Sorry.
Granted, outside of the Pit it seems to be a clear violation of the spirit if not the letter of the registration agreement.
But, as demonstrated with my cite, the rules of one particular forum can override the general rules listed in the registration agreement for all forums, so apparently the mods of an individual forum can choose which parts of the registration agreement will be enforced in their particular forums. Sort of a federal/state law type situation.
The Pit is notable for allowing posters to insult each other but otherwise has no special status that, say IMHO or other forums don’t have. So I would think they, too, can decide to what extent they will enforce the letter of the registration agreement.
These two Mod posts seem to disagree, which is part of my confusion. Is the Pit exempt from the 2 rules Chronos posted?
NM–I didn’t see Chronos’s response.
I don’t see how your cite validates that. Forums can include rules in addition to the registration agreement, but not in conflict with that agreement.
I’m not sure how you’re interpreting that based on the cite I gave.
The board’s registration agreement says that we may not wish harm on anyone, poster or not. The Pit rules override that and allow us to wish harm on others as long as they aren’t posters. That is about as clear of a case as I can find to illustrate that individual forum rules trump (no pun intended, honest!) the broader board rules.
I post on a fiber arts website that got flagged by the Secret Service in late 2008 and early 2009 because of an anti-Obama sub-forum where some posters not only said they wanted him assassinated, they posted how they planned to do it.
:eek:
THAT is not covered under free speech; the sub-forum wasn’t even accessible on the Wayback Machine last I checked, and some of them are probably still in prison.
Wishing it is allowed. Posting detailed plans online, or elsewhere about how you want to do it is not.
That first statement is immediately followed by a statement that it cannot be strictly enforced, due to such things as war and capital punishment and the like.
I have seen many, many wishes for harm to fall upon heinous public figures. Kim Jong Il was already mentioned. I remember such about Osama Bin Laden, before he was killed. I remember people wanting to punch Martin Shkrelli. I recently recall stuff about wanting to kill Chelsea Manning, and not too long ago at that. I’ve seen people hope just random “thugs” would die. I have never seen such statements moderated.
I cannot see how banning talk of hoping Trump will be assassinated would not be giving Trump special treatment. Sure, if it’s a hijack, it should be treated like a hijack. But, if it’s relevant to the thread, like one asking about what you think of Trump or why people hate him, I cannot see it being moderated without stifling discussion.
In short, what the OP describes is the status quo. I cannot see Trump of all people to be a reason to change it.
In this instance, I figured “serious crimes” included enough strictly non-violent acts that the phrase overall skated under the “wishing harm” rule, which generally has been interpreted to apply to physical harm, not loss of property.
I can’t see a better way of causing Mr. Trump to be remembered as the Last Best Chance of America, and Our Great Man, than his assassination. ‘Liberals’ would be excoriated for a century, and all non-Republican ideas would die when born.
Moderating
Once again, ATMB is not the place for political discussion. Let’s keep this to a discussion of the rule, not Trump.
Colibri
You’re extrapolating a special case for the Pit onto forums that are not the Pit.
Because it’s illegal? :rolleyes:
The Secret Service has taken the broadest view for years of what counts as a credible threat and what triggers an investigation with scary men in black suits and dark sunglasses with subpoenas in hand.
Wishing death on Putin? Probably no problem, legally. Wishing assassination on Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Donald Trump? Potentially a “Class E” felony, depending on how the Secret Service interprets what you’re saying.
So…yeah. US Presidents get special treatment.
From your cite:
It’s illegal to say: I’m going to kill the president.
It’s not illegal to say: I wish someone would kill the president.
No I’m not. I’m arguing that there is in fact a special case for the Pit that overrides general board rules which is what you initially denied was the case:
It is probably the only forum that has its own special case rule that expressly allows something that is expressly forbidden in the general rules, but if the Pit can have special case rules that override board rules so could any other forum in theory.
Many already have special rules that expressly prohibit something that is otherwise allowed, like no political commentary in GQ, no posting plot points without spoiler tags in CS, etc.
In any case it is definitely not a question of free speech or of legality. As you noted above it is perfectly legal and within one’s rights to express a wish that someone is harmed. Board rules are a little less clear cut.
I give up. Not seeing the point of arguing about what could happen “in theory” when we know what happens in actuality.
I agree, and in actuality what happens is that the mods work based on their interpretations of the rules, their own forum’s accepted traditions and taboos, the basis of any complaints they received when someone reported a post, the individual poster’s history, and I’m sure much more. They really aren’t bound to consult the half dozen or more threads citing various board rules when making moderator decisions.
If someone reported a post and didn’t see any moderator action after a reasonable amount of time, whatever the forum and whatever set of rules they happened to be reading from at the time, it’s probably safe to assume that the mod didn’t agree that it required moderator action.
The board rules prohibit not only speech which is illegal, but also speech which encourages illegal activity. Saying that you wish someone would commit a particular crime is encouraging illegal activity.
That seems a bit of a black and white statement for a board that’s otherwise almost always moderated in shades of gray.
Would it be against the rules to start a debate thread about whether or not some country would be better off if their leader was assassinated? How about an IMHO thread asking readers if they have ever wished someone was dead? Would the OP revealing that they have long harbored a secret fantasy of the entire crew pommeling their boss to death with a motivational poster he pinned in the break room be moderated as encouraging illegal activity? What if it was in the Pit instead of IMHO? An idea for a book in CS?
Wishing someone would get assassinated is absolutely not the same thing as encouraging someone to do it, unless it is, and only a mod could determine that on a case by case basis. But doing so does violate the letter of the rules cited from the registration agreement either way. Unless it is done in the Pit where it does not break any Pit rules (despite the rule against encouraging crimes presumably being board-wide in every forum) but, even there only if it is about an off-board person and not another poster. However, whether or not doing so is also being a jerk or trolling or otherwise disrupting a thread depends on other factors like the poster’s intentions in saying so, the tone of the thread in general, what forum the thread is in, and so on. All of this notwithstanding, however, in any individual case, in any forum and under any circumstances, it would finally be up to the moderators of that forum to decide if and how it should be addressed.
You can actually just skip right to that last part and resolve almost every such discussion with just one sentence. Simple! 
But that’s not fair. My free speech is more important than laws.