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
Youve heard of the 3 yr law..were u can fk anybody if they are 3yrs or less younger than u?
about 6 years

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
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

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


didn't ask
about 6 years
It's a shame that we're conflating using "colorful" words to describe things with the actual/intentional use of slurs racism.

I was thinking that this was made in good faith, but if we're using it to serve up violations to people purely based on language over intent then you need to remove the people in favor of this before we end up in the exact same situation we were in 3 years ago when this very thing happened.
about 6 years
Giga pointed out there are multiple types of violation for a single offence. I like the merging idea.
about 6 years
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.
about 6 years
about 6 years
oh new page i gotta say another suicide bait post at blister in case he misses last page

take the tide pod challenge dude
about 6 years
F#CK a fake friend

never give up and if you give up F#CK you
about 6 years
You have to remember that not everyone on this website knows its odd history though

Moldyches isn't a pedophile sympathizer. He's obviously trying to be a good guy settling down a clearly hostile environment

Actually this is evidence for what I just said above about this being counterproductive in the first place
about 6 years
moldyches out here fightin for pedophile rights god bless
deletedabout 6 years
Holy sht Flygon like mod team is revising HC and ur blatantly performing a good example of HC. I supported slorp against hellom8 bc that guy said VERY...bad.... things to slorp. This guy did nothin to you, and yet here you are. All by yourself. still trying to get blister on this forum page to start something. which in the end does nothing for anybody
about 6 years
i'm not exaggerating when i say a very large portion of the community passively feels the exact way i do and no one is willing to put themselves out on a limb to say it. fu ck a fake friend i'll do it
about 6 years
Yes Dad
about 6 years
rutab knows my snake ways
about 6 years
I think Hibiki was pointing out that Flygon said "would be fine with killing yourself" as opposed to my interpretation "wanting someone to kill themselves" which is actually slightly different but almost the same thing
about 6 years
also i hate to drag charley into this but i know you were constantly complaining about me posting and reminding the site that you're a pedophile to her and wanted to report me for harassment, so here's your free vio. you're a pedophile, you are a hideous human being, i hope you choke to death asap.
deletedabout 6 years

Flygon says

i speak for the entire mod team and admins when i say that everyone wanted you banned and would be fine with you killing yourself


Are you fr Hibiki? Can you not read? Thats exactly what he said and go ahead and side with whom you please. I aint gonna let people be harassed without justice bein served
about 6 years
I understand your frustration and anger but I also think you're being counterproductive by publicizing such vile thoughts

Good guys are supposed to be good guys
about 6 years
i hate to sound like a virtue signalling sjw but pedophiles like blister and carmen don't deserve to feel safe on this site and i'm fine with getting an imaginary rule infraction for that
about 6 years
look honestly this thread is wasted energy but damn blister got smoked
about 6 years

MisterPresident says

I think that's extremely radical and unfair to claim that an entire team associated with the administration of a profitable website wants anyone to kill themselves


no it's just flat out the truth
about 6 years

MisterPresident says

I think that's extremely radical and unfair to claim that an entire team associated with the administration of a profitable website wants anyone to kill themselves


he said something very close to but not quite that actually
about 6 years

Moldyches says


Flygon says


Blister says

i'm wondering why it is the mods decided the site NEEDS stricter HC moderation... did someone kick up a big stink?


dude go back to masturbating at playgrounds


Um, yeah thats a very good example of INTENDED HC, as we all know that we don't say that to ppl unless we are INTENTIONALLY trying to start problems (fr someone report that guy)


wtf lol
about 6 years
I think that's extremely radical and unfair to claim that an entire team associated with the administration of a profitable website wants anyone to kill themselves