I prefer to assume innocence before proven guilt of every user, but even if you assumed most people went the full mile, I would want there to be a rule interpretation in place that protects the minority group that makes innocent jokes. It's also less stifling to punish people at the end of the (alleged) slippery slope rather than at the beginning of it where we could have actual discussion then.
>And again, how are jannies supposed to differentiate pedophelic jokes as 'would be considered rulecucking" to "this is definitely pedophile behavior".
By proving it to be pedophilic, as we have been doing with the nuance ruling. I only cited history as one potential avenue to take to prove it, but there's always a story behind any post made on the site. Innocent until proven guilty, that's what the nuance ruling allows. Rigger's history of unhinged schizoposting cleared enough suspicion to take action, and I applaud the ruling, but not as an excuse to harshen the rules.
>I mean someone like red probably thinks that any publicity is good publicity. Even if you're not actually meaning to do that, they've won in the end.
Publicity is not an inherent benefit or downside, it's what it leads to that counts. Even if Red were still here(wink wink) there's no real gain from having people joke about you being a pedophile all day. Unless you're Jimmy Saville and can laugh off the accusations(in which case congrats, nothing changes), you're not gonna get victims or sympathizers lining up at your door because someone pretended to be you in the context of your crimes. Pedo rings are hidden away in 'cords and 'grams for a reason, to not be ousted or publicized so obscurity can protect you from ridicule and the authorities.
Thanks 'Migrant, I don't know my fallacies well enough but I knew something was suspect about the line of reasoning.
