User blog comment:DanzxvFan8275/Proposal 8: For a Social Democracy/@comment-31355616-20191002231317/@comment-26774000-20191003000232

The party was founded yesterday. I would've been surprised if you went right to work with that platform. I'm trying to put an end to it before it starts, per se.

I'm making this proposal so the restrictions listed in your platform don't take affect. Considering the damn fools that are on the site today, it's not out of the question that your party would actually succeed. A fan-fiction site like this shouldn't have many restrictions to its content (outside of the Terms of Use). Your idea is an unnecessary change that has way too many consequences to risk.

idk the page says otherwise

The problem with that is the fact that bias can come to play through the administration, and using an external link still sounds like censorship. I think that users should be allowed to fully post their content onto this wiki (unless, of course, ToU violations).

wait what

you’re talking about actual romance

i thought you were talking about friendships and communication and shit

no kelpy i do not

probably because i was not around back then

But here's the thing: neither were you. If you're gonna talk about iy like that, then talk about a period when you were actually present for. My other thing is the fact that 2013 SBFW and 2018-present SBFW are two entirely different communities. Different systems, different policies, far different users. The relationships that you are talking about could work with our current users, definitely.

That doesn't matter. The fact that it was even introduced is very fascist. No users should be disallowed from voting (unless under extreme circumstances, which Travis did not fall under).

How is it hypocritical? I am not trying to restrict your free speech by these provisions. I’m adding them to disallow the most extreme changes. I never said that you are not allowed to voice your opinion. Never once. If you want to express this, fine, but you just wouldn't be able to propose it unless it was cut down a little bit. That's a compromise at worse. Your free speech is protected under this proposal too, and you making a case for your ideology is not prohibited under this at all.

Plenty of things to break down here.

First, as I just said - yes, you still have free speech under this. This provision was not added to remove your free speech. It was added to comply with the first provision, which, to counter your claim about your party being able to do anything it wants as long as there aren't any policy changes, would make your ideology violate the policy. (that's actually only if you were to go through with it, but still). I had to include such a provision to strengthen this proposal's impact and moderate the extremism of your platform. Nothing of this limits your free speech.

Second, an anarchist party would at this point be less extreme than your ideology, but that's not why I'm debating this. I don't agree with an anarchy necessarily, but I don't want to tackle a whole another barrel of proposals right now either. If anyone wants to make the same type of proposal they are free to do so.

Third, the administration doing the work would be a violation of the second provision. We really have no right to modify the ideology of your political party. An earlier provision of this proposal removed your ownership of it, but I did realize the strong hypocrisy between that and free speech, so I am allowing you to keep the party to make whatever statements you want. The only thing I'm asking for is some moderation to comply with the first provision.

I'm introducing a policy provision because this isn't the first time it's happened. Not even a month ago, a a proposal was made to strongly restrict sexual themes. The proposal failed to receive any support, but with a well-structured argument, strong provisions and outcomes, and proper defenses to counter-arguments, the proposal could've nearly pushed the 51% threshold. Granted, it wouldn't have passed in my opinion, but something like that could be picked up and end up doing some major damage. There's plenty of other examples too. A policy provision such as this would apply protection.