How do folks feel about the new Miraheze Content Policy proposal? It edges closer to limiting our speech -- I think we'll have to ask if we'll be able to stay on Miraheze in the future -- but I think we're probably okay.
Honestly most of my own objections are to the philosophy of the policy, which is very reactionary. That is to say, it is almost exclusively reacting to problems they have right now, without even trying to use any of the tools they already have in policy to resolve those problems. The rules aren't a bad idea, they just offend me as a policy maker for not considering the changes to scope, and future problems that could arise. Every rule you add is a rule that can be rules-lawyered.
Plus I tried really, really hard to not mention squicky things when I wrote the policy in the first place, and it looks like they're on track to utterly ruin that.
Honestly most of my own objections are to the philosophy of the policy, which is very reactionary. That is to say, it is almost exclusively reacting to problems they have right now, without even trying to use any of the tools they already have in policy to resolve those problems. The rules aren't a bad idea, they just offend me as a policy maker for not considering the changes to scope, and future problems that could arise. Every rule you add is a rule that can be rules-lawyered.
Plus I tried really, really hard to not mention squicky things when I wrote the policy in the first place, and it looks like they're on track to utterly ruin that.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto