As we have seen a rise of toxic behavior we have decided that it would be time for some rules. We would love other ideas too and feel free to discuss it here.

Also we are thinking about, to put in an Automoderation tool that could help us a lot. Because its currently not easy for us to scan every new comments and reports are rare currently. We want your opinons on that too, because its important to us that this community is based on the people here.

The shortlist that we have currently as idea for the Rules:

  • Be Kind to each other
  • No Hate speech
  • Dont harass people
  • No Racism, sexism and any other discrimination
  • Dont attack other people just because they have differnt opinions (Stay on Topic)
  • Do not double post
    • Cows Look Like Maps
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I don’t think it needs to be as specific as that why bit just don’t incite violence. Period. Otherwise, it’s making a statement about the community as a whole. (also, this is already covered by the rules)

    • @psud
      link
      English
      14 months ago

      Yep. Even the Netherlands makes their car appropriate paths great for cars.

      Cars are still needed for distances too far to walk or to cycle at times when public transport doesn’t run

      I wish it weren’t so, but it is so.

    • @KillAllPoorPeople
      link
      English
      -98 months ago

      A blanket rule like that is deeply troubling. I’m glad the mods ignored you.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Our goal is to peacefully encourage more people to cycle and convince car owners to use their car for less trips when viable to do so. A lot of people own cars, would calling them Nazis really help our cause?

        My vision is we make cyclists and public transit users look like responsible happy citizens and attract jealousy of those stuck in traffic.

        • Hanrahan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Then why call it Fuckcars? Call it CuddlyPussDriverLove

          I find it good too vent at arseholes who drive. They hold all the power, we’re not punching down here by making fun of, or laughing at them and it can be a relief valve to vent at their choices both directly and indirectly that enable the car centric shit show to.continue. I wouldn’t go into /c/cars and expect angst against cars and drivers but /c/fuckcars ? Yeah… it’s in the name

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13 months ago

    Most of my friends got hit by cars. My best friend is gonna stay crippled because of some text-and-drive vroemer. Is you guys goal to convert drivers or to allow people to vent and organize against car-centric policy? Because if it’s the former, it might not be a community for me.

  • @HardlightCereal
    link
    English
    -210 months ago

    I’m concerned about the definitions of some of the terms in these rules

    • What does it mean to be kind? Do you have to agree with everyone? Are you allowed to say the fuck word?

    • What does it mean to attack other people? Are we talking ad hominem, or is making an argument with a stern tone of voice an attack?

    • Where is the line between opinion and action drawn? Is it okay to attack people for driving cars? That’s not an opinion, it’s an action, and it kills people, but I have a feeling certain people would say no anyway

    • What is a double post? Do you mean repost or crosspost?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      These are the guidelines that the human moderators are going to be using to make their judgements. They’re not binding law. Is it really so important that you need to drill down to such tedious minutia? Just be good and if you do something wrong while acting in good faith, I’m sure they’ll just tell you.

      • @ConfidentLonelyOPM
        link
        English
        1010 months ago

        Yeah you are right, its my first time being moderator for such a big community. I just wan’t to make the thought process behind my/our decisions more clear for everyone and I think that would not hurt. But thanks for your feedback! I really appreciate it

      • @Katana314
        link
        English
        39 months ago

        Meanwhile these people in criminal courtrooms:

        “What does ‘murder’ mean? If I happen to own a knife and like to toss it, but someone moves in my way when the knife comes down, am I suddenly considered a murderer? Won’t some people abuse these rules?”

      • @HardlightCereal
        link
        English
        210 months ago

        It’s naive to assume all moderators will make sensible decisions when you don’t know them.

          • @psud
            link
            English
            14 months ago

            Rules lawyering usually results in harsher punishment

    • @ConfidentLonelyOPM
      link
      English
      410 months ago

      Okay I will try to give a bit more insight and it seems that we should add some explanations to the rules.

      • You don’t have to agree with everyone. Disagreements are a fundemental part of a community and its important that we can discuss about things. Of course the fuck word is still allowed. In my opinion at least in the context of this community. I meant its in the name.
      • That is a really hard thing to differenciate for me currently. And I am working on it. But nontheless I would say that you can make a point, probably a far better one if you do not attack the person directly. You can attack the believes or the things that they write but not the person behind that. If you think someone else is going to far and you feel the need to get onto an personal level, you won’t win anything.
      • The line is also not easy, I understand what you mean. It was meant by me in a more general sense to like what I wrote in the point above. We should all be able to make our points and discredit other things without being dicks to other people.
      • Could rename that clearer. Crossposts are completly okay so far. I wrote that in because we had sometimes, but not very often the case several people posted the same video in a short time. Its just there that we can make an easier call on that and delete things that are double. So probably no reposts?

      Thank you very much for your input and I hope I could make my thought process a bit clearer

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        I just subscribed today but I think these rules feel very solid, along with the intent behind them. I especially like the rule about reposts as I don’t like seeing repeated content over and over, regardless how much time has passed in between said posts.

      • @HardlightCereal
        link
        English
        210 months ago

        Thanks for the response, that all sounds reasonable. One more question:

        What happens if I attack someone’s actions and they feel personally attacked? For example, I might say that driving a petrol car, in 100% of cases, will contribute to a child’s chance of developing lung cancer. Another commenter who drives a car may then subjectively feel that they are being called a child murderer. I have stated an unbiased fact, but they have come to a completely logical conclusion and feel upset by that conclusion. So do we act as though I stated the emotional conclusion, or just the unbiased fact?

        • @ConfidentLonelyOPM
          link
          English
          510 months ago

          Of course, I am pretty happy that at least one person had some questions so far. Its in our all interest to make such questions a community thing (:

          As you say, it is nearly impossible to write things, so that no one feels attacked by it. The goal is just to make obvious attacks against specific people against the rules. If someone feels attacked by unbiased facts, then its his problem. Because it would make it nearly impossible to make any discussions. So I would say we act by the unbiased fact.