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

D3xTr0m3th0rph4n says

I dont like people getting unfairly vio'd for not understanding/misinterpreting a rule..or letting a word slip out and getting site banned with 0 malicious intent.


They can revise the rule if it becomes a problem. Sure there are lot of user that fish for vio's but the mod practice in most non-biased cases is to air on the side of caution.

To be frank, I think you guys are using examples that wont play out in reality. The idea is that giving a racist violation to people for being racist has more of an impact than just "hateful comments" which can have a broader subjective meaning. In trying to use fringe examples to argue against the change, you're making it harder for the mods to actually police racism which is alive and strong on this site.
about 6 years
i n t e n t
about 6 years

admin says

wow you guys... does this really need any debate?


I dont like people getting unfairly vio'd for not understanding/misinterpreting a rule..or letting a word slip out and getting site banned with 0 malicious intent.
about 6 years
No,..they need to change their name if dyke is going to be considered a slur.
about 6 years
So, the user Dyke (in case it gets censored d y k e), will the code just turn their username to stars or what?
about 6 years
:facepalm:
about 6 years
wow you guys... does this really need any debate?
about 6 years

D3xTr0m3th0rph4n says

My solution would be censor the words in game, like you do on the forums, and vio people for bypassing the censor.

about 6 years

D3xTr0m3th0rph4n says


shayneismyname says

I think the mods are more than competent enough to recognize what is and isnt hatespeech/harassment/ect without this being expanded or elaborated on.


lol, they are so inconsistent on HC it is unreal..I've talked to 5 different mods and all gave me 5 different opinions. Then you get into player bias which is a whole different issue


And this rule will solve that? You won't still end up with 5 different opinions from 5 different people? If this rule doesn't solve that, this rule shouldn't be enacted.
about 6 years

shayneismyname says

I think the mods are more than competent enough to recognize what is and isnt hatespeech/harassment/ect without this being expanded or elaborated on.


lol, they are so inconsistent on HC it is unreal..I've talked to 5 different mods and all gave me 5 different opinions. Then you get into player bias which is a whole different issue
about 6 years
My solution would be censor the words in game, like you do on the forums, and vio people for bypassing the censor.
about 6 years
I don't know if I am going to be in the majority or minority here, but I don't like this. Please don't misinterpret me being against this. Hate speech is hate speech, and I think the way the rules used to be worded was perfectly fine. If a user is genuinely hateful towards another user in a way that breaks rules, and someone reports it, I think the mods are more than competent enough to recognize what is and isnt hatespeech/harassment/ect without this being expanded or elaborated on.

Worse, judging by your wording using the phrase "no tolerance" and Lesbian Pirate's announcement on lobby wall 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
Also the new rule implies that being racist is somehow worse than being hateful towards any other group of people, which sends a bad message in itself.
about 6 years
anyway, i believe an admin needs to make a forum explaining what compasses Hateful Speech..because the rules are vague. The punishment is so sever i dont believe you can just say "moderators discreation" should suffice.

Or you need to set a few mods aside for only handling the HC reports, so it is consistent.
about 6 years

yela says

tl;dr??


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.

Also why is '1. Warning' a thing for HC/Harassment
about 6 years
It seems when the moderators are doing these reports..they dont take in account the context of what is said.

If there is 0 tolerance,..dont say "against any Player" in your rule..you should say if you use these words "in any context" you will get vio'd
about 6 years
what sucks is the mods not taking time, and understanding the rules how they are written. There are three things a moderator should consider before dishing out a violation.

1: What it a slur

2: Was it hateful

3: Was it directed at another player

If 1&2 it should be HC, if it was 3 it should be Racial Slurs

This is my understanding of the rule, but we need an admin to come forward,..make a thread, and get rid of the grey area of HC that has really confused a lot of players.
about 6 years
Perhaps the solution is to make the words more hateful to fit under the Hateful Comments rule.
about 6 years
Maybe racial slurs aren't hateful enough...
deletedabout 6 years
tl;dr??