Back to Epicmafia

Revising The Hateful Comments Rule

about 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
about 6 years
Here I thought people on this site couldn't get any worse and yet...
about 6 years
"Extremely offensive"

Lol. For sjw maybe.
about 6 years
"Extremely offensive"

Lol. For sjw maybe.
about 6 years
"Extremely offensive"

Lol. For sjw maybe.
about 6 years
WHY in a game that is heavily centered around using words am i expected to watch what words i say? SJWs stay losing....
about 6 years
how exactly is not being able to say extremely offensive slurs ruining your java mafia experience
about 6 years
wow god forbid the evil marxist sjws want people to act like decent individuals
about 6 years
No i care when social justice warrior ruining my gaming experience here and there.
about 6 years
If you're saying social justice warrior are genius, sure, you do you.
about 6 years
@4rtistic You actually don't even care what other people feel do you?
deletedabout 6 years
well that's a bit gross. stay ignorant though
about 6 years
Because it's banned? I would definitely use rtrdd word every time i can
about 6 years
Because it's banned? I would definitely use rtrdd word every time i can
about 6 years
Why do i have to check every single person's background in a f-ing internet games
deletedabout 6 years
well at least you didnt use the r word this time

improvement
about 6 years

PosterChild says


4rtistic says


It means "very stupid" but in a more hilarious, weird, and/or spontaneous way. From the Latin word for "slow".

If you want to tick off a politically correct person, just say it. They think it's mean because people with mental problems are not always stupid, except you can't call those people "" in the first place, and nobody cares anyway. Plus, once again, it's from the Latin word for "slow".
*Guy 1 is dancing very strangely.*
Guy 2 to Guy 3: Look at Guy 1 dancing like he's .

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=

Stop define thing literally and use ur brain to figure out what it meant


https://epicmafia.com/report/259018

So you're just gonna use the word to define me without knowing anything about me my background and my life and assume I take it as a "hilarious, weird, and/or spontaneous" way of calling me stupid?

Please wake up.


Yes based on ur ingame move i conclude ure hilariously stupid
about 6 years
Finally someone bring that. No I dont care about that vio bcs I dont care about vios. I'm more surprised in Rtrdd is included in new HC rules because it wasnt a slur at first place lmao.
deletedabout 6 years
he's just upset he's about to get a vio and trying to backpedal by arguing he meant it as "hilarious or spontaneous" lol
about 6 years

4rtistic says


It means "very stupid" but in a more hilarious, weird, and/or spontaneous way. From the Latin word for "slow".

If you want to tick off a politically correct person, just say it. They think it's mean because people with mental problems are not always stupid, except you can't call those people "" in the first place, and nobody cares anyway. Plus, once again, it's from the Latin word for "slow".
*Guy 1 is dancing very strangely.*
Guy 2 to Guy 3: Look at Guy 1 dancing like he's .

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=

Stop define thing literally and use ur brain to figure out what it meant


https://epicmafia.com/report/259018

So you're just gonna use the word to define me without knowing anything about me my background and my life and assume I take it as a "hilarious, weird, and/or spontaneous" way of calling me stupid?

Please wake up.
deletedabout 6 years
language evolves, and it doesn't mean "stupid" anymore. it has been used to describe disabled people for decades now. this isn't worth arguing about i shouldnt have to explain to someone why calling people r*tarded is wrong
about 6 years

Jeff says


4rtistic says

Why the '' is a slur when we meant it is " stupid" and not "mentally disabled" .

Please bring this sjw out from EM


you’re literally saying you use their mental condition as an insult to mean stupid and can’t figure out how that can be construed as offensive I-

about 6 years
There. U said it. Languange evolves. It didnt specify on disabled person, it more used on normal person to normal person meaning "you are too/very stupid". It is not a slur from the first place and shouldnt be.
deletedabout 6 years

4rtistic says

There if u want literal meaning. It meant too slow, and have nothing to do with disabled people in the first place


again, it has since been used to describe disabled people. it may not have started that way, but language evolved. in today's world there is a difference in saying "the work on my car has been r*tarded" (which no one says anymore) and "they are dancing like they're r*tarded." (which is the widely used version of the word, in which they mean stupid or someone with a mental disability)

i hope that makes sense
deletedabout 6 years

4rtistic says

late 15th century: from French retarder, from Latin retardare, from re- ‘back’ + tardus ‘slow.’


15th century. language evolves. you're literally saying something akin to: because the n word was used in the 15th century, it's okay to use now.

again, a big difference between saying something has been r*tarded (or slowed down), and referring to someone being r*tarded (when you really mean stupid or something negative, but refers to disabled people)

what you mean to say is stupid. so say stupid. you don't have to upset an entire group of marginalized people to get your point across. that language you are trying to fight for is informal and outdated. it was used in the murder, torture, and genocide of thousands of people. it's not okay to use anymore. times change, language changes.
about 6 years
That's what sjw would say when being majority anw