Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

[soysauce]

It seems a few people are playing a silly game behind the scenes, I don't care, don't want to be involved.

But, this is a game, actual threats and harassment is petty AF.... Kinda what I'd expect from basement dwellers, It's a game, not real life.

I agree fully. It's vital that disputes about the game not infect other areas of players' lives. I have to insist however that we remain on-topic once again. A thread about harassment issues ought to be introduced elsewhere like the one about Mod anonymity and player committees. We cannot keep diverting this thread to address any new or old issues that pop up.

Isn't this all just one issue?

That a handful of people are involved in something silly, that's the root cause of all of this.... There would be no discussions about hate speech, mod anonymity or anything without maybe 5 or 6 people who are at the centre of it...

[Reddy]

It seems a few people are playing a silly game behind the scenes, I don't care, don't want to be involved.

But, this is a game, actual threats and harassment is petty AF.... Kinda what I'd expect from basement dwellers, It's a game, not real life.

I agree fully. It's vital that disputes about the game not infect other areas of players' lives. I have to insist however that we remain on-topic once again. A thread about harassment issues ought to be introduced elsewhere like the one about Mod anonymity and player committees. We cannot keep diverting this thread to address any new or old issues that pop up.

Isn't this all just one issue?

That a handful of people are involved in something silly, that's the root cause of all of this.... There would be no discussions about hate speech, mod anonymity or anything without maybe 5 or 6 people who are at the centre of it...

No, it's not one issue at all and it's not even remotely connected as far as I'm aware. The issue behind this consultation is the regulation of hate speech which is not directed at any single person. Harassment is a different thing which is already regulated by the Game Rules. Right now we have moved to discussing the kind of text that we would like to see in the new rule on hate speech.

I have to ask you again to create a thread elsewhere or use another already existing thread if you want to carry on discussing harassment or any other issues which are not related to the topic here.

[soysauce]

*sigh*

I guess what I'm trying to say is, we all know that there's an issue with certain people, hate speech and harassment. Why not actively work on that issue rather than boring conversations about the wording of a particular rule. Its clear enough you can't enforce the ones you already have anyway.

This isn't a court of law, cut the theatrics and grandeur....

[Cirith]

I am lucky, I have been a member for a long time, playing on and off, and have the joy of ignoring all the OOC stuff whenever I want. This is a privately owned game, the people that play it and therefore post on this forum, should accept the rulings of the people in charge, whether that be Wouter or his appointed representatives. I would like IC to be un-impeded and invioable as it helps roleplay if done properly, but OOCly, the Mods should decide what constitutes offensive posts or hate speech from a player.

1.4 Free and vigorous discussion has always been a part of the Particracy community and we welcome it. However, players have a responsibility to show due consideration and sensitivity to others, which means it is inappropriate to engage in offensive speech, particularly offensive hate speech, or to call for or endorse activities that are hateful, violent or illegal. Moderators will sometimes need to make difficult judgement calls, and so we ask players to respect that and co-operate with us to allow us to do our best to strike the right balance between free expression and keeping Particracy a welcoming place for all of its members.

This, with Mods who are willing to step in and capable of judging whether something is offensive or hateful, would be enough. I really don't get the argument or need for precedence, a Mod should take any action they feel right and justified, if their is a rule, it helps, but personal judgement for the wishes of the Gamemaster would be enough justification to the vast majority who play his game.

[JuliaAJA]

Now, I look at the Discord, a lot of it is slurs or blatantly anti-intellectual nonsense.

Which Discord are you on?

I only knew of one, I don't suppose you could show us the other one?

I am not in the other one.

[Aquinas]

It is not healthy for us to continue week after week in an ongoing state of limbo with regards to hate speech, where certain people think they might just about be able to get away with it. The time has surely now come for Moderation to give us clarity.

[Reddy]

It is not healthy for us to continue week after week in an ongoing state of limbo with regards to hate speech, where certain people think they might just about be able to get away with it. The time has surely now come for Moderation to give us clarity.

As said already. there's no hurry although the intended deadline is quite close. I'm not sure why "certain people" would suddenly create an epidemic in hate speech when there's never been any such epidemic in the past. What we need now is discuss the kind of rule we would like to have.

[LukasV]

It is not healthy for us to continue week after week in an ongoing state of limbo with regards to hate speech, where certain people think they might just about be able to get away with it. The time has surely now come for Moderation to give us clarity.

As said already. there's no hurry although the intended deadline is quite close. I'm not sure why "certain people" would suddenly create an epidemic in hate speech when there's never been any such epidemic in the past. What we need now is discuss the kind of rule we would like to have.

The ruling we need seems fairly straightforward.

