User talk:Soyoyuki/RulesMockup

feedback

G1

G1 and G.1. say quite literally the same thing. It's redundant. I'd replace it with something else. (original is guilty of this too) G1.2 is better as Realistic depictions of child abuse, including DNB, may not be posted, uploaded, requested, or linked to. Take a strong line here

G2

G2.1 is too narrow, I need to pick my words carefully here, but if pedo content is fully banned, then subrule should simply clarify what is pedo content rather than only naming loli/shota shit. Avoid subjective enforcement by establishing clear boundaries as the previous rule did

G3

This one needs work

3.1 "G-3.1. Mention of any and all hostile communities/splinters is forbidden." later down you say "Discussion and documentation of these splinters is almost always not allowed" for Community Rules. Clarify dis

G 3.2 should be folded under C "No-Link" . Also, instead of leaving ambiguity with saying " Sites that do not have proper MPA or a Staff team with a fast enough response time..." just outright declare "Sites that staff classify as not having proper MPA or staff team...) else you're gonna get edit warring apes discussing whats "proper".

G4

Is good. Make it clear doe: is furry shit banned or no? you subtracted ""Feral" furry and pony porn or softcore (animals on four legs): Permanent" (its not realistic per se but should still absolutely be banned, and clearly, since furfags are a huge problem)

G5

What counts as censored? How should they do it? Niggas here don't know how to do this, probably needs a subpage on how to do this (or mention how to in NSFW policy here], put a link to this page somewhere in this rule in general

G6

Attempt to lower the quality of the page is as subjective as it gets. Easy examples are easy but they're the exception. This wiki's lack of policies and guidelines for things like WP:AGF or WP:DIS makes this issue worse by making consistent application impossible, but I won't get into that. Clarify it somehow if you can. Who decides this? The proposed arbitrators? Other editors (if so, edit war happens)? Staff enforcement will almost inevitably lead to endless chimping about censorship. This is somewhat of a bold statement but this just doesn't work as a rule, because its impossible to enforce this efficiently, reasonably, and consistently, except for CLEAR cases like vandalism. Mention hoaxes here, false info added in about someone that is effective libel. It happens 24/7 and niggers refuse to listen cause apparently this 'ki is an anarchy o algo. <= wikitroon schizo babble DNI

G7

"Tangentially" is another weak point for endless nigger warring imo. Remove it, clarify once and for all what qualifies for SNCA for those who don't know and what qualifies for mainpage.

G8

Underage users are a huge problem on this 'ki. Bump this up in the order for better visibility. Acting underage should be clarified a bit maybe?

G9

Similar to G6, disruptive is also extremely subjective. I talked to cobble about this earlier in the janny noticeboard, but even someone (I won't give names) who keeps editing in "good faith" because they think they are right (when they are objectively wrong) and refuse to listen are still disruptive even though they are not violating good faith or any other rule necessarily. Disruptive in 'ki context should mean this stuff, not ddos or spam (those are more appropriately titled as abuse o algo under 9.1). Again, I don't wanna go off here but maybe clarify disruptive behavior as listed here? Or don't, its snca idk

I'll respond to the other sections after you and others think the G section is resolved. Rickert (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Soyoyuki Rickert (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)