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
tldr getting offended over chat is gay
about 6 years
can i be a mod
about 6 years
Sorry didn't understand y'all. Yeah we should definitely censor hateful words and slurs but some swear words r OK. Excessive caps use and the c/p spamming should be ended imo, good idea.
about 6 years
can i be a mod
about 6 years
if you're going to force her to change her name at least give her a g-d choice of name instead of choosing for her
about 6 years

dzke says

still waitin for an answer from lucid


he's been posting in "new roles" thread if you wanna make sure he sees it
about 6 years
still waitin for an answer from lucid
about 6 years
d y k e
about 6 years

denial 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


now hiring a moderator fully dedicated to the forums and lobby wall


FORUM MODS R BACK, BABY.
about 6 years

denial says

now hiring a moderator fully dedicated to the forums and lobby wall


What about main lobby chat? or do you mean both by saying "lobby wall" ?
about 6 years

denial says

now hiring a moderator fully dedicated to the forums and lobby wall




not to be rude, why was there not one already?
deletedabout 6 years

shayneismyname says

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."


ye and we're in agreement on the lobby wall so i don't really have anything to add


denial says

now hiring a moderator fully dedicated to the forums and lobby wall


im p sure forum mods used to be a real thing!! just tell jon to grab a random sandboxer without making them fill out an app again
about 6 years

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


now hiring a moderator fully dedicated to the forums and lobby wall
about 6 years

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.
deletedabout 6 years
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
about 6 years

shayneismyname says


Ally says


shayneismyname says

Yes, Lucid pays for the site, but if no one came here, this site could have closed ten years ago. Us users matter just as much.


there wouldn't be a site without adsense, either

we've been Down This Road Before when he lost adsense in the past


Dude tbh we JUST went through a monthlong period where users accused a user of being a pedo on main lobby wall, and even when I said "guys can we not" everyone argued "we can do whatever we want." And if you tell me that's not ok, I can scroll back and screenshot EVERYONE who was apart of that.

This user being nearly shadowkicked off the site is not even 10% as bad as this above^ this pedo nonsense. And this "accusing a user of being a sexual predator" isnt even effected by the new rules.


its under harassment, users got violations for this behavior when reported
about 6 years

Ally says


shayneismyname says

Yes, Lucid pays for the site, but if no one came here, this site could have closed ten years ago. Us users matter just as much.


there wouldn't be a site without adsense, either

we've been Down This Road Before when he lost adsense in the past


Dude tbh we JUST went through a monthlong period where users accused a user of being a pedo on main lobby wall, and even when I said "guys can we not" everyone argued "we can do whatever we want." And if you tell me that's not ok, I can scroll back and screenshot EVERYONE who was apart of that.

This user being nearly shadowkicked off the site is not even 10% as bad as this above^ this pedo nonsense. And this "accusing a user of being a sexual predator" isnt even effected by the new rules.
deletedabout 6 years
also im not going to apologize for the way i typed out my post lol you're capable of reading the whole thing regardless of the order i put it in and i'm putting emphasis on the part that i deem to be more important (the username itself)
about 6 years
I think him changing the username is pretty funny tbh, nor do I think its something to be angry about. Im sure if you PM him you can get a free name change to anything you'd like (problably not back to dyke tho).
deletedabout 6 years
fwiw i'm not necessarily a fan of a 100% zero tolerance policy -- i think there's always room to look at situations individually and realize the context of something before immediately applying a vio

but when it comes to something like usernames, which are all over the site and potentially on the front page, i believe it's perfectly fine for them to be strict on that and disallow something that could get them in trouble adsense wise or discourage people from joining the site
about 6 years

Ally says

of course. if you read my post, i said that the way he went about it was bad.


well imo you went about it the wrong way imo. it should be

HE DID THE WRONG THING
- but I get it.

instead of

I GET IT
- but he did the wrong thing.
about 6 years
dzke isnt even a good censor smh
deletedabout 6 years

shayneismyname says

Yes, Lucid pays for the site, but if no one came here, this site could have closed ten years ago. Us users matter just as much.


there wouldn't be a site without adsense, either

we've been Down This Road Before when he lost adsense in the past
deletedabout 6 years
of course. if you read my post, i said that the way he went about it was bad.
about 6 years

Ally says

a year ago lucid wasn't active

now he is

if he chooses to overrule a moderator/admin decision that's his right -- he's the one that pays for the site / needs adsense to make that happen


Okay, well let us just take note on how this was gone about. This user was not even warned or told this was happening. Again, perhaps this user logged out and might have been unable to log back in since they were given a different username. This should be answered to, no?

Yes, Lucid pays for the site, but if no one came here, this site could have closed ten years ago. Us users matter just as much. This was a user who has a colored name (gave money to the site) who might have just been unable to log in with 0 explanation.