The other example, yeah, that would trip over Rule 8 because that's a lot of contentious current stuff. Also, those aren't so much fics as they are soapbox rants with a skin of fiction over them.
I picked the most extreme excerpts out of more than a hundred chapters (between the two stories) to quote. I can assure you that the fics in question are both legitimate pieces of fiction. That said, there's a reason why I picked his works as examples.
Namely, while he doesn't comment on modern
politicians or specific political events, he does comment on issues and movements. I'll have to take your statement as a resounding statement that yes, you
are applying the rule to depictions of, well, movements and issues... which gets back into the whole point that characters exist within the context of social movements and have opinions about issues.
To step back a bit, however:
I'm starting to think nothing will reassure you, because you seem to interpret everything in the worst possible way.
The thing is, that's
exactly how you interpret laws and rules when judging their quality or looking for issues -- potential or otherwise. You don't assume that the rule will only forbid what the people making it
intend it to; you look at the problems it could cause.
You won't be the only person enforcing the rule, and even if you were, nobody's judgement is perfect. Every person who's doing so will have their own views, and their own interpretations, of it. Every person will make their own mistakes. This fuzziness gets
worse when the "were the politics in this the cause of the flamewar/shitstorm/argument?" criterion is added in, as this means that I could be held accountable for what
someone else does in response to my depiction of a character or a story event.
I've noted repeatedly that I think that the rule, as written, is poorly conceived and overly broad even as I've been getting at its boundaries. I suppose I should illustrate by subjecting it to an actual legal test... well, modified somewhat to deal with the fact that this
is a forum and not an actual government, and we have a purpose for the forum rather than an actual constitution or the like.
When evaluating a law, the (American) courts use three types of tests, depending on the circumstances: the rational basis test, intermediate (or heightened) scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. The first is used most of the time. The second is used when a
suspect classification and an equal protection claim is involved. The third is used when a fundamental right is implicated.
In a forum analogy, the second would apply when the rule is questioned as being
unfair to a specific group. When the forum's very purpose is involved, the third would be the relevant test.
To pass strict scrutiny in court, a law must be three things:
- It must be justified by a compelling interest.
- It must be narrowly tailored to achieve the rule's goal or interest.
- It must use the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
Now, obviously these aren't requirements here. This is a forum, not a court. Still, it's as good a starting point as any.
I understand that the general clusterfucks you've been dealing with are enough to bog down the moderating teams and threaten the forum; thus I concede that your rule serves a compelling interest.
It is
not, however, even remotely narrowly tailored. Simply put, your statements make it pretty damned clear that there's neither need nor extant cause to extend the rule into fics and quests themselves... which, as I've mentioned several times and provided examples about, is
really thorny territory.
It's not the least restrictive means to achieve that goal either. While the above overbroadness is the reason why I regard the rule as
bad, this is why I think it's a kneejerk response -- it, the multiple revisions since you posted the original version of the rule, the various often-differing interpretations in this thread, and the general fuzziness of the rule itsenf generally show a marked lack of thought and consideration.
And no, I don't mean thought and consideration about whether you should do this -- I believe you
did put in that thought. I mean thought and consideration about
what you should do and
just what the new rule should be.
And I keep mentioning the "chilling effect" bit for a reason. People will avoid things that even
touch on politics or political issues. You
write to ask the mods... but people often don't
do that and simply alter their plans instead. Having to ask the mods is a
pain... and, as noted, the interpretations of the rule are somewhat... variable.
As things stand, I wouldn't be comfortable writing a teenage mother on this board -- they'd probably be considering or at least thinking about abortion, and abortion is very much a current political issue. I wouldn't be comfortable writing someone from a family of illegal immigrants. I wouldn't be... well, you get the idea.
I think that's a
very bad thing for this forum, given its purpose.
