Back to Epicmafia

Revising The Hateful Comments Rule

over 6 years

I really like what I'm seeing with lucid (admin) being more active again. He brings with him the opportunity to make changes, as he owns the website and does all the coding. But before making big changes to the website and to rules, it's important to discuss the changes properly. Now I'm in no way implying that this doesn't get done or hasn't been done recently, but there are just a couple of things which I feel might have been overlooked amongst the changes. I feel like the ideas and progression have the right mindset, but that they've been just a little misplaced/misguided.

I'm talking about the new 'Racial Slurs' rule. The idea behind its creation, I'll infer, is to punish racial slurs heavily. There's no problem with that idea at all, it's great. But consider for a moment the 'Hateful Comments' rule:

Hateful Comments

Any form of severe or excessive hate speech or hateful language based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, mental capabilities, and other personal circumstances.

Expires in 3 months

1. Warning
2. 12 Hour Suspension and 24 Hour Forum Suspension
3. 24 Hour Suspension and Forum, Comment, and Chat Ban
4. Site Ban

This rule seems to already encompass the idea of the 'Racial Slurs' rule. It says "based on race" among other things in the rule already.

Creating a new rule dedicated solely to racial slurs raises the question: "Why not create a separate rule for homophobic slurs? And one for religious hate? And for mental capabilities?" These questions are completely valid on the premise that only one form of hateful language, that being towards race, just had a separate rule created for it.

Now let's have a look at the new 'Racial Slurs' rule:

Racial Slurs

Malicious use of slurs against players that are based on race and/or ethnicity. We will show absolutely no tolerance towards racist and xenophobic ideals.

Expires in 6 months

1. Warning
2. Site Ban

It's clear that the idea behind the violation structure is to have low tolerance for these type of slurs. I completely agree with the notion that slurs need to have low tolerance. However, this idea being limited to racial slurs alone makes it seem as though the potential behind this good idea of low tolerance is being placed improperly. I feel like this idea would be better applied simply to the 'Hateful Comments' rule itself, which would help to mitigate all types of hateful comments and language, not just racial slurs. This would include having a 6 month violation expiry for all hateful comments and in the 'Hateful Comments' rule, not just for racial slurs and in the 'Racial Slurs' rule.

I argue that instead of creating a new rule dedicated solely to racial slurs, simply modify the 'Hateful Comments' rule into something such as:

Hateful Comments

Any form of hate speech or hateful language based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, ableism, mental capabilities, as well as other personal circumstances.

Expires in 6 months

1. 24 Hour Suspension
2. 24 Hour Huspension AND Forum, Comment, and Chat Ban
3. Site Ban

OR

1. Warning OR 24 Hour Suspension AND Forum, Comment, and Chat Ban
2. Site Ban.

Whichever the moderator staff & lucid wish to implement.

In this way, the idea of having very low tolerance on all types of slurs is better justified. Note also that "severe or excessive" is removed, and "ableism" is added in. I admit that I am not the greatest writer, so if there are ideas in regards to this I think I speak for everybody when I say that we would be more than happy to entertain them. Also the second violation structure option may seem harsh, but at the same time, we do not want people who are going to break this rule more than twice on this website at all. The moderator staff can implement whichever of the two violation structures they see fit in accordance with lucid and his ideas for the website; but the idea here remains the same regardless of whichever violation structure is ultimately chosen.

The other option is to have 'Racial Slurs' violations count towards your number of 'Hateful Comments' violations. For example, Player1 has 1 'Racial Slurs' violation, and 1 'Hateful Comments' violation. A 2nd 'Hateful Comments' violation would lead to a site ban, because they already have 1 'Racial Slurs' violation which counts towards that total as well (or they would already be banned if the second violation structure in the revised 'Hateful Comments' rule was implemented). If this were not to be implemented, it would be possible for a user to have 2 'Hateful Comments' violations, 1 'Racial Slurs' violation, and still be unbanned. This doesn't seem to make sense, since 3 'Hateful Comments' violations would lead to a Site Ban... This is how we should structure these rules, as right now, we have a 1 violation maximum for 'Racial Slurs' before a ban, and a 3 violation maximum for 'Hateful Comments' before a ban. Racial slurs are hateful comments, so this simply doesn't make any sense.

The problem with this however is that it still doesn't implement an equal violation counter type of structure in regards to other types of hateful language or comments involving sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, mental capabilities, and other personal circumstances. For example, using hateful language/comments or a slur towards any of the domains I just mentioned would still currently be a 2 violation maximum before a ban, while using hateful language/comments or a slur towards race is at a 1 violation maximum. Hateful language/comments towards all of the domains in the 'Hateful Comments' rule should be equal, and they should all count towards each others' maximum (i.e. So you don't have a user with 1 'Racial Slurs' violation, 1 'Sexist Slurs' violation, 1 'Ableist Slurs' violation, etc., if each domain hypothetically had a separate rule). But the idea of having a separate rule for all of these different domains seems a bit silly, when we could have one rule that incorporates them all with the same low-tolerance that they all would and should have if they were separate. And guess what? We already do, and it's the 'Hateful Comments' rule. It seems easier to just implement the 2nd violation structure for the revised 'Hateful Comments' rule above rather than deal with all of this and rather than creating a new rule ('Racial Slurs'), especially when the idea here is the same and is shared by (or should be shared by) everybody: There must be a lower tolerance towards all hateful comments and language.

