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
If you think a single person here gives a flying fùck about your shîtty history lesson you just tried to give in order to justify ableist slurring then you’re wrong
about 6 years
There if u want literal meaning. It meant too slow, and have nothing to do with disabled people in the first place
about 6 years
late 15th century: from French retarder, from Latin retardare, from re- ‘back’ + tardus ‘slow.’
about 6 years
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
about 6 years
PSA: Don't use slurs : )
about 6 years

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-
deletedabout 6 years
what do you mean? i'm not outside the disabled community...i am in the disabled community lol

a majority of us don't use the r word and you probably shouldn't either is what i'm saying

say stupid when you mean stupid, there are so many other words
about 6 years
What if black people use n word to their community while he and his point not to offense?

Why the f outside community decide what is slur and what isnt?
deletedabout 6 years

4rtistic says

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

Please bring this sjw out from EM


because it's still a slur. dont use it lol.
about 6 years
Why the '' is a slur when we meant it is " stupid" and not "mentally disabled" .

Please bring this sjw out from EM
about 6 years
ok in my reread I think maybe the fûcking animated teenagers might have been another thread but same idea going on here prolly
about 6 years
when people started saying they think it’s ok to want to fûck “mature” 14 year olds
deletedabout 6 years
when did this turn into a peadophilia thread help
about 6 years

Carmen says


Volta says

Blister be the kind of person to masturbate to little kids but it's ok because in the anime they are 40000 years old.


So you agree the age that's being presented, not canonical age, matters?

I'm going to get into azula stuff again then lol. She's 14 but is tall, dominant, has the body of a grown woman. Not to mention unnatural levels of intelligence, and lightning fast reflexes. She's smarter than any adult on the show, acts and talks like an adult. I prefer people older than me, but Azula was my #1 crush in childhood and I maintain it


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like Carmen is mocking Volta for making a sarcastic point about actual age vs appeared age.

"So you think it's OK for blister to do this because they appear a certain age"

"well if you do then i'm going to start crushing on this teenage girl, see how that's weird?"

idk, maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Carmen took sarcasm literally and made a stupid analogy.

That loli crap at the end is ridiculous though, god knows what she was thinking there.

More frightening than Carmen not understanding sarcasm is 30 people thinking that all paedophiles should be killed lmao
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says


view says


view says

while it's relevant https://epicmafia.com/topic/90307?page=1


page 9 ladies & bottoms


are we looking at the bit where Blister points out that paedophilia is an illness or where Carmen clumsily refers to it as being similar to a kink

The only question I have is does Carmen think that kinks are innate rather than chosen or learned


specifically the part where carmen pulls the maturity card on a 14yo character but everything in there is a hot load of Evidence
deletedabout 6 years
I can confirm that I use proxy to play EM because I am indeed a banned account.
about 6 years

Edark says


What epicmafia needs and has needed for ages is that lucid dont allow people to play from proxies(as many other sites do), then all of these issues would go away.



yeah that kind of sucks because around half of the players that use proxies aren't banned users
about 6 years
Very reasonable and good take.


shayneismyname says

... using the phrase "0 tolerance" this seems much too pat. When a rule it broken, the people who dole out the punishment are the people who have to decide how severe the breaking of the rule was, and what the punishment should be. "0 Tolerance" policies are unfair and outdated. In schools that enact a "no tolerance policy on violence," a kid who is beat up by another kid is suspended if he hits him back. So, at the very least, I think you saying you guys saying you are going about these rules with a "no tolerance policy" is sloppy wording. Each instance is different and there is no one-size-fits-all to any rule.

about 6 years
video game website forum clumsily tries to navigate the nuances of offensiveness and pedophilia thread #1039
about 6 years
this is wild
about 6 years
TL:DR The last thing anyone should want is to ban a user, as the users account is the only "carrot" you have to make the user actually obey the rules. When you ban someone, you remove any incentive for the user to follow any rules(as we've seen in the past).
about 6 years

Edark says

On a side note, people need to think about whether or not a non tolerance policy means that anyone, regardless of their OWN race/gender etc also isnt allow to use said slur and if they themself also will get banned then?


I think this is the biggest issue that comes up tbh
about 6 years
Consdering the demographic of this site, I dont think having a policy that immediatly tries to ban someone a positive thing. If people try and write slurs they will get banned eventually, and they have been aswell. I dont even see slurs currently being a problem in the first place nowadays.

The only problem here is that bans really dont matter and never has since the creation of this site, which has caused moderation efforts to be quite difficult. People simply bypass and that causes a lot of issues in itself, due to the fact that being on a banevading account simply makes them being more "motivated" to break more rules(like randomly gamethrowing/trolling) as they realize there isnt really a punishment against it(their main will still get unbanned soon anyways!)

What epicmafia needs and has needed for ages is that lucid dont allow people to play from proxies(as many other sites do), then all of these issues would go away.

On a side note, people need to think about whether or not a non tolerance policy means that anyone, regardless of their OWN race/gender etc also isnt allow to use said slur and if they themself also will get banned then?
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says


view says


view says

while it's relevant https://epicmafia.com/topic/90307?page=1


page 9 ladies & bottoms


are we looking at the bit where Blister points out that paedophilia is an illness or where Carmen clumsily refers to it as being similar to a kink

The only question I have is does Carmen think that kinks are innate rather than chosen or learned


it's similar to a kink in brain function, as I said earlier in this thread, but it's far different than that in danger to society, and I guess I didn't restate this given enough in the other thread

kinks are innate, no one chooses to have weird fetishes lol
about 6 years

view says


view says

while it's relevant https://epicmafia.com/topic/90307?page=1


page 9 ladies & bottoms


are we looking at the bit where Blister points out that paedophilia is an illness or where Carmen clumsily refers to it as being similar to a kink

The only question I have is does Carmen think that kinks are innate rather than chosen or learned