Samildanach Posted:

There’s a line. Most people know when they’ve crossed it – they just pretend otherwise for CYA and to rile up support.

It’s defined by common sense, unfortunately, which is lost on a lot of people (and I’m not excluding moderators here). All rules require adjudication, and the wasted effort on defining every boundary case will just turn out to be useless as people press new boundary cases.

CASE A) Mods spend many meetings coming up with an exhaustive list of defining characteristics for a “shock image.” For lulz, ITROLLU4202010 posts an image that is clearly a shock pic, but evades those characteristics. Mods get yelled at for banning ITROLLU4202010, are accused of partisan modding, get internet lawyers up their bumholes pointing out how it “broke no rules” and have to update the list.

CASE B) Mods say “Don’t ****ing post shock images.” For lulz, ITROLLU4202010 posts an image that is clearly a shock pic. Mods get yelled at for banning ITROLLU4202010, are accused of partisan modding, get internet lawyers up their bumholes pointing out how there is no clear definition of a “shock pic”, mods sigh and move on.

One of these requires a mbumive investment of time and effort in a distasteful activity, and both yield roughly the same result in practice. Is it any surprise that the latter is preferable?

Fine. How about, examples of what a shock picture would consist of? How about there’s a clause such as “Regardless of the above definitions, if you have posted an obvious shock picture, we will ban you”. That’s not creating a solid line, it’s creating a very foggy one, people have a sense of when they’re pushing it, and it’s still the moderators complete choice.