Okay thanks.

These ideas seem....good, right? Anything that clarifies rules should hopefully result in less drama unless I'm missing something.

And I'm not sure why this thread turned into a bit of a train wreck. Either the ideas are good, bad or need some modifications. Several people here seemed to want to use this as an opportunity to complain about people they don't like. Why? It doesn't seem relevant what you think of Birdman's posting style in the politics thread. Can't people just judge the proposals on their merits?

This is basically it. I was modkilled and maybe that was the correct decision but not really the important thing here--if I had to get modkilled to get the person who used an ableist slur modkilled then so be it.

The real issue is that after discussing this with several game mods and post game, there does not seem to be broad agreement on what to do in a situation where a player in a werewolf game uses an ableist/racist/sexist/homophobic slur. I believe we should codify the course of action to be taken by the game and forum mod when that happens: modkill and temp ban the offending player at least until the game is over should be required sub-forum wide.

EB,

Additionally, the in-game reactions (and lack of reaction) also spewed the roles of at least five players in relation to the offender. Codifying the procedure/order of operations should help address problematicity while helping to maintain game integrity.

Yeah, this what I was thinking. I'm not seeing a downside here. (If I'm missing one, someone tell me).

I'm not sure why this thread is the way that it is.

Lol?

That this was the inevitable outcome of this discussion is exactly why I wanted to have it here, as opposed to in the middle of another game.

If you codify exactly what type of speech is acceptable and unacceptable with no room for interpretation then you aren't actually getting rid of any toxicity. What you're actually doing is protecting toxic people by granting them the protection of the rules just as long as they avoid any of the specific words that trigger punishment. The nature of language is such that people are able to convey any sentiment they desire in many different forms.

The werewolf rules have updated repeatedly to add restrictions on what people can say due to game integrity issues, and the result has always been that people who don't like the new rules just blatantly hint at the things they aren't allowed to say, eg "Hey I've suddenly decided that [player who subbed out 10 minutes ago] is a wolf just for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Just a feeling, you know, the type of thing that you just can't explain."

You can add as many words as you want to a blacklist, and all that will happen is that posts with those words will be replaced with posts along the lines of "You must have been dropped on your head as a child."

If you want to get rid of toxic communication, get rid of the toxic people. Targeting language doesn't work because language just evolves.

To add to that, I don't find it particularly inspiring that this effort is being spearheaded by someone who has explained in this thread that it's okay for him to be a dick to everyone all of the time just as long as he only insults people with words he finds acceptable and not the words he finds unacceptable.

This is not what is being proposed.

Assuming you are talking about me, I never said these things.

The civility argument has provided some excellent cover for bigotry. Good job, all you polite cats and kittens!

The move of the thread has whittled down a fair bit from the first two posts + title.

After the existing rule of "be civil" was found by regularly offensive posters as too lax, and after the notion that a bar against mental capacity insults was deemed too restrictive (by the same group, which happens to levy exactly these charges on the regular), we are now at requiring game mods, already so empowered, to ban players for uttering certain key terms but not for otherwise evoking the same underlying insults.


I don't know what happened in the last game, but it sounds like the mod flubbed it. People get mk'ed, and it's frustrating but it's only a game and there will be more.


The "remove from game" idea is a good option to make available to mods and, with the addition of an infraction tracker, solves the problem of mods "not knowing what to do" without resorting to an overly reductive prophylactic.

Who could have guessed there would be so much opposition to banning hate speech.

I mean really, if somebody had personal experience with this sort of thing happening in POG I bet they would be pretty bitter and hostile. “Not nice”, as Trump would say.

I do not think it is too restrictive. If we want more stuff added to the list I am 100% for it. It's just not a push I am going to make at this time.

If the community at large feels like one use of the word "idiot" should be an immediate removal from the game, you will not find me arguing against it.

In my opinion there was a decent about of bad-faith arguments going around the likes of "well if you put r**ard on the list then you have to add all these other words which would be ridiculous, ergo we cannot have a list at all". I was merely saying that I am not going to push hard to add all those other words but I am not against it.

If I gave that impression sorry.

Do you think one use of the word "idiot" should be immediate removal from the game?

If only Birdman were more tolerant of intolerance. How dare he.

I feel like at some point people got this idea that I am fighting hard against putting words like "stupid" and "idiot" on a single sanction list that requires immediate removal from the game purely so I can keep using said words. That is not the case. I personally do not find those words on the level of a slur like r**ard and so it is not something I am going to devote a ton of passion to convincing people of. Simultaneously, I do think that calling people stupid or calling people idiots is bad and something that should be discouraged. I am human and make mistakes. I use those words when I should not. But even though I use those words sometimes I am still capable of thinking they are bad.


I also think certain people, in bad faith, have to to equate "stupid" with "r**ard" and say they either must BOTH be included, or neither can be included. I was merely expressing that I don't agree with that sentiment.

I do think there is a fair amount of ad hominem going on in this thread, as well as a general sense of "I can't support this idea specifically because it is coming from Birdman, and I do not like Birdman".

I would strongly ask people to think about whether it is a good idea instead of whether they like me.

And to think, you haven’t even had to face the “its tradition” angle yet. You have a lot to learn, B-bro.

I apologize Wahoo I did misremember that. It was ugly delicious telling me it was prison rape and not homophobia my bad... Such a discerning differentiation anyways.

Bird, somehow you are still missing the point.

It isn't a question of catching all the bad words.

The issue is degrading people for qualities beyond their control. Thus "******ed" is problematic.

As demonstrated, you have no problem making this kind of insult, so long as you avoid the taboo phrase-du-jour. What you're perceiving as ad hominem is actually an argument that you are acting in bad faith.

As Soah said, the establishment of a list of bad words dialectically produces a safe word list - cover.


There's no dispute here that "******ed" shouldn't be used.

The dispute is that a List is the wrong solution.

Once you get it written up all perfect and all, you should call it Conduction Duction, What's Your Pog Function.

Top 5 Codes:
1 Hammurabi
2 Justinian
3 Napoleonic
4 Morse
5 English

Iamnot for mod

https://medium.com/@elizabeth_87041/...e-ef70856b6679

Should probably add bird to the list. It's a derogatory name to call a woman.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tel...nt-to-ban/amp/

The most offensive was “bird” – with more than half wanting it banned - but it was quickly followed by “doll”, “chick”, “babe” and “queen bee.” More than 2,000 women were surveyed by Special K as part of its equality drive and most said they found a number of pet names derogatory

I just noticed the post I quoted actually had nothing to do with what I wrote. The irony is that I wrote that post instead of the other thing I wanted to say, which is that I don't really understand what's even going on in this thread and feel the same as kokiri.