deletedover 13 years
Also, Germ, I would like to know whether or not your official stance is to take no action so that I can know how I should proceed with this.
deletedover 13 years
NiceGirl, I think you have a biased perspective on this due to your personal and clearly strongly held beliefs about sexuality. You even made another forum to try and ask if it is derogatory but from what I saw people thought it was. There was malicious intent. He was clearly trying to annoy me to say the least. You also mention insults and punishment. If you read my original post I am advocating for rules against all of that kind of behavior too. Should they be out right banned like you suggest I am suggesting? No. Should it be discouraged? I think so.
Like I said, using a derogatory term isn't in and of itself hate speech. Continous ethnocentrism and bashing of another persons race, culture, gender, or sexual orientation - that's hate speech. There has to be actual malicious intent on the BASIS of that person's RCGSO. There wasn't in your case Leo - you said yourself, you're not gay. I don't get the impression he thought you were gay. It doesn't sound like it was based on your sexual orientation at all. It sounds like he just threw it out as an insult. And if insults in and of themselves were against the rules, then 99% of this site would be banned.
deletedover 13 years
It has everything to do with you. You have the power to do something against someone who broke the rules or at least what everyone can agree ought to be a rule. All hate speech whether about race, gender or sexual orientation should be discouraged.
I know, but I clarified the proper erm.
deletedover 13 years
I. said. that. in. my. post.
deletedover 13 years
So it has to happen multiple times to count? The rule states: "Racism, should be avoided at all times, any racism that is deemed over the top or unnecessary can lead to a warning or ban." While it is not race it is the same type of thing only with sexuality as the focus. It fits under the rules because it was unnecessary. Not punishing him is negligence in your duties to enforce rules.
deletedover 13 years
leo, Im not going to suspend anyone for harassment unless the person is following you into games and spamming you with hate speech
deletedover 13 years
"made decisions on everything"
lol!
deletedover 13 years
So you represent the entire minority? And how do you know if I am or am not apart of the sub group? And further more what does that matter? It was insulting, said with malice and should be discouraged.
So what? That's a basic foundation for a fair, judicial society.
Rules are unncecesary because once they have made decisions on everything, all they have to do is go off of precedent
The official stance is that it was not worth punishment, as abuse rarely is online
deletedover 13 years
Is that your official stance on the matter? That is not worth punishment? Or it wasn't said with malicious intent?
deletedover 13 years
we dont punish for racism except in extreme cases
deletedover 13 years
We can make a new thread but let it be broad enough to encompass all these different aspects (and more if necessary) and let it be stickyed and definitive. I hoped this would be it but maybe it's not.
deletedover 13 years
Regarding the rules, I believe there should be a mega thread with do's and dont's for every rule, and these can just be linked to next to their respective general rule in the rules section. Of course, everyone should be able to have their say on what they think and they dont think should be allowed and these threads would be in constant improvement.
deletedover 13 years
It really is or at least can be interpreted that way. I am not homosexual and he did not say it playfully, the intent was to insult. That means a lot. It is on board the no racism rule except it is talking about sexual orientation. And if it is not currently considered against he rules, I support it being added.
deletedover 13 years
"Leo there are several good reasons why Lucid does not have to listen to you, most of which originate in the fact that he owns this site and it will continue to have players even if they do not get a voice. To demand a voice is both arrogant and highly insulting to players who have been here longer and are doing more to help the game then you are with this thread."
Appeal to authority and seniority. Enough said.
I thought people could only talk if it was LOCKED and stickied. People still talk in some of the stickied threads.
deletedover 13 years
Why wont people not be able to talk if the topic isnt stickied?
Germ I think that is something that deserves to be stickied regardless. If it's not stickied, and if there are many of them, then not everyone is going to have a say and obviously this is a controversial topic. I feel everyone should have some kind of say.
Leo there are several good reasons why Lucid does not have to listen to you, most of which originate in the fact that he owns this site and it will continue to have players even if they do not get a voice. To demand a voice is both arrogant and highly insulting to players who have been here longer and are doing more to help the game then you are with this thread.
Nice that is not the only thread dealing with new rules, there have been several including a thread posted by Germ called New Rules
deletedover 13 years
"I would like to see an OFFICIAL, STICKIED thread for this. So everyone can have a say. Personally I'd like to see it follow parliamentary procedure, but that's just because I'm a dork"
Im not stickying any threads due to the current bug where mods cant remove stickies and I dont want it cluttered up. However, I dont understand why not having a thread stickied will stop people from having a say.
Also, if you want to have a meaningful discussion on how mods should/shouldnt work, I suggest either of these following threads.
http://www.epicmafia.com/topic/16480http://www.epicmafia.com/topic/16894because they actually propose solutions instead of just ranting