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

Flygon says

let's hope the state never finds a reason to get a warrant for going through your computer files because lord knows the childporn they'd find on your comp would put you away for decades lmao


I would welcome that lol, they'd find tons of weird femdom stuff, but no kids. Why do you think I'd be into children, that's a disgusting accusation and a terrible mental condition.
about 6 years
xD xD xD

And you keep on going too xD

Hahaha , oh ur so funny.
about 6 years
let's hope the state never finds a reason to get a warrant for going through your computer files because lord knows the childporn they'd find on your comp would put you away for decades lmao
about 6 years
I've fought for these ideals for years. No one deserves hatred for things they didn't do, and you can't be a pro-natalist then get upset upon learning that the human brain is vile and disgusting, and sometimes it's even worse because of brain defects.
about 6 years
Not going to even grace you with a comeback. its too obvious. try to be more subtle when trolling.
about 6 years

xxerox says

Carmen, ace trolling.


???
about 6 years

Flygon says

like it's been 8 years haven't you guys learned to trust me when i have enough animosity to tell someone to kill themselves that it's actually 100% warranted


you have zero credibility lol, so no

you labeled me as a pedo for speaking out for mental health rights
about 6 years
Carmen, ace trolling.
about 6 years

Carmen says


Flygon says

it's really shocking to me that people like carmen and blister are able to claim to be pedophiles and expect to be treated with anything other than scorn and revulsion. very inch resting i think.


when the HELL did this happen

I'm literally labelled as a pedophile by people like you and slorp because I don't believe in the witch hunt toward everyone born with the disease. I support finding a cure for the disease, and no it's not "a bullet". You can't treat people like criminals for being born a certain way then act morally justified when that predictably causes them to become criminals. All child predators have the pedo disease, yes, but not everyone with the disease is a child predator. Maybe stop having kids if you're so worried about this birth defect.


about 6 years

Flygon says

like it's been 8 years haven't you guys learned to trust me when i have enough animosity to tell someone to kill themselves that it's actually 100% warranted


big yikes
about 6 years
Flygon, you should be permabanned from the site.
about 6 years

Flygon says

it's really shocking to me that people like carmen and blister are able to claim to be pedophiles and expect to be treated with anything other than scorn and revulsion. very inch resting i think.


when the HELL did this happen

I'm literally labelled as a pedophile by people like you and slorp because I don't believe in the witch hunt toward everyone born with the disease. I support finding a cure for the disease, and no it's not "a bullet". You can't treat people like criminals for being born a certain way then act morally justified when that predictably causes them to become criminals. All child predators have the pedo disease, yes, but not everyone with the disease is a child predator. Maybe stop having kids if you're so worried about this birth defect.
about 6 years
like it's been 8 years haven't you guys learned to trust me when i have enough animosity to tell someone to kill themselves that it's actually 100% warranted
about 6 years
do i gotta find the "age is but a number" screencap
about 6 years
glad we're really getting into a pissing contest about what pedophilia is when blister has loudly and proudly claimed to be a pedophile. please, continue
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says


Songin says

If a 30 year old finds an 18 year old attractive is it pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

If a 30 year old finds a 17 year old attractive is it pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

What about the day BEFORE they turn 18? Is it still pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

People don't get what pedophilia actually is and are thinking 18 is some magical number that makes everything okay.


no they're not lol. what do you think paedophilia is


Same thing as you. My arguement was meant for those that would answer no/yes/no or no/yes/yes
about 6 years

Songin says

If a 30 year old finds an 18 year old attractive is it pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

If a 30 year old finds a 17 year old attractive is it pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

What about the day BEFORE they turn 18? Is it still pedophilia?


no.


Songin says

People don't get what pedophilia actually is and are thinking 18 is some magical number that makes everything okay.


no they're not lol. what do you think paedophilia is
about 6 years

Pinks says

How is dating a 17 year old as a 20 year old "pedophilia"... Wake up. It is not.


If a 30 year old finds an 18 year old attractive is it pedophilia?

If a 30 year old finds a 17 year old attractive is it pedophilia?

What about the day BEFORE they turn 18? Is it still pedophilia?

People don't get what pedophilia actually is and are thinking 18 is some magical number that makes everything okay.
deletedabout 6 years
good thread with good ideas
about 6 years

Pinks says

How is dating a 17 year old as a 20 year old "pedophilia"... Wake up. It is not.


what actually matters is your thoughts on the 20yo

by the way, to anyone reading this - blister might have been a complete twat to that girl for all i know, but he's still not a paedo.
about 6 years
People really misinterpret what pedophilia is.
about 6 years
How is dating a 17 year old as a 20 year old "pedophilia"... Wake up. It is not.
about 6 years
lol huh
deletedabout 6 years
On the topic of hate speech, you know who else doesn't deserve to feel safe on this website? Racists. Ableists. Homophobes. Anyone who uses slurs when they know it's a fcked up thing to do and contributes to the marginalization of a group of people.

It should not just be racists. You can't enforce a rule saying, "This slur is zero tolerance, but this other one you can have several warnings for." All of them carry the same weight and cause the same kind of hurt and discrimination.

Volta says

r*tard
verb
past tense: ; past participle: r*tarded
/rɪˈtɑːd/Submit
delay or hold back in terms of progress or development.

Explain why should I be punished for using this word


It should say somewhere in the definition that it is informal. It was used years ago, but since it was used in the literal genocide of thousands of people in the 40s, it's not a very good word to use anymore. It's pretty clear it's a slur. You wouldn't walk up to a disabled person and call them that. Because it's a slur. Disability should never be used negatively or as an insult. There's also a very big difference between calling someone a r*tard and using it without referring to a disability ie. to "r*tard something."

tl;dr, any hate comments regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, mental or physical ability, or religion should be punished all the same way. we don't need a new vio for that.
about 6 years

xxerox says


blacksnakemoan says

For the record, there were a few of us in the mod team before the changeup who did not think Blister was in the wrong for being into a 17yo girl as a 20yo.

Also, that's not paedophilia, and to call it that is an offence to actual victims of paedophilia.


my country allows relationships if you are 14 years old or older with an adult.

Its pretty much like that in europa and most of us are weirded out by the strict "21 years old for everything" policy in USA


Yeah it's 16 here, and while I wouldn't have dated a 17yo when I was 20, I also wouldn't have gone off on someone who did. There's some weird puritanical shít in American culture lmao


Flygon says


blacksnakemoan says

Also, that's not paedophilia, and to call it that is an offence to actual victims of paedophilia.


didn't ask


no, but you did say you spoke for the entire mod team and when this came up, a decent number of us disagreed with you because it's not paedophilia, it's not creepy, and it's been blown out of proportion.