UPDATE: Small wonder the survey reads like a farce; Administration was trolling the user base.

Buzzly.art staff is polling the user base on site policy.

If you've already voted, you know you can't change your answers or even revisit questions before completing the survey. Que sera, sera.

To those that haven't voted, I have prepared a guide to what is, by all accounts, a poorly-thought-out, poorly-worded attempt to offload basic administrative responsibility to the public. What follows is a transcript of the full survey, with my explanatory notes for each question in [brackets].

Community Moral Compass

Hi there bee! We're issuing out a side-wide poll to make changes to our site policies based on what the community as a whole thinks. This will help us to:

- Change our site policies to community driven ones

- Set up guidelines for site moderators to use and help with their work when addressing site reports

- Assess how the community feels regarding certain topics, we want to see where the community's moral compass aligns and what type of audience we're dealing with

NOTE: This poll contains questions with sensitive and sexual topics. Questions like these will be hidden from minors.

Results from the community will be shown to you once all available questions have been answered.

1. Majorities should dictate what is in the community’s best interest

• Agree
• Disagree

[PICK DISAGREE. Unchecked majoritarianism leads to mob rule, which is partly what necessitated this poll in the first place.]

2. The site minority stops being a minority when:

• vote count is more than 5%
• vote count is more than 10%
• vote count is more than 25%
• vote count is more than 33%
• vote count is more than 50%

[Frankly, this question is baffling. Does Staff not know basic maths? However, a more sinister interpretation is that, assuming an affirmative answer to Question 1, this is the minimum threshold at which a minority faction could be formally persecuted. Regardless, the closest accurate answer is more than 50%.]

3. If a minority of users feel unhappy in Buzzly for something that the majority of the community is enjoying:

• The minority should look for another site that aligns with their state of mind
• Buzzly should try to do something about it to prevent the minority of users from feeling unhappy even if it means affecting the joy of the majority

[This is the first instance where the poll misframes a question of administrative responsibility/legal prerogative as a conscience vote. As per Q.1, it is the basic duty of site staff to act in the interest of all members, and therefore should be seeking reasonable accommodation by default. Thus, vote Option 2.]

4. Giving a special positive treatment to the minority is:

• Fair
• Unfair

[Ultimately, this question is meaningless without additional context. What minority are we talking about? What does "special positive treatment" entail? Would we say it's fair to deny maternity leave if women are the minority in the company? Or perhaps in the case of Buzzly, should a section of the user base that suffers disproportionate harassment be warranted additional attention/protection by site moderation? Again, this one's too vague to be properly voted on, but for the record, I chose Fair.]

5. If a fact in a comment/submission hurts the sensibility of a user or a group of users:

• The Comment/Submission should be removed. Feelings are more important than Truth
• The Comment/Submission should be kept. Truth is more important than Feelings.

[Both answers are atrociously worded and will provoke slanted responses. That being said, from a legalistic perspective, it is not the job of Buzzly.art to tone-police. Content should be kept.]

6. Hard, crude facts should be written in the least aggressive possible way.

• Agree
• Disagree

[This is one of several questions that would be better served by a "Strongly Agree ↔ Strongly Disagree" spectrum of responses, rather than a hard binary. It is also poorly-worded: what does "aggressive" writing mean? Does sardonic presentation equate inflammatory language? Another one too vague to properly vote on, although I picked Disagree for reasons similar to Q.4.]

7. A fictional situation that was presented today with fictional characters, can hurt people in real life.

• Agree
• Disagree

[This one is a pure conscience vote so I cannot provide any guideline, however for this same reason I consider it inappropriate to include in a survey intended to advise formal site policy.]

8. Do you feel that having empathy for fictional characters in a fictional situation is needed?

• Agree
• Disagree

[Once again, a conscience vote that should have no bearing on policy. I will note, however, that it is unreasonable to expect empathy for fictitious entities, for reasons that should be self-evident. I voted Disagree.]

9. Fictional characters should show consent in sexually explicit drawings:

• No, due to it being a fictional character in a fictional situation
• Yes, all fictional characters should show consent in all sorts of submissions

[A conscience vote that provoked a flashpoint in January. As per Q.3, this is irrelevant to the site's legal prerogative. Vote No.]

10. Allowing sexual art for some species (Humanoids, Anthros, etc.) and disallowing others (Pokemon, mythical creatures, etc.) seems:

• Arbitrary
• Necessary

[This was the subject of the first major flashpoint. Understandably, the topic makes people squeamish (myself included); however, contrary to many a flame warrior's assertions, fictional depictions are not themselves violations of zoophilia laws in either the United States or Mexico (though they may fall into the grey zone of obscenity law). Once we've accepted the legal threshold, any moralistic argument over mature content boils down to personal preference—as happened February. Ergo, vote Arbitrary.]

