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

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?
about 6 years
it's not so much people "pretending to be offended" as it is "if we let this stuff slide, the site quickly becomes exclusionary to people who are in fact offended."
deletedabout 6 years
what i hate the most about this new rule is how it fits well with the lazy nature of mods( not including everyone). some of them pick up only the easy reports such as grs ones and let harder ones stock up instead of trying to get better at understanding and solving problems. as far as i know, moderating a report has always been subjective to an extent, making the rules so black and white and will eventually lead to a quality decrease of moderating. on top of that, there are people on this website who try to vio-farm fellow members in a small and dying community when the offense is easily ignorable by the pretending to be offended party and forgivable by mods.
i hope this new censor thing will help at reducing the amount of reports and violations.
about 6 years
I think it was the effort involved tbh

Not everyone has a proxy on hand
about 6 years

blacksnakemoan says


Edark says

Well I tried leniency to somewhat of a successful degree before.


throwing HC vios at everyone earlier this year worked quite well because they all requested to be banned then got bored of their custom lobby and came back.

once that happened, they didn't want to use slurs because getting banned meant no games.


Getting banned meant no games? lol sorry but consider me skeptical
about 6 years
EDIT: im not gna beat a dead horse lol
deletedabout 6 years

blacksnakemoan says

because getting banned meant no games.


LUL
about 6 years

Edark says

Well I tried leniency to somewhat of a successful degree before.


throwing HC vios at everyone earlier this year worked quite well because they all requested to be banned then got bored of their custom lobby and came back.

once that happened, they didn't want to use slurs because getting banned meant no games.
about 6 years
i hate trans people because i hate me most of all and im incapable of stopping myself from generalizing my distaste for one individual to an entire group of people that they in no way represent aside from being an incidental member of that particular group.
about 6 years

SHENANIGANS says

is tranny covered by the word filter? if it's not i can legally say it because transfolk arent a race and you cant stop me i just talked to my internet lawyer.


O___O
about 6 years
haha take that sjw cucks i am the alpha and the omega.
about 6 years
is tranny covered by the word filter? if it's not i can legally say it because transfolk arent a race and you cant stop me i just talked to my internet lawyer.
about 6 years
hello im here to announce that i did not read this thread.

why is there a "racial slurs" rule does that mean i'm allowed to use slurs that target non-racial minorities/disenfranchised groups? pls respond to my novel thought im sure no one else has raised this issue in 15 pages thank you i have a very big brain.
about 6 years

Songin says

I'd say definitely in-game. I could argue against forums and comments though. Would suck if typing a long forum post and you use a word that you didn't know was filtered, and end up having the entire thing replaced.

And yeah, PMs should be unfiltered.


if youre posting on the forums you're already playing games, thus you'd know what words are filtered if you're a user of said words
about 6 years
Also doing censoring a la Overwatch is a great idea IMO
about 6 years

Orly says


Edark says

TL:DR The last thing anyone should want is to ban a user, as the users account is the only "carrot" you have to make the user actually obey the rules. When you ban someone, you remove any incentive for the user to follow any rules(as we've seen in the past).


you're about 3 years too late, friend


Well I tried leniency to somewhat of a successful degree before.
about 6 years

Zhuorb says


admin says

also i think if someone types in too much capital letters, i should shrink the font by half the size


this is an excellent idea
I like the intent, but how about coding it so lines with >40% caps just get changed to all lowercase


i like lucids idea more, your idea kinda changes their tone and thus can alter reads
about 6 years
daily reminder to scan your PC with Malwarebytes and use antivirus if you dont have one actively protecting you (windows defender doesnt count). also delete apps that arent from verified safe sources, and disable background app usage.

the risk to your financial security is larger than ever before when you use any form of personal identification online.
about 6 years
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"
about 6 years
Someone just used it in the lobby chat.

> this sites money to token ratio is unbelievably niggar-dly

Also Zhuorb used the word multiple times in this conversation without it being used in reference to race.

Orly is just joking around, sniggler is an eel catcher.
about 6 years
It is clear that this is a conspiracy to get everyone banned from EM and shut the site down.

Wake up sheeple
about 6 years

Edark says

TL:DR The last thing anyone should want is to ban a user, as the users account is the only "carrot" you have to make the user actually obey the rules. When you ban someone, you remove any incentive for the user to follow any rules(as we've seen in the past).


you're about 3 years too late, friend
about 6 years

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?


stop being such a nigg@rdly sniggler
deletedabout 6 years
bsm list's fine, just make sure to not make a blizzard level of sentences, we aren't in kindergarten lol
about 6 years

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?