Aquinas wrote: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.
Let me stop you there, boyo. It's no big revelation that this guy has some very peculiar views. But why are we silencing them, if we know that they're absolutely bigotted and idiotic beyond any measure? This sort of thing should be ridiculed, laughed at, and demonstrably ripped at the seams for its utter stupidity in content and its severe lack of any sort of intelligent backing. Instead, you choose to silence and turn away as if it never happened? What is to be learned from doing that? Certainly nothing for anyone, least of all the OP.
There are a decent amount of intelligent minds on this site capable of facilitating a proper argument, to the point of presenting facts and evidence in a proper manner; I refuse to believe that these same individuals cannot debunk this nonsense in the same manner, instead electing to erase it as if it never happened. That would be a sad state of affairs indeed.
Aquinas wrote: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.
Absolutely not. Adding in a list of protected groups is simply ridiculous, when it can be entirely overarching for everything; there is no need for special distinction when it comes to addressing general bigotry. In fact, why do we need this provision, if we already have one that addresses specific player interactions and harassment? If someone wants to spout some sort of garbage in our Off Topic Section in some form of civil debate, I do not see why they cannot do so. I get that Wouter (and probably all of us here too) want to make sure that we don't become some Stormfront-esque neo-nazi promoter (which, based on the smart people we have here and my whole bit about being able to deconstruct a racist or bigoted argument, doesn't seem at all likely), but to completely rid ourselves of any possibility of controversy doesn't seem like the proper course of action.
I will accept some sort of clause detailing that soapboxing for ideological support (eg. "Faggots shouldn't marry; who's with me?", etc) should be prohibited, but if there is a thread in the Off Topic section (such as "[Debate] Same-Sex Marriage: Righteous or an Abomination?"), then I see that as an intelligent forum for discussion, not one founded for perpetuation of one's particular ideology. Of course, should things devolve into cyclical arguments or personal attacks, then that's a whole other problem.
Remember, kids: all ideas are open for scrutiny, evaluation, and deconstruction. If someone is spouting garbage, then ridicule the shit out of his statements, show him why he's wrong, and leave it at that. After all:
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."