Back to Community

Combine HC and Harassment

Golbolco
about 8 years

Greetings Sandbox Moderation Team,

DISCLAIMER: This suggestion mostly only applies to the chatbox as it appears games are moderated differently.

Despite a censor bypass in place on the lobby wall and forums and a harassment rule, I've always thought that the Hateful Comments rule, while sort of superfluous, was still a necessary evil. I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that back in the day, you could get banned, punished or otherwise vio'd for saying every slur under the sun.

However, ever since SandExit we've seen a pretty steady relaxation in the enforcement of the rules. As far as I can tell, as long as you don't direct your words at anybody, you're allowed to say most any slur except for the F-slur and the N-word (except with an A at the end) and the word "autistic" as a pejorative.

So with the way the HC rule has been neutered in mind, why not combine it whole-cloth with the harassment rule? The text of the Harassment rule more-or-less covers the way the HC rule has been changed to match:

"Repeated and/or severe personal attacks toward or slandering another user who is offended by the things being stated or implied."

Instead of being sort-of superfluous like in Main Lobby or Survivor, the HC rule is completely superfluous and redundant in Sandbox. While it's not essential, merging the rules is pretty sensible at this rate.

Golbolco
about 8 years

aquarius says

idk maybe i'm just dumb


You are, but that's unrelated to the thread's topic.

@Bebop Alright, I think I'm starting to see the subtle differences between HC and Harassment. I'm still not fully convinced there's a big enough difference between the two to warrant two rules, but I'm getting a sense for the development and logic of it.

I'll probably make another thread sometime in the future (not anytime soon though) addressing the HC rule itself and the pieces to it. For now, thanks.
bdog1321
about 8 years
Filthy mudbloods...
Bebop
about 8 years

aquarius says

that's why the 8 violation ban rule even exists (or at least used to does it still?)


Yeah, it still exists.
Bebop
about 8 years

bdog1321 says

Can I get vios for saying avada kedavra to people


Yes.
aquarius
about 8 years

Golbolco says


aquarius says

so you basically want to lessen punishment for people who commit both harassment and HC so they don't receive double violations

how is that beneficial to anyone but the offender


I actually don't want to lessen the punishment at all, my proposal was entirely for streamlining the rules, not the punishment. I would still like the harassment vio's rules (the violation lasts six months) to be applied to the rule.


idk maybe i'm just dumb but i can't seem to wrap my head around the purpose of your thread lol
bdog1321
about 8 years
Can I get vios for saying avada kedavra to people
aquarius
about 8 years

Bebop says


aquarius says

so you basically want to lessen punishment for people who commit both harassment and HC so they don't receive double violations

how is that beneficial to anyone but the offender


You can't receive more that 1 Community Violation and 1 Game Violation for a particular instance anyway, so that's not particularly relevant, you'd usually give the harsher violation of those applicable but not always. Combining them could lead to people getting unnecessarily harsh or unnecessarily lenient punishments though.


yeah i knew that but there are plenty of people who rack up multiple different violations on different instances that are days apart, that's why the 8 violation ban rule even exists (or at least used to does it still?)
Golbolco
about 8 years

aquarius says

so you basically want to lessen punishment for people who commit both harassment and HC so they don't receive double violations

how is that beneficial to anyone but the offender


I actually don't want to lessen the punishment at all, my proposal was entirely for streamlining the rules, not the punishment. I would still like the harassment vio's rules (the violation lasts six months) to be applied to the rule.
Bebop
about 8 years

Ayd says


Bebop says

You can still get HC without harassing someone and get a violation. For example, spamming the chat with "N*ggers should all be hung" is HC, but not harassment.


what if you just say n*ggers or n*gger. what does that mean


As with most HC, it depends on the context in which it was said.
Bebop
about 8 years

aquarius says

so you basically want to lessen punishment for people who commit both harassment and HC so they don't receive double violations

how is that beneficial to anyone but the offender


You can't receive more that 1 Community Violation and 1 Game Violation for a particular instance anyway, so that's not particularly relevant, you'd usually give the harsher violation of those applicable but not always. Combining them could lead to people getting unnecessarily harsh or unnecessarily lenient punishments though.
deletedabout 8 years

Bebop says

You can still get HC without harassing someone and get a violation. For example, spamming the chat with "N*ggers should all be hung" is HC, but not harassment.


what if you just say n*ggers or n*gger. what does that mean
aquarius
about 8 years
so you basically want to lessen punishment for people who commit both harassment and HC so they don't receive double violations

how is that beneficial to anyone but the offender
Bebop
about 8 years
You can still get HC without harassing someone and get a violation. For example, spamming the chat with "N*ggers should all be hanged" is HC, but not harassment.
Golbolco
about 8 years

aquarius says

that doesn't allow for the fact that you can utter hateful comments without harassing someone, and you can harass someone without using hateful comments


I think you missed the joke, pal.

You can utter hateful comments without harassing someone and you won't get violations anymore. Likewise, with harassment you can harass people a thousand different ways, adding slurs to that list is a rather moot change.
aquarius
about 8 years
that doesn't allow for the fact that you can utter hateful comments without harassing someone, and you can harass someone without using hateful comments
Golbolco
about 8 years

aquarius says

i don't understand how these two rules are even remotely comparable enough to combine into one rule, how would you word that rule?


I would word it like this:

Hateful Comments and Harassment - Repeated and/or severe personal attacks toward or slandering another user who is offended by the things being stated or implied. Note that a third party may submit the evidence if the harassed is unable, as long as the harassed has previously stated that they were offended/the third party provides evidence that the harassed was offended.
aquarius
about 8 years
i don't understand how these two rules are even remotely comparable enough to combine into one rule, how would you word that rule?
Bebop
about 8 years
:(
bdog1321
about 8 years

Bebop says

Whilst I can understand where you're coming from in regards to this, HC is still very much a separate rule to harassment. Hateful comments is a much less serious violation (taking three months to expire as opposed to harassment's six) and I feel that they're more suited to be apart. You can slur at someone warranting the HC violation but not being so excessive and personally attacking to warrant the harassment violation. Likewise, you can harass someone without having to resort to using offensive slurs towards them. I personally believe that the rules should stay separate.


You're a muggle.
Bebop
about 8 years
Whilst I can understand where you're coming from in regards to this, HC is still very much a separate rule to harassment. Hateful comments is a less serious violation (taking three months to expire as opposed to harassment's six) and I feel that they're more suited to be apart. You can slur at someone warranting the HC violation but not being so excessive and personally attacking to warrant the harassment violation. Likewise, you can harass someone without having to resort to using offensive slurs towards them. I personally believe that the rules should stay separate.