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
this kind of npc?
about 6 years
and some of those people that end up not wanting to hang out here are people i'd probably think are cool, so please stop saying the n-word for MY SAKE, AS A WHITe.
about 6 years
see also: your view of what it means to be "offended" and mine are clearly different.

being offended doesnt mean you lose all functionality and instantly burst into tears. it just kinda wears on you, and you end up wanting to avoid places that are repeatedly offensive because you gotta cut the negativity from your life. for example, internet mafia websites.
about 6 years
show me the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. i DEMAND SCHOLARLY ARTICLES.
about 6 years

Orly says

it's not even anecdotal at this point


...yes it is?
about 6 years

Kawaii says


Edark says

I just dream of the day the moderators need to debate whether or not they ban a guy like Devante for example for saying the nword if they keep the 0 tolerance policy, that would be the pinnacle of comedy tbh.


when there was 0 tolerance devante never got viod


then it's not zero tolerance
about 6 years

Kawaii says


Edark says

I just dream of the day the moderators need to debate whether or not they ban a guy like Devante for example for saying the nword if they keep the 0 tolerance policy, that would be the pinnacle of comedy tbh.


when there was 0 tolerance devante never got viod


I dont recall when we had a 0 tolerance policy like this? We've had HC for ages and it hasn't punished the use of n*gg* for most players if I recall correctly.
about 6 years

Edark says

Or Jeff for example, for saying f*gg*t.


jesus christ don't start

that idiot went off at me for a full week because I vio'd him for saying that and when I tried to argue it didn't deserve a vio, his friends on the mod team all said it did lmao

i think there were a bunch of reports where it was debated in the comments but idk which accounts they were filed on
about 6 years

Edark says

I just dream of the day the moderators need to debate whether or not they ban a guy like Devante for example for saying the nword if they keep the 0 tolerance policy, that would be the pinnacle of comedy tbh.


when there was 0 tolerance devante never got viod
about 6 years
shh you're not supposed to say that.
about 6 years

Orly says

theres no doubt this is because google told its AdSense partners to up their protection against offensive terms if they want to keep a PG rating for the wider range of ads to display


omg someone please look into this! this is some HOT TEA. this site having a 2/3rds drop in userbase over a year, and then coming back with this rule does make sense if google adsense is indeed making some changes, especially combined with the existing userbase almost uniformly using adblock to the point where there have been legitimate discussions with confused people on both sides unsure if the site even runs ads.
about 6 years
you know what Google is a company headed by white people, I think we should ban the word Google for instilling systemic racism into society
about 6 years
theres no doubt this is because google told its AdSense partners to up their protection against offensive terms if they want to keep a PG rating for the wider range of ads to display
about 6 years
Or Jeff for example, for saying f*gg*t.
about 6 years
I just dream of the day the moderators need to debate whether or not they ban a guy like Devante for example for saying the nword if they keep the 0 tolerance policy, that would be the pinnacle of comedy tbh.
about 6 years

Zhuorb says


blacksnakemoan says


Zhuorb says

once again, niggar-dly is not a slur


I agree.

On balance, when was the last time you heard someone use on this site without it being a reference to the slur?


Sure, but on the other hand no one really uses the word in everyday language anyway. There's always going to be people who think they're being funny by using words that barely touch the line, but that's why drawing the line right is important in the first place lol

If we're banning anything that sounds remotely racist, why not ban "Nigeria", "Niger", "chigger", "spiggot", "white tower", "redskins", "niggle", or even the word "black"?
Where do you draw the line on restricting words?


ban the words Hispanic, Mexican, Latin, Latino, taco, burrito, enchiladas, Asian, Asiatic, Chinese, Japanese, or any word that sounds like any kind of a noise?
about 6 years

Zhuorb says


blacksnakemoan says


Zhuorb says

once again, niggar-dly is not a slur


I agree.

On balance, when was the last time you heard someone use on this site without it being a reference to the slur?


Sure, but on the other hand no one really uses the word in everyday language anyway. There's always going to be people who think they're being funny by using words that barely touch the line, but that's why drawing the line right is important in the first place lol

If we're banning anything that sounds remotely racist, why not ban "Nigeria", "Niger", "chigger", "spiggot", "white tower", "redskins", "niggle", or even the word "black"?
Where do you draw the line on restricting words?


I mean I got a vio for the letter N before..........
about 6 years

Zhuorb says

uMMM SWEATY it's called being a DECENt human being?????



Zhuorb says

umM BE a DECENT human Being !!!! !!!!


at first i thought you were trolling but now im starting to feel like you're being serious LMAO
about 6 years
go get 'em Orly
about 6 years
you say decent human being, i say NPC.

what you're talking about isnt decent at all. it's betraying your fellow human by letting them think that any bit of their sense of victimization will fly irl.
about 6 years

Orly says

if you think coddling people and making them feel safe online is being a decent human, than i think we have different definitions. every time i encounter irl the people that are genuinely offended by random stuff they read online, they are the least socially prepared to handle real life. it's not even anecdotal at this point; it's literally every single time. you are coddling them to the point of ineptitude.

RL bullying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet trolling calling u xyz term you dont like


umM BE a DECENT human Being !!!! !!!!
about 6 years
https://epicmafia.com/topic/90528

this thread is why the new rule was implemented, im pretty sure.

b/c the mods couldn't consistently moderate HC
about 6 years
you should read what market research firms like nielsen n co say about that group. they are basically considered the most easily manipulable group within the consumer market. and it's true.

what disturbs me the most is that some of you are actively white knighting and/or making a professional career out of protecting the safe-spaces of these individuals.

and people can see when it's being done out of self-interest, whether it be to abuse a pliable person to trust them, or to idolize them, etc. it's so disturbing, and you're just creating a big circlejerk of fools. easily manipulated, pliable fools. what is a king of fools but a fool himself?
about 6 years
if you think coddling people and making them feel safe online is being a decent human, then i think we have different definitions. every time i encounter irl the people that are genuinely offended by random stuff they read online, they are the least socially prepared to handle real life. it's not even anecdotal at this point; it's literally every single time. you are coddling them to the point of ineptitude.

RL bullying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet trolling calling u xyz term you dont like
about 6 years

Orly says

or it's a racy pun, implying that the person is not only stingy, but actually feeds off the bottom-feeders. that's what internet social justice attracts, after all. the bottom feeders of bottom feeders.

that and children that clearly shouldnt have access to the internet if they are so easily offended. idk, try not depending on the internet for friendship, maybe. it's the equivalent of hopping in an unmarked van that says "Free Icecream - provided by Facebook. Just download this Chinese malware"


uMMM SWEATY it's called being a DECENt human being?????