don't be a dick" rule and let that be that. Any explicit set of rules is going to allow things and/or forbid things it shouldn't. And you're likely to find some bad actors who want to exploit whatever loopholes exist.

But I suppose people have different ideas about what being a dick means, and that's why we need this discussion.

To answer each of your points:

1. Yes, I think it's OK to attack public figures, though I don't think celebrating or advocating for violence against anyone should be allowed. “Gareth Morgan should fuck off and die” is right on the line for me. It's not always easy to define who is and isn't a public figure though. Attacking anyone for their race, gender, sexuality, etc. would be forbidden as hate speech.

2. It's really hard to draw the line with doxxing. I know what feels like a violation, but I don't know how I'd define it. Though anything that has been intentionally published or shared by the person or their organisation should generally be fine. Beyond that, it feels like "I know it when I see it" would be better than any stated rules.

3. I think anyone who promotes hate has made themselves a public figure, and should be subject to the same rules as them. By the way, I doubt Kyle Chapman would actually think being called a fucking Nazi was an insult. That's his ideology, and he's proud of it. It's like trying to offend Hitler by calling him a Nazi.

4. Attempts at sealioning, etc. really need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Things like the age of the account, how much disruptive and non-disruptive activity they've engaged in, and how bad the sealioning was all come into it. Removal of content, warnings, and temporary and permanent bans should all be on the table though.

5. I would lean towards removing anything on the "obviously" list. If it's genuine trolling, leaving it up doesn't seem to add any value. Again, there will be grey areas.

6. Something that I would like to see encouraged is to conduct arguments in "good faith". This is obviously hard to define, though it's often easy enough to identify a bad faith argument. To be clear, I'm not against "Devil's Advocate" arguments, but arguments should not devolve into ad hominem attacks and name calling. We can disagree and debate in a constructive, non-toxic way. I feel like anyone who persists in using logical fallacies to support their argument - after it's been pointed out - is not arguing in good faith. For examples of the fallacies I'm talking about, see this infographic or the Wikipedia page. Also - information that is demonstrably false (e.g. "vaccines cause autism") should be removed.

7. I'd really prefer we didn't have a list of explicit rules for the reasons I gave earlier. If we got enough input from the community (say on this thread), it could be linked to for people who feel like they need to see some rules.

These are just my thoughts. What does everyone else think?

I think David P has said most of what I would have already said.

I think if you want a truly inclusive community, you need to ban not only racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia (etc.) but advocacy for those things. i.e. what is banned goes beyond hate speech directed at marginalised groups, and includes debate over whether people spouting that kind of hate speech "have some ideas that could be considered" (or whatever).

To put it another way, there shouldn't be any debate over whether certain groups (e.g. transgender people) have a right to exist, or whether certain groups (e.g. particular ethnicities) should be treated as human beings. People posting online know they can't get away with saying hateful stuff directly, so instead they call for "debate" under the heading of "free speech".

Without banning that kind of thing, people from those marginalised groups may not feel welcome here. Even if there is some kind of debate about it, and most people here are telling them they're wrong, even just the fact that it's being debated makes it unlikely people from those groups would want to hang around.

I know policing this kind of thing gets very murky at times as to what should/shouldn't be allowed, and there is a balance with genuine free speech, but I think it is worth thinking about.

I kinda like the don’t be a dick rule. Feels very New Zealand.

Although a list of what not to do is inevitable, why not have the opening and overriding rule be positive, encouraging the behavior we want rather than listed all the stuff we don't.

E.g. "be awesome to each other" rather than "don't be a dick"

I also like the “Don’t be a dick” rule. It’s short, simple, and easy to keep in mind when posting and commenting.

I’ve already had a few cases where I’ve re-written comments so they come off nicer than I would’ve when commenting on Reddit.

It's a question of what audience you're after. Do you want:

• People who are unhappy with how Reddit's owners are treating third party developers

or

• People who feel r/newzealand and the regional subs have over-moderated content, and want more room for expressing "alternative" views

The problem is that terms like trolling or spam are very loosely defined. Is it spam if somebody tells you to vote for some party or another? Is it trolling? How about if somebody praises KFC or tells people about a deal on some pizza?

I don't know if there is a solution but I guess this is why there is community moderation with upvotes or downvotes.

In an ideal world there would be more than two options. Ideally there would be a spam button or a troll button etc.