Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby LukasV » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:06 pm

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."
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby Polites » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:31 pm

LukasV wrote:all ideas are open for scrutiny, evaluation, and deconstruction


True, but this particular game needn't be a platform for the deconstruction of, say, racist or homophobic views. There's plenty of other places out there better suited for this sort of thing. It's not that the community aren't smart enough to debunk this sort of nonsense, just, well, why should they have to?

LukasV wrote:there is no need for special distinction when it comes to addressing general bigotry


What does "general bigotry" even mean? If it's bigotry it is definitely aimed at some group or another.

LukasV wrote: if there is a thread in the Off Topic section [...] then I see that as an intelligent forum for discussion, not one founded for perpetuation of one's particular ideology


Hence the need of a distinction between arguing in favor or against various ideological stances and policy issues with the backing of sound arguments, and bigoted statements targeting a particular group. A debate on the merits of same-sex marriage is one thing, homophobic attacks are an entirely different breed of cattle. Yay for the former, boo for the latter. And if anyone wants to do the latter, well there's quite a few other places on the internet where they are free to do so.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby LukasV » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:17 pm

Polites wrote:
LukasV wrote:all ideas are open for scrutiny, evaluation, and deconstruction


True, but this particular game needn't be a platform for the deconstruction of, say, racist or homophobic views. There's plenty of other places out there better suited for this sort of thing. It's not that the community aren't smart enough to debunk this sort of nonsense, just, well, why should they have to?

LukasV wrote:there is no need for special distinction when it comes to addressing general bigotry


What does "general bigotry" even mean? If it's bigotry it is definitely aimed at some group or another.

LukasV wrote: if there is a thread in the Off Topic section [...] then I see that as an intelligent forum for discussion, not one founded for perpetuation of one's particular ideology


Hence the need of a distinction between arguing in favor or against various ideological stances and policy issues with the backing of sound arguments, and bigoted statements targeting a particular group. A debate on the merits of same-sex marriage is one thing, homophobic attacks are an entirely different breed of cattle. Yay for the former, boo for the latter. And if anyone wants to do the latter, well there's quite a few other places on the internet where they are free to do so.


So we're just going to adopt a policy of "you can't post that here, kthx"? I'd like to think that we don't need restrictions on topics so long as it's has some sort of merit (ie debate or otherwise). If it's just random soapboxing of "hey look at me, I think racism's okay", then obviously that's not okay because it doesn't lead anywhere. I think my larger point was to not discourage controversy, while simultaneously discouraging asshatery and soapboxing bigotry.

I don't like the idea of having specific groups singled out, when we can just say, and in less words, that being blatant about any group in particular is not really okay. But I don't even think Aquinas' clause is even necessary at that point.

So can we just summarize that whole thing into "No soapboxing while out of character"? That saves us a whole bunch of effort.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby SelucianCrusader » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:30 pm

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. 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.


11 days ago...

Aquinas wrote:I respectfully differ from Wouter and soysauce to the extent that I sense they are over-stating the scale of the problem Particracy currently has in terms of OOC offensive speech and hate speech. That is not to be complacent or to deny the issue exists. However, it would be mistaken to assume the game or the forum is really heavily characterised by this behaviour, or that anywhere near the majority of regular forum posters are extremists or louts. It would be fair to say the problem has been much worse in the past than it is now. It would also be fair to say that due to the self-inflicted crisis Moderation has put us in, we are in very real danger of going backwards unless the right clarity emerges.


...but now there's suddenly some pressing hurry...

I think we all know that there's no army of alt-right or neo-nazi or whatever trolls just waiting for the right moment to take over Particracy... at least not outside the world of wild fantasy. :roll:

Anyway, I echo LukasV's sentiments which has always been the way to approach these issues in PT. Last time we had a Pepe the Frog-type person on the Off-topic forum - Redoctober, instead of censoring his rubbish - then-mod Amazeroth reacted like this:

Amazeroth wrote:Saying shit like that is the best way to get beaten up though. By probably every potential sexual relation. And judging by the kind of nazi scum that walks the streets over here, you would be about 1.5 meters high, with clearly visible signs of degeneration, and anyone you sprout that nonsense at probably would be able to beat you up.


Maybe he should have started a whole bunch of drama about feeling offended by a moderator "inciting violence" against him perhaps? :lol:

Judging by the responses in this thread, support among the community (if we don't count "royal we's") for a rule like this seems shallow to say the least. I'd think it'd be better to settle with a rule banning certain topics that are completely on the fringes of modern western political discourse (Holocaust denial, racial biology, promotion of terrorist groups etc.) than making a rule against making specific groups feeling "hated" - a term that can be interpreted as broadly as "feeling offended" in general. We all know what can happen when people start claiming to belong to this or that group and claim to be "offended" by someone's opinions and I doubt many of us wish to have an environment like that, just like we wouldn't like the site to become a platform for such fringe ideas. Of course - is someone is directly addressing someone else and insulting him or her for belonging to this or that - it's harassment and should be sanctioned as such.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:44 pm

LukasV wrote: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."


