As a lot of you guys know by now, I struggle writing rules. I’m looking to get feedback on some rules written by a helpful user, that I really think should be implemented because they are clear and actually show the intent I have.

  1. No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee’s rules.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, anti centrist or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and pointing out the failures of our ideological interlocutors. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Be Civil. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but no personal attacks from either side will be tolerated.

  4. No Extremism. Calls for violence, pushing a narrative of religious, gender, sexual or racial supremacy, or any other forms of extremist rhetoric will be met with a permenant ban. Extreme statements which label an entire group are also unacceptable and may result in a temporary suspension.

  5. Be Excellent To Each Other. Remember the people you are arguing with are humans, and although you may disagree on the method, we are all looking to make a world where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is freely available to all.

What do you guys think?

  • PizzaMan@lemm.ee
    3·
    1 year ago

    A “no sensationalist titles” rule might be a good one. Otherwise you tend to get posts like “Obama is the anticrist” for wearing a tan suit or using mustard. Or you get posts insinuating that the V.A. is paying for migrant healthcare when in reality the V.A. is paying for processing.

    Such a rule might be indistinguishable from a “no low quality news sources” rule.

  • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
    45·
    1 year ago

    My feedback for you is to moderate everyone the same way. No special treatment one way or the other. Do that and we’re golden.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeOP
      44·
      1 year ago

      You would think that it’d be easy, but it’s actually really hard. Hell, that’s what led to my keyword based moderating, and that was about the dumbest decision I ever made, aside from not asking that girl out. I have peepin, a lefty mod, but even with his help I have a hard time getting it right. At least when it’s something obvious, like a slur, I can shut it down real quick.

      I guess what I’m saying is I’m trying my best. It’s not particularly good, but I think I’m learning and getting better.

  • Throwaway@lemm.eeOP
    36·
    1 year ago

    Now my personal thoughts on each rule:

    1. Very good rule to have. Might even adjust it to include lemmy.world’s rules too, since we’re supposed to abide by their rules too if we want to remain unbanned on lemmy.world but I haven’t done that already.

    2. Pro-conservative is a very good term. I’m not about “pointing out the failures of our ideological interlocutors”, the people who comment here are generally in good faith, and not already knowing something isn’t a failure, or at least in my book. Maybe say “We are interested in promoting conservatism and having discussions that might not happen elsewhere” (As an aside, we have people here who’s first language might not be English, and perhaps we should keep rules to common words. Hell, I’m a native English speaker, I have a minor in English, and I still had to look interlocutors up.)

    3. This rule while good, seems to start wrong. Lets cut the “Be civil” starting sentence, starting with “Dissent is allowed in the comments” Also, “will not be tolerated”, being honest, I’m very lenient, and I’ll probably end up tolerating the same amount of nonsense anyway.

    4. “No extremism”, this is lemmy. We have actual communists, and I’m in ideological favor of civilian owned machine guns, tanks, and things like that. And I haven’t seen much in the way of “Calls to Violence”, and this entire rule could probably be wrapped into rule 1. But maybe it’s good to preemptively and explicitly ban calls to violence?

    5. Very good rule.

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      25·
      1 year ago

      Might even adjust it to include lemmy.world’s rules too, since we’re supposed to abide by their rules too if we want to remain unbanned on lemmy.world but I haven’t done that already.

      Honestly, the quality of discussion nosedived when the .world crowd got access.

        • uzi
          45·
          1 year ago

          People need need to learn that what someone believes in does not affect other’s people life. It’s only when someone can’t treat others with dignity that it becomes an issues.

          A religious person and an atheist can be great friends if they have shared hobbies and interests they can connect on, and leave faith and spirituality out of their discussions when they talk. Don’t hide it, but don’t bring it up if it’s not pertain to something.

          I dream of a society when a religious person can say to an atheist “I’m going to synagogue” or "mosque tomorrow, but afterwards do you want to meet up for a game together and we’ll having something to eat later?