11. A user draws a non humanoid character (Ferals/Quadrupedals as an example) in a sexual context and tags it properly as NSFW:

• That kind of content is inappropriate to the site no matter the context.
• It’s ok, anyone is free to draw and upload whatever they want as long as it is in the community’s best interest, and I can block stuff I don't want to see.

[Essentially Q.10 spelled out plain, albeit once again a poorly-worded conflation of site policy and user preference. Option 2 makes pronouncements on three separate issues, without defining two: 1) what is acceptable to upload; 2) what is the community's "best interest", and 3) users' discretionary responsibility. Regardless, if we accept the answer to Q.10 is Arbitrary, it follows that our appropriate response is Option 2.]

12. If a user does something that hurts themselves or another person after reading something posted on the site, the blame is for:

• The person that posted the original content.
• The person that read the content and decided to do something about it.

[This is a complex question that does not lend itself to easy answers even beyond the scope of the immediate poll. On the one hand, the legalistic, cause-and-effect reply is actus reus: the immediate responsibility lies with the individual. The moralistic, systems-thinking reply, however, recognizes culpability for incitement: consider how Ben Shapiro disavowed any influence on the 2017 Quebec City mosque shooter, despite being his #1 Twitter source.

Ultimately, however, this poll is intended to determine site policy, meaning we must respond to the question within the scope of legal culpability—and Buzzly.art cannot be prosecuted for failure to predict what a user might do. Vote Option 2.]

13. If a random user has a different opinion than me for a sensitive topic

• We still can be friends.
• We are never going to get along.

[Conscience vote irrelevant to policy, except as rough insight into user psychology.]

14. If a staff member writes something on the site or any social media that seems like an unpopular opinion:

• It’s fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and does not reflect what the community believes or stands for as a whole.
• It is NOT OK, the member should carefully think about what they wrote, because everything is and will be considered as the site’s opinion/ideology.

[Staff members of any organization are ambassadors of that organization in any and all public functions. When they speak, they are presumed to speak with the organization's authority by default—it's why newspapers run disclaimers that opinion editorials by both third parties and their own writing staff do not reflect the paper's official position. The fact this is even posed as up for debate underscores how poorly Buzzly.art Staff understands its own responsibilities. Vote It is NOT OK.]

15. User A writes something that offends User B, even though that was not User A’s intention:

• User A is responsible for the consequences and should remove the post.
• User B is responsible for their feelings and User A’s post should be kept.

[Similar to Q.13, this is somewhat more relevant to general policy as it is addressing moderation of interpersonal disputes, however as per Q.5 all interpretation is subjective and good faith should be presumed by default. User B is responsible.]

16. I find a post with content I don’t like or an ideology I don’t share:

• I ignore it and can keep scrolling, my state of mind won’t be affected.
• I need to filter this tag immediately so I can keep enjoying my experience and I understand if this functionality is still not fully implemented or doesn’t work as expected sometimes.
• I feel the urge to close my profile and leave the site for good, it does not matter if I can filter this content or not.

[Conscience vote as per Q.13.]

17. A user uses a symbol in a submission or talk about a person that is associated to a “non-grata” organization (e.g Swastika or the KKK)

• It's fine, as long as the user is NOT actively promoting to join/support their ideologies or talking positively about that particular organization.
• The mere use of the symbol or talk about the person is considered as promoting the organization and submissions with these symbols MUST be removed.

[This was a corollary to the February flashpoint that resulted in mass censure of 'thoughtcrime'. Equating any expression of controversial subjects with endorsement, irrespective of context, sets a precedent by which any unpopular subject can be arbitrarily silenced. Vote It's Fine.]

18. A user that talks bad (trash level) about other people, even across platforms (buzzly, twitter, discord):

• Should be ignored, is probably a toxic person.
• It should be taken seriously, both parties should talk in private to fix their situation.

[This question is conflating two separate issues: toxic users and intersite drama. On the one hand, Buzzly.art has an obligation to protect its members from genuine harassment; on the other, anyone who was in the IOT Discord knows the perils of jurisdictional overreach. Ultimately, Buzzly.art Staff is solely accountable for interactions on the Buzzly.art site and any subsidiary organizations managed by Staff. It is not Staff's job to police off-site disputes.]

19. If you consider Buzzly to have a ton of amazing perks and features, but there are minor details of the upload policy or terms of use that you don’t like:

• I can keep using the site, I understand no site aligns perfectly with my state of mind.
• I feel the urge to leave the site for good.

[Conscience vote as per Q.13.]

20. About the Terms of Service:

• I don’t read them, I just want a site to upload my art. I truly believe that nothing tragic can happen in the long run.
• I read some parts, some details are important to me.
• I read it carefully, I’m very strict about where I upload my art, if something does not align with my preferences I feel the urge to leave the site for good.

[Conscience vote as per Q.13. If you pick Option 1, kudos for being honest, but SHAME ON YOU.]