If addressing someone in-game and in-character, all elements of RP, including but not limited to blatant racism, bigotry, incitement of violence, etc, are on the table. If the ruler of some nation wants to declare some sort of holy crusade or RP a genocide in some fashion (assuming that the people they RP with are on board), then I don't see an issue with that RP. This is Particracy, not "Utopia Simulator", and as such I don't see a reason for people to hold back on those grounds. Of course, if someone is forcing shitty RP or has gone so far as to bully people into their vision, then that's another issue altogether.

If you address someone out of character and start harassing them, then that's an offense against the terms of the game. That seems very simple. We don't come on here to be bullied off; I bet a decent portion of you look to PT as an escape, and it's fair to say that some modicum of civility can be maintained (at least in game).

I feel the Discord server is a whole other dimension and shouldn't be subject to PT's terms and conditions. It's an open forum for just about everything; and honestly, if someone starts being an ass, you can use the block option. I mean, it actually is that simple. I figure that those who can stomach a plethora of random posting (shitposting among that) can handle Discord no problem.


I fundamentally stand for everyone's right and ability to say what they want, so long as it doesn't turn into some weird personal vendetta that transcends into real life somehow. Honestly, as long as people follow the cardinal rule of "Don't go out of your way to be an asshat", I think we'll manage fine. I abhor any attempt at censure or political correctness, and will fight against any attempt to bring about such changes that limit what people can say (short of going into excessive harassment).

[Aquinas]

It is not healthy for us to continue week after week in an ongoing state of limbo with regards to hate speech, where certain people think they might just about be able to get away with it. The time has surely now come for Moderation to give us clarity.

As said already. there's no hurry although the intended deadline is quite close. I'm not sure why "certain people" would suddenly create an epidemic in hate speech when there's never been any such epidemic in the past. What we need now is discuss the kind of rule we would like to have.

Reddy, I am disappointed by the continuing sarcasm and negative attitude, which has already been an inhibiting factor with this consultation. As you know full well from both what you have seen and from what I have reported to you privately, there is a serious background to this situation, and this continuing state of confusion surrounding Particracy's approach to hate speech risks making further incidents more awkward to deal with.

Since Reddy's peculiar ruling on May 22, the game has been in a state of limbo about whether OOC racist garbarge like that quoted here is acceptable in Particracy. This consultation was launched on June 3. It is now June 26 On June 13 Reddy said it would "probably be done by month end", although on June 21 he said that was "a very lazy target", indicating it could go on still longer. A number of players have taken part in the consultation, although we have reached a point where contributions are drying up and most of the more recent posts have been from amongst a very small group of posters.

We should not spend further weeks in this limbo, just haggling over the precise wording of a text. Although I have personally responded to the call to help with that, that is really a very technical discussion which is of interest to only a few. This is really a matter for the Moderators and Wouter to take a lead on. We all know what we basically need; Wouter has spoken and the community has spoken. Please, before too much longer, give us the rule we now need, even if it is only a provisional one pending further review/consultation. Please lets not continue in a vacuum, waiting for the next crisis. Hate speech is not okay, and what we really need now is an unambiguous declaration it does not belong in our community.

*

Okay, trying to move matters forward, here's a redraft of my last proposal, taking into account the preferences expressed by Reddy.

1. Respect.

All players and Moderators must be treated with respect and courtesy at all times.

[...]

1.4 Players have a responsibility to avoid promoting hatred, harm or serious discrimination against individuals or groups. Amongst the groups explicitly recognised here are those based on race, national origin, religion or non-religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, physical disability, mental health condition and learning disability. This is a matter Particracy takes seriously, and those who egregiously or repeatedly fail to follow these guidelines will be subject to serious sanctions, which may include suspension or permanent removal from the game.

1.4.1 It is similarly unacceptable to disseminate pornography.

[Polites]

I don't think there's any serious danger of things going off the rails for the next week or so till this consultation ends, tbh. While I agree that this is a serious matter and should be formally addressed, I don't really see the urgency. If there is any abuse or anything happening in the coming days I'm sure it will be dealt with once a new rule is in place, and should ideally also be addressed until then. If someone were to engage in hate speech at this very moment it would be as if, during the old consultation on organization coups, someone were to have couped every org they could - I'm sure that at the time, even if couping wasn't yet technically illegal, someone engaging in such behavior while the discussion was taking place would have been sanctioned.

In any case, I find that adding a list of protected groups to 1.4. would make a lot of sense and I agree with the proposals going that direction. To the list of protected groups I would however also add ethnicity (not explicitly mentioned as far as I can see, and not always the same thing as either race or national origin), as well as marital status. Otherwise, yeah, something along those lines would be best.