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
deletedabout 6 years
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
about 6 years

Ally says

this opinion is prolly controversial but i don't think it's a bad thing that the original username was disallowed / changed

i do think that they went about it really badly considering they changed it without his permission instead of just doing the standard inappropriate username vio, lock the account until it's changed / touched base with him since it's been allowed in the past

but i don't think that having a username of a slur is a good idea. having a username that's the f-slur would not be okay even if it was a gay man that was using it. for adsense purposes, having a username that's a slur running around is a really, really bad idea. if dzke was to trophy, the slur would show up on the front page, for example. it's just not a good idea, at all, and i can understand and support them not allowing that to be in a username.


No one cared a year ago, just saying.
deletedabout 6 years
this opinion is prolly controversial but i don't think it's a bad thing that the original username was disallowed / changed

i do think that they went about it really badly considering they changed it without his permission instead of just doing the standard inappropriate username vio, lock the account until it's changed / touched base with him since it's been allowed in the past

but i don't think that having a username of a slur is a good idea. having a username that's the f-slur would not be okay even if it was a gay man that was using it. for adsense purposes, having a username that's a slur running around is a really, really bad idea. if dzke was to trophy, the slur would show up on the front page, for example. it's just not a good idea, at all, and i can understand and support them not allowing that to be in a username.
about 6 years
Yeah I want an explanation from lucid. This is BS.
about 6 years
I used dzke's old username as an example of "well hold on, zero tolerance means zero tolerance, meaning surely this isn't ok?... let's get rid of the term 'zero tolerance."' And they just changed her username without consulting or warning her.

Yall called us reactionary people who just "want to say the n word" for questioning this rule, yet here we are.
about 6 years

dzke says

its literally useless

i dont appreciate him doing it behind my back despite being the owner

i dont appreciate the lack of warning/explanation

i didnt do shart and changing my username is stupid and isn't fixing anything

i just want an explanation


consider that your first "yes" in that this WILL be a zero tolerance policy that has no grey area and no nuance. I told you ALL this.

and to the rest of you, this is what happened:

dzke had no prior knowledge this was going to happen. her name on the side was changed, she doesn't know for sure who did it. if she wasn't signed it, there is the possibility that she would have tried to sign in, and be told her username did not exist, and have know idea why. the mods cannot tell her what happened with her username because THEY still do not know.

I told yall zero tolerance would be a mess. zero tolerance has no room for nuance or a grey area.

take that one part out. no one has an issue with dzke's old name. this is ridiculous.
about 6 years

shayneismyname says

>I point out that non tolerance being bs
> Give examples of why it should be removed
> Point out that we cant have 0 tolerance
> Point out that if we really had 0 tolerance, dzke wouldnt be allowed to have her username, thinking they'll be like "you're right, lets not call it a 0 tolerance policy"

>mfw they double down and change her name without telling her....


never underestimate human obstinacy
about 6 years
People bypass the censor all the time
about 6 years
its literally useless

i dont appreciate him doing it behind my back despite being the owner

i dont appreciate the lack of warning/explanation

i didnt do shart and changing my username is stupid and isn't fixing anything

i just want an explanation
deletedabout 6 years
MONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY B ITCHCHCHH
about 6 years
honestly me too this should be good.

this is some gira level sh!t
about 6 years
no deadass i really want lucid's input

i want an explanation
about 6 years
it's 2018 i can talk about dongs if i want, lucy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
deletedabout 6 years
is censored?
about 6 years
you win this round, Big Anti-Rain Lobby.
deletedabout 6 years
u won
about 6 years
Can we edit that censored words list LaurieRose provided 5 years ago there's some stuff on there that really doesn't belong
about 6 years
dykumbrella
deletedabout 6 years
umbrella
about 6 years
K
deletedabout 6 years
Y
about 6 years
ALRIGHT BOYS TIMES UP, LET'S DO THIS

D
about 6 years

dzke says

can i have an explanation why my username is dzke lucid


your reign of terror with hate comments is finally over
about 6 years
>I point out that non tolerance being bs
> Give examples of why it should be removed
> Point out that we cant have 0 tolerance
> Point out that if we really had 0 tolerance, dzke wouldnt be allowed to have her username, thinking they'll be like "you're right, lets not call it a 0 tolerance policy"

>mfw they double down and change her name without telling her....
about 6 years
can i have an explanation why my username is dzke lucid