21. I report a submission I believe is not aligned with the community's best interest, but staff takes some time to attend the report.

• I understand that staff are volunteers and it may take some time to attend my report.
• I feel ignored.
• I feel the urge to leave the site for good.

[Conscience vote. Given general complaints about response times, I cannot advise as to moderation's priorities.]

22. There is a difference between lack of moderation and slow moderation.

• Agree
• Disagree

[This answer depends on whether you weigh the ends or the means more strongly. If a patient dies in the waiting room because medical staff took too long to admit them to emergency, were they killed by lack of care or slow care? Personally, the difference to the end result is semantic, so I voted Disagree.]

23. Which of the following is a reasonable window for volunteer staff to respond to a report?

• A couple of hours is all it should take to respond to a report.
• A couple of days is all it should take to respond to a report.
• A couple of weeks is all it should take to respond to a report.

[Due to ongoing events I must recuse myself from this topic.]

24. Buzzly is in Beta, when a feature doesn’t work or is being developed:

• I understand it is going to take some time to get it fixed/implemented, in the meanwhile I’m going to enjoy everything else.
• I want to leave the platform and come back later when everything is fixed/implemented.
• I feel the urge to leave the site for good.

[Conscience vote as per Q.13.]

25. Imagine we had a submission voting system, and a submission has a positive vote count, but someone else reports it because they believe the submission is not aligned with the community's best interest.

• The submission should be kept since the mere fact of a positive vote count means that community is accepting it.
• The staff should analyze it and take it down if it is not in compliance regardless of having a positive vote count.
• This is not a feature that I would want on site.

[This question conflates the proposition of a booru-style scoring system with its function, and as such, Option 3 confuses the vote. Setting aside "community's best interest" is not synonymous with terms of service, once again, this should not even be up for discussion: popularity should not trump site rules. Vote Option 2.]

26. Changing my mind about a topic once in a while is something:

• to be ashamed of
• to be proud of
• hard for me
• easy for me
• neutral without any particular feeling or difficulty associated to it

[Conscience vote as per Q.13.]

27. When I’m in a debate, and the other person brings an argument that is objectively better than mine:

• I feel personally attacked.
• I understand that my argument is the one being surpassed and I can change my opinion.

[You know it's Option 2, but kudos for being honest.]

28. When someone describes physical or cultural aspects from people of a particular race WITHOUT treating or recommending to treat that race differently to other people:

• Regardless of the statement being true, false or more complex than that; Is doing a mere generalization, classification or description.
• Is being racist.

[This may be the single-worst-worded question of the entire survey. After multiple re-reads I still don't know what it's supposed to be asking. Setting aside the dubious use of "race", Option 2 reads as bait, but Option 1 fails to address that stereotyping is also a valid response. It's not simply a question with no right answer—there's no correct answer, either.]

29. Racism is a problem way more delicate in some countries than others and some words can be significantly less or significantly more offensive in other parts of the world.

• Agree
• Disagree

[This question is also poorly-worded. Cultural context and interpretations thereof are separate from some quantifiable "delicacy" of racism as an issue at large. That being said, the correct answer is Agree.]

30. Should we tolerate intolerance?

• Yes
• No

[This is the Popper Paradox. The morally correct answer is No, however presenting this question without even basic contextual background is grossly disingenuous.]

31. Any online post in any social network by a random user should be taken seriously.

• Agree
• Disagree

[The scope of this question is so broad as to be meaningless: either you're going to scrutinize every single tweet ever posted or... what? I voted Disagree—being a Sith and dealing in absolutes has been shown to have a strong statistical correlation]

32. Getting offended is equal to getting hurt psychologically.

• Agree
• Disagree

[Technically a conscience vote—without a definition of terms, there is no basis for comparison, and thus the question is meaningless except as per Q.13.]

33. When I find out other users take the radical decision of closing their account for a difference of opinion with another user or staff member:

• I feel good that this kind of person leaves the platform.
• I feel sad.
• I feel indiferent.

[Conscience vote as per Q.13.]

34. It's easier and even more common to look aggressive in a text conversation than in a voice conversation.

• Agree
• Disagree

[It's not even a conscience vote—it's a fact.]

35. Words can trigger emotions on those who read them, who has more responsibility for those feelings?

• Regardless of the text, the person that wrote it
• Regardless of the text, the person that read it

[This question is functionally identical to Q.5 and should be voted on accordingly. Responsibility is the reader's.]

How did you feel with this poll?

• I am not happy with it
• Indifferent
• It's going to help to see where we stand as a community

[Beyond everything I've already stated, this survey's basic premise is worrisome. While community consultation is a valuable component of any decision-making process, several policies addressed in the poll should not be set solely by majoritarian vote, especially when most users probably do not have an educated understanding of law or administration. Despite its many methodological flaws, this survey may still provide some useful insight into the thought process of the current user base—but it should not be considered an adequate starting point for sweeping policy revision.]