MY REFERENDUM VOTING CRITERIA

Following the recent overhaul of referendums and the way the Senate operates, Mustard has given us the power to override the soyim. As a result, popular votes are no longer the sole factor in determining whether something pass. With that in mind, I'd like to formalize my personal criteria for voting on referendums. You're free to agree or disagree with them. Keep in mind that these are my standards alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the other senators. They are also subject to change or exception whenever necessary.

1. Referendums must be well-formatted

A referendum should follow the format outlined in the Soyjak Wiki article and comply with all existing referendum guidelines. I will not vote on low-effort, poorly formatted referendums.

2. Referendums must not be vague

Referendums must be specific and clearly describe what they intend to prohibit or change. For example, if you're proposing to ban X, you must define what X actually is so there's no ambiguity when it appears.
If you want to ban scat, define exactly what qualifies as scat. Don't be a retard and leave rules open to interpretation—that's exactly what ruined the old system and one of the main reasons it had to be reworked.
The referendum must include either a dedicated definitions section or an easily accessible explanation elsewhere. Otherwise, it's very unlikely to receive my support.

3. Referendums with votes should not be edited

Loopholes and typos happen, but that doesn't mean edits should be completely unrestricted. I will not vote on referendums that have been edited more than three hours after publication once they've already received public votes, except for edits that do not alter the referendum's core meaning, such as typo fixes or minor loophole corrections.

4. Pointless referendums don't deserve attention

Referendums that don't add or modify rules, don't change how the site operates, have no meaningful impact, or merely request something that could already be posted in the pinned /meta/ bugs and reports thread will not receive my support.

5. The author must explain why the referendum exists

Submitting a referendum without providing a valid justification not only falls under the previous point, it also makes you look stupid. At the very least, include a dedicated section explaining why the referendum exists and why it deserves my support—or that of the other senators.

6. Disproportionately punitive referendums will not pass

I will not support referendums that impose punishments disproportionate to the offense. Permanent bans are a nuclear solution and should only be used for proportionally severe problems.

7. Excessively rulecucked rules will not be approved

I will not support rules that reduce the site's fun or users' freedom unless they genuinely solve a problem, improve gallery quality, or prohibit disturbing content.

Other Relevant Positions

1. The Babyjak 'p issue

Babyjak has long since stopped being used to represent adult age regressors. Nowadays, any Babyjak 'p will be interpreted by site users as representing a child, even if it has adult body proportions.
That said, I still believe these depictions are harmful and unnecessarily divide the community. Therefore, I oppose inappropriate sexually explicit depictions of Babyjaks.
If you want to mock age regressors, don't put a BBC in their mouth. You monsters.

2. The Smuglet issue

Smuglet is a shitty variant pushed by the worst kind of people imaginable purely to bait nusois. And guess what? It worked.
That said, it is a traced edit based on Blue Archive artwork—a game heavily associated with faggots—and that's a relevant factor when dealing with inappropriate depictions of the variant.
The reality is that the variant itself is still too visually similar to the original character to completely ignore that connection.
Therefore, I oppose inappropriate depictions of the variant unless it has been modified enough to no longer be reasonably associated with the original character. However, I also oppose banning the variant from the gallery entirely.

3. Porn padding and pornography with pointless soyjaks added

I oppose any pornographic image where soyjaks are added without serving any meaningful purpose.
These are worthless pieces of garbage that pollute the gallery and make the site look like a Rule 34 splinter. They go completely against the spirit of party culture and make us look like idiots.
The only exception is when the soyjak genuinely mocks a specific archetype or individual, since that is an actual use of soyjaks.
Therefore, I support expanding the definition of porn padding to eliminate this kind of gallery pollution, as already explained in my first referendum.

4. The scat issue

I oppose any material depicting people interacting with human feces for the purpose of shocking the viewer.
Examples:

• A person cleaning up after their pet: irrelevant.
  
• A person playing with, eating, or smearing human or animal feces on themselves or objects: prohibited.
  

Additional issues will be addressed as I continue voting on future referendums.
Finally, I'd like to thank everyone who voted for me. Your vote will not be wasted.