this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
610 points (98.6% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19236 readers
1 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
[email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No swearing in /pics or they have to mark it nsfw.
Ah, no, swearing is allowed as long as it's vulgarity, profanity is what requires an NSFW tag. It's a very important distinction that the Reddit ToS accidentally makes.
So, in conclusion: Fuck -> No NSFW tag. Hell -> Yes NSFW tag.
So can't reddit just change the wording of the ToS?
I mean, they can but it takes time to do that and until they do /r/pics is adhering to the letter of the law (or at least an interpretation of it) while spitting in the face of the spirit of the law.
I'm not sure why everyone thinks the lawyers would get involved. It doesn't matter what the guidelines technically say. Reddit has already proven to be extremely untrustworthy regarding their mod policy. If the admins want the mods out, the mods will simply be out.
But it sets a nice precedent/roadmap for the people still there even after the new mods (who have pledged fealty to the king) are installed. Countless people will do this until they get banned, hurting Reddit where it counts.
They didn't specify a religion, and the mods made it perfectly clear that they understand it as "any religion at all that exists or existed within somebody's head or in fiction". So, I'm not confident in that "Fuck -> No NSFW" part.
In fact, I'm not confident that "in" or "fact" wouldn't trigger the rule either. And it's better to keep it safe; you don't want to make the site dangerous for those nice and well-liked ads buyers.