P.S. The "No" option in the poll should say "No, I am not for this." instead of "No, I do not like this.". I'd want the Yes and No options to have equivalent wording if I could edit the options over.

tl;dr: There is no need for the 'Racial Slurs' rule. Revising the 'Hateful Comments' rule & its violation structure is better implementation for mods/lucid wanting to lower tolerance on hateful comments in general.

I'd like to know what you think. Please say why you voted what you voted in a post, thank you.
23
Yes, I am for this.
16
No, I do not like this.
5
Other
over 6 years

admin says

Ok I really like what blizzard did. Can we come up with a list of silly sentences, and also a list of words to censor?


just replace every single slur with www.instagram.com/josemorenofs

gg
over 6 years
Is this a Java site??? I thought this ran on Node.
over 6 years
Ok I really like what blizzard did. Can we come up with a list of silly sentences, and also a list of words to censor?
over 6 years
who would have guessed that the machines began on a java mafia site in the early 21st century
over 6 years
I lowkey want to see this happen.
over 6 years
I mean machine learning and AI kind of go together don't ya think lol
over 6 years
I assume he would collect a list of words from the squeakiest wheels, and implement a speech code based on that.

Building a list from vio's and offenses given would probably require machine learning Xd.
over 6 years
Because then that would be cool. Otherwise... whatcha need AI for
over 6 years
I have questions as to how the data for the AI is going to be collected. Will it just start with a DB of words that Lucid and co decide are offensive and somehow it will build the list depending on reports / offenses / vios given or what
deletedover 6 years
Y’all will do anything to have racism more readily accessible lol
over 6 years
Unless Lucid literally just wants to build AI so that way he said he can do it then by all means.
over 6 years
I hear AI and I immediately side eye.
over 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

how the fúck are you seeing racial slurs as the line between PG and "teen friendly"


Well the admin was talking about a AI speech censoring bot, which would presumably use a banned words list.

Which would include racial slurs, but I assume it wouldn't stop there and extend to all other "offensive" language.

So since it would be a broad system, my comment was meant to respond to that.
over 6 years

view says

isn't there already a speech filter option ingame ?


That's for filtering people, not words.
over 6 years
isn't there already a speech filter option ingame ?
over 6 years
Have slurs (E.g. n****r and f****t) be censored throughout the game without the ability to turn on seeing them. I would argue that if you use the word at all that your entire chat line shouldn't go through, maybe a pop up warning saying not to use such words.

This way, people who do try to say them will know it's not okay to use them. Using methods to get around it (such as putting a space or replacing a character) results in the slur vio.

Have other words (such as f*ck/c*nt/etc) be an optional filter that can be turned on/off in the settings. Have it on by default to promote the site as being more friendly to others. If the filter is on just replace the words with something like a random fruit.

This is the method I see most common in games, and seems to work out the best.
over 6 years
how the fúck are you seeing racial slurs as the line between PG and "teen friendly"
over 6 years
I guess the main question you need to answer is who is this site targeting?

Are you trying to make a kid friendly site and keep it PG rated.

Or is it more teen/grow-up where people can self moderate. Making it T rated.

I mean both are fine, the direction just needs to be clear.

Policies and reasons behind them.

But I think speech codes in general are bad, and clumsy way to deal with things. Intent and context should be the primary questions being asked.
over 6 years

admin says

an alternative is i can build an AI system that can determine the offensiveness of your speech and give each person a civility score


yeah this isn't weird at all

just use your owner powers to say "hey, using racial slurs is an instant ban. end of story"

This topic shouldn't even be here, and everyone will have to learn one day that they can't just use these words. Might as well be on the java mafia site and not in a workplace.
deletedover 6 years
can we not turn into town of salem and be like what the tarnation
over 6 years
Do you guys actually know anyone who's offended by swears? I think I don't. Some people maybe dislike them, but does anyone actually get offended? Cussing _somebody_ may be offensive, though, but that's a different thing, and could be penalized as hatred if excessive.
over 6 years
can i still say aids
deletedover 6 years
agree with both of giga and schutzekatze, i didn't mean to say that we should censor everything, i was just giving an example.
over 6 years
I think censoring/penalizing swears is a bad thing, there's nothing inherently bad about them, and they honestly feel good. However, I am for censoring genuinely offensive speech, e.g. racial, mental, etc.
over 6 years
It's best if it is customizable because if people are not offended by the words in question then there isn't much of a reason to censor them. If people are younger and are offended by swear words then they should be able to censor them. However it doesn't make much of a difference, because the person will still know that the word was used unless You use the blizzard tactic.