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

ark says

Who is lucid (admin)?


lucidrains = admin & site owner
about 6 years
yes
about 6 years

Carmen says


shayneismyname says


Ally says

accusing a user of being a pedophile falls under harassment and has been treated as such

the main lobby wall is awful and should be moderated stricter since it's the first thing a user sees when they sign up and log in for the first time -- that's a completely separate concern from what we're talking about though


It's not separate; it's completely comparable when you say "this person's username might be one of the first thing's someone sees when they join."

And I guaren-effing-tee you that when people join a site, and they scroll down and see a conversation about "well what IS a pedophile?" and "is being a pedophile immoral or just acting on it?" 80% will nope out, now let's compare it to people joining a site and a user has a name that not even 80% of LGBT people are offended by.


A slur, and a debate on morality, are two different things. You were wrong when you said we could only talk about "nice" things on the wall a week ago, and you're wrong now.

If a new user has to clutch their pearls every time they see a debate about an unpleasant topic, I don't want them here anyway. We already have enough scrubs as-is.


I'm really not. There's a reason lobby wall has a swear filter. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
about 6 years
Who is lucid (admin)?
about 6 years
STOPPPP you're so savage
about 6 years

ark says

Cvnt.


dzke
about 6 years
Cvnt.
about 6 years

shayneismyname says


Ally says

accusing a user of being a pedophile falls under harassment and has been treated as such

the main lobby wall is awful and should be moderated stricter since it's the first thing a user sees when they sign up and log in for the first time -- that's a completely separate concern from what we're talking about though


It's not separate; it's completely comparable when you say "this person's username might be one of the first thing's someone sees when they join."

And I guaren-effing-tee you that when people join a site, and they scroll down and see a conversation about "well what IS a pedophile?" and "is being a pedophile immoral or just acting on it?" 80% will nope out, now let's compare it to people joining a site and a user has a name that not even 80% of LGBT people are offended by.


A slur, and a debate on morality, are two different things. You were wrong when you said we could only talk about "nice" things on the wall a week ago, and you're wrong now.

If a new user has to clutch their pearls every time they see a debate about an unpleasant topic, I don't want them here anyway. We already have enough scrubs as-is.
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

hey lucid, remove the caps filter and replace it with one that instantly mutes you if you send the same message 2 or more times.

e.g.

I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK = perfectly fine

I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK = muted

sidenote - this would all be irrelevant if people just used the spam violation properly


noted
about 6 years

shayneismyname says

Question- does this mean that if SHENANIGANS joins my game, I could not say her name to ping her as it would hit the filter?


ahahahhaha omg pay to win
about 6 years
hey lucid, remove the caps filter and replace it with one that instantly mutes you if you send the same message 2 or more times.

e.g.

I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK = perfectly fine

I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK
I'M BLACKSMITH I CLAIMED OK = muted

sidenote - this would all be irrelevant if people just used the spam violation properly
about 6 years
Why can't I type in caps anymore?! How am I meant to be expressive now...
about 6 years
this Stop yelling jeez is AWFUL.

I said "I'm BS" and it wouldn't even let me send it...
about 6 years

admin says

meh

i realized i've already been sanitizing comments and posts over a list of 'bad' words

i'll just port over the same logic to in-game


Can you not censor swear words in game please, there's no point. Slurs yes, swears no.
about 6 years
Question- does this mean that if SHENANIGANS joins my game, I could not say her name to ping her as it would hit the filter?
about 6 years
yeah, just add a third box for caps. Make the symbol a "K" key or something.
about 6 years
Why isn't this toggleable like spectating/game speed is?
about 6 years
i'd request making that toggleable, at least unranked games. some ppl enjoy goofy caps spamming with their pals in unranked.
about 6 years

Songin says


vilden says

I recommend that we don't mess with caps lock in ranked mafia games because it's an incredibly huge part of the game. It influences reads. It allows for more potential to appeal to emotion. It actually has impact on a person's decision to hammer one way or another. Don't mess with it


The only difference would be the size of caps locks would be cut in half to avoid it making it difficult to see those speaking w/o caps lock.


its actually already implemented, i decided to just block the message completely
about 6 years

NeverMaf says

tldr getting offended over chat is gay


the gay agenda marches on
about 6 years
I know it's trivial but your time is appreciated dude
about 6 years

vilden says

I recommend that we don't mess with caps lock in ranked mafia games because it's an incredibly huge part of the game. It influences reads. It allows for more potential to appeal to emotion. It actually has impact on a person's decision to hammer one way or another. Don't mess with it


The only difference would be the size of caps locks would be cut in half to avoid it making it difficult to see those speaking w/o caps lock.
about 6 years

vilden says

I recommend that we don't mess with caps lock in ranked mafia games because it's an incredibly huge part of the game. It influences reads. It allows for more potential to appeal to emotion. It actually has impact on a person's decision to hammer one way or another. Don't mess with it


meh

i realized i've already been sanitizing comments and posts over a list of 'bad' words

i'll just port over the same logic to in-game
about 6 years
I'm surprised no one has explained this. Where are our competitive players?!
about 6 years
I recommend that we don't mess with caps lock in ranked mafia games because it's an incredibly huge part of the game. It influences reads. It allows for more potential to appeal to emotion. It actually has impact on a person's decision to hammer one way or another. Don't mess with it