Good morning, /ef/.
It has come to my attention that a precedent has just been set by the moderation team regarding the type of topic conduct that is seen as allowable or, in this case, bannable. The post in question will be outlined below and we will discuss whether or not, as a community, if this is outlined within the current rules as explained in the header topic on the board.
Something to consider when discussing instances like this is the relation of sincerity, intent, and purpose of the post in question. In the most applicable sense of interpretation of the more ambiguous rule set it emphasizes the direction of harassment or attack upon
users and not entire branches of topics.
To plainly state, through direct moderator action, that racism is not allowed - when statements regarding such are not within the sites rules - is a immediate bypass of not only the stated three warning system but also intense overreach against the intended nature of the board itself.
Now we also must take the previous history of the board as a means to justify the current allowable topics or posts. We must keep within our culture and that culture is one of
freedom of expression but not
freedom to continually harass and this distinction must be made apparent and all actions taken thereupon any posts must be laid within this light. /ef/ prides itself on the community moderation. We are a community that does, and should, moderate its own actions through our own social means: Only calling upon moderation when a situation delves too far towards illegality or persistent harassment.
The idea of controversial humor and topics have been an absolute cornerstone in the creation and fruition of this community and it should not be restricted so easily and without warning. The consequences of this retaliation towards the userbase ends up with the situation we have here now. One that questions the nature of those who are permitted to moderate and influence the posts and topics that persist and flow throughout our community. It leads to senseless flamewars and shitstorms that do not need to happen. This is the very
reason the three warning rule was enacted. So that there will be a checks and balance to allow free conversation as to why a post would be deemed removable or even punishable. Why would we immediately throw out such an amazing improvement towards community moderation in one fell swoop?
Racism is a topic that can be deemed toxic in nature, this is true. However, racism and all other means of controversy must be discusses and should never be censored lest you continue to dwindle the essence of a community that thrives off its use as a source of dark entertainment or humor. Only when racism becomes an act of harassment at an individual or becomes so extreme and constant till it qualifies as spam should we begin to punish
the user and not the topic itself./ef/ is a community of wonderful toxicity but not one of absolute hate and harassment. There is a very big difference between instances of irredeemable social behavior towards each other and a simple post that is a caricature of a time and history that persisted throughout human history. That caricature that I was just punished for and it is one we must discuss.
The offending post is below, the punishment in the OP. If we are to allow this offense to stand then we are making a future statement for the conduct of the entire board that will effect all users from here into the future.
What do you think, /ef/? Are we not allowed our share of choice in this boards direction? Did I perhaps break any of the existing rules?
I do not have an exact version of the post in question, but I will recreate it in the hidden section below as accurately as I possibly can.It was in reply to my good friends thread listed here >>532376 for contextShucks my IQ is that of a jiggaboo fresh off a plantation boy howdy