Sorry to highlight a particular section of your posts because I appreciate it was much longer but it broadly represents what I think you're saying and also what SelCru was hinting at. I agree that debate and discussion often show the flaws in bigoted argument but the truth is that this needn't be the place to do that. As players, we each only have a certain amount of time which we can spend playing the game, every minute we spend on arguing with bigots generates the opportunity cost of writing a newspaper article, presenting a bill and so on. Wouldn't it be much easier for a Moderator to just say "actually, this guy is propagating the view that [blacks, gays, women should be killed or whatever], we don't need that here; I'll warn the player and keep my eye on him". Likewise, Particracy is a game when it comes down to it. It might be a discussion forum to some extent but that's not its primary function so we've no obligation to entertain whatever viewpoint because of some grandiose notion of free speech.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby LukasV » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:52 pm

SelucianCrusader wrote:I'd think it'd be better to settle with a rule banning certain topics that are completely on the fringes of modern western political discourse (Holocaust denial, racial biology, promotion of terrorist groups etc.) than making a rule against making specific groups feeling "hated" - a term that can be interpreted as broadly as "feeling offended" in general. We all know what can happen when people start claiming to belong to this or that group and claim to be "offended" by someone's opinions and I doubt many of us wish to have an environment like that, just like we wouldn't like the site to become a platform for such fringe ideas. Of course - is someone is directly addressing someone else and insulting him or her for belonging to this or that - it's harassment and should be sanctioned as such.


While this is something I can get behind, the trouble will be figuring out where the list of topics ends. A line of thinking/questioning that may seem harmless to me or you might be deemed egregious and offensive to someone else.

jamescfm wrote:Wouldn't it be much easier for a Moderator to just say "actually, this guy is propagating the view that [blacks, gays, women should be killed or whatever], we don't need that here; I'll warn the player and keep my eye on him".

Hence my proposal to ban soapboxing.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:55 pm

LukasV wrote:
jamescfm wrote:Wouldn't it be much easier for a Moderator to just say "actually, this guy is propagating the view that [blacks, gays, women should be killed or whatever], we don't need that here; I'll warn the player and keep my eye on him".

Hence my proposal to ban soapboxing.


In that case, how would your proposal differ from the other suggestions? Couldn't your proposal to ban soapboxing cause the exact same problems of 'where to draw the line' that banning certain speech does? I don't mean to be pedantic, I just want a better understanding of what it is you're suggesting.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby LukasV » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:36 pm

jamescfm wrote:
LukasV wrote:
jamescfm wrote:Wouldn't it be much easier for a Moderator to just say "actually, this guy is propagating the view that [blacks, gays, women should be killed or whatever], we don't need that here; I'll warn the player and keep my eye on him".

Hence my proposal to ban soapboxing.


In that case, how would your proposal differ from the other suggestions? Couldn't your proposal to ban soapboxing cause the exact same problems of 'where to draw the line' that banning certain speech does? I don't mean to be pedantic, I just want a better understanding of what it is you're suggesting.


Yeah, I think I might've gone a bit cyclical with that, admittedly. My bad.

That being said, so long as this hate speech ruling does not apply to party RP in-game, I won't have a problem with it. And I'd rather support SelCru's proposal to ban fringe topics than to create protected groups; that way, I can still call Zanz a faggit when he deserves it.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby Aquinas » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:24 pm

SelucianCrusader wrote:
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. 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.


11 days ago...

Aquinas wrote:I respectfully differ from Wouter and soysauce to the extent that I sense they are over-stating the scale of the problem Particracy currently has in terms of OOC offensive speech and hate speech. That is not to be complacent or to deny the issue exists. However, it would be mistaken to assume the game or the forum is really heavily characterised by this behaviour, or that anywhere near the majority of regular forum posters are extremists or louts. It would be fair to say the problem has been much worse in the past than it is now. It would also be fair to say that due to the self-inflicted crisis Moderation has put us in, we are in very real danger of going backwards unless the right clarity emerges.


...but now there's suddenly some pressing hurry...

I think we all know that there's no army of alt-right or neo-nazi or whatever trolls just waiting for the right moment to take over Particracy... at least not outside the world of wild fantasy. :roll:


There is no contradiction between the two statements. The earlier one simply says I sensed soysauce and Wouter were generally overstating the scale of the problem, but warns of the danger of sliding backwards unless the right action is taken. The later one expresses concern that since May 22 we have been in limbo as to what the situation is with regards to hate speech, and urges for reasonably speedy resolution of that problem. Also, as I alluded to in my previous post, there has been a troubling development within recent days (the details of which both you and Reddy are aware), and I am concerned there are individuals out there who might try to take advantage of the current state of limbo in order to test what they can get away with both in-game and on the forum.

LukasV wrote:And I'd rather support SelCru's proposal to ban fringe topics than to create protected groups; that way, I can still call Zanz a faggit when he deserves it.


Talking of which, I hope this outburst is going to be dealt with. Everybody who has followed Discord (which includes Wouter and both Mods) will realise full well that as well as being offensive and a completely inappropriate and unnecessary remark, this is rather clearly part of LukasV's personal agitation against me.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Consultation on Offensive and Hate Speech Regulation

Postby LukasV » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:54 pm

Aquinas wrote:Talking of which, I hope this outburst is going to be dealt with. Everybody who has followed Discord (which includes Wouter and both Mods) will realise full well that as well as being offensive and a completely inappropriate and unnecessary remark, this is rather clearly part of LukasV's personal agitation against me.

>sees a bantering remark at Zanz's expense
>highlights it in red
>"OMG CLEARLY HE MEANS ME"


Uh whut? Y'all gotta chill. Damn son.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron