Discovery Gaming Community

Account name: Mímir
Duration: [color=#33CC00]24h
Rules:
Comments: We tolerate a lot of the stuff but calling people Retards, even in general, is unacceptable and against forum rules.

There is no wiggle room on this, don't post intolerant words on these forums. We'll be keeping an eye on you, and next time this happens you're going to be dealing with worse than a day off the forums.
Moderator Link: link

Ok you cracked your whip, so be it, but at least get your facts straight because the way you distort things puts me in an uneccesary bad light and I think that is unfair.

I never called anyone anything - I said it is quote "[...]<strike>retarded</strike> un-cool[...]" to sit off plane/stay cloaked/PM to viciously trash talk someone. Admittedly a poor choice of word, but it is hardly a sentiment neither the OP nor anyone else posting in the thread would disagree with. Nobody in the thread was promoting that kind of behaviour either.

It seems you have a problem with the use of that particular word in itself, independent of subject, context and intent, which is fair enough - but if you go down that road you can expect long working hours modding the forum. There is an abundence of posts containing words which would be considered derogatives when seen isolated (and interestingly there are adversely numerous posts void of "bad" words but with the clear intent of insulting other players - what's your take on that?). And if context is irrelevant, then what about RP posts containing derogatives?

Might I also point out that if there is no consistency in your rulings, you lose legitimacy. Arbitrary rule = despotism, and while despotism might be the true technical power-structure here on the server and the forum, up until now I have been happy in the (dis-?)belief that the aim was to promote something entirely different in this community you are appointed to safeguard.

Furthermore, what did you hope to achieve with this ban? I never crossed your desk like this before, I like to believe I generally play nice in-game and on the forums, I'm fairly critical of myself and own up to my mistakes, and even though I admittedly used a "bad" word like so many other people do unpunished (and even though the extent of how "bad" this word is is context dependant too - Roland Barthes' semiology, transitory signifiers and all that linguistic jazz), my pulse was well below 60 at all times - my use of that word was obviously in no way related to that over-heated off-topic argument already going on in the thread either.

From my end of the table, you achieved the exact opposite of what you supposedly set out to with your punishment: I did not cool down, your initial PM threats (which from a psychological standpoint are very counter-productive - if you don't want dialogue and you already made up your mind, why the PM's?) and subsequent ban and text were the only things firing me up.

And as for your PM's with tall stories comparing my ill-doing with "hate speech", I can only say pls. Snipped. Let's not dig ourselves a bigger hole, please. -Gheis

P.S. To make the matter more absurd, I worked for several years on a college for disabled teenagers in England (some of which I still communicate with now, years after I left the job), and exactly because of subject, context and intent I would never dream of calling a disabled person (or any other person for that matter) the word I used. To somehow imply that I should somehow be intolerant of disabled people (as you did in your PM's) is simply put laughable.

EDIT: Hi Gheis. Well my intention was to draw the hypocrisy out in plain sight - seeing that the snipped video would be more than alright in this thread, containing lots of other songs with very very naughty lyrics and titles.

If this "hate speech" thing is going to be the justification, it cannot be anything but universal in nature. Moreover the meaning of a word is either dependant on subject, intent and context or it is not. There is no in-between. Which brings us back to consistent/arbitrary rulings. That's what happens when you try to elevate a concept solely belonging in the realm of law up to a general principle of social conduct. It doesn't fit - the clever portion of people advocating for hate speech laws already pointed that out long ago.

Let me be clear

I accept that there is no malicious intent behind the usage. That is why you received a light punishment for it, rather than a heavier one.

The usage of the word, at all, period, is what was at fault here.

There are words that are simply not justifiable on these forums irregardless of context.

You were punished for posting it in the first place, immediately after a warning, I might add, warning people to refrain from name calling. Striking it out does not, in fact, excuse the fact you wrote it. Nor does it stop people from reading it and becoming offended.

We sanction for Swearwords that are filtered as well, this is no different.

While there has been no trouble from you in the past, you are reminded that sometimes players do make mistakes, I accept that you made an error here, and I hope that you can, in turn, see the point of the Administration Team's Zero Tolerance policy for any intolerant/Swear based words and refrain from using them in the future.

Our aim with this ban is to make you think twice, in future, about hitting the send button. Look at what you wrote, you crossed it out, you knew that it wasn't supposed to be there, why incite people by leaving it there?

In future, think before you post.

~Alvin

Hey hey. There simply is no moral justification for adopting a universal hierarchical scale of pejoratives and similar "offensive material" within a social context.

How would you morally determine what is worst - a Confederate flag or a Nazi swastika? Who do you ask - an african-american or a Jew? Do you make your call based on the number of people murdered under the auspices of a particular symbol (if so SCRA has got quite a problem with the Hammer and Sickle - some might argue that the Outcasts have got a problem with the use of a Christian crusader cross) or what? Could my new Rheinland faction don a Swastika? If not, what makes the Swastika fundamentally different from some of these other symbols used?

How do you determine the weight of words? Gaijin is permitted here, the n-word is (most likely) not - how are those two terms not one and the same in essence?

How on Earth do you imagine elevating something so blatantly flawed into a universal principle for social conduct?*

Rather than dabbling in concepts that are difficult to comprehend, you should simply make a list of the particular words that warrants a ban when merely mentioned, and a little text saying "these words are not allowed on the forum for no other reason than because we say so".

I could deal with that, as it would root out some of the hypocrisy (I posted a strangely fitting music video** above that got snipped, but would get +1's in the "Epic Tunes" thread - how can that be if you are so adamant that derogatives should be seen in themselves, outside of context?). A list would eliminate the need for the deeply flawed justification you seem to rely on, as well as remove the arbitrary element regarding when to crack your whip.

If there truly was a zero-tolerance policy enforced consistently, I would have conformed to that when I joined, and kept my little musings on moral justification to myself. I'm all for a modded forum and even censorship in some cases, but definitely not in this haphazard fashion - having read countless posts on this forum, I genuinely did not imagine that that one word used the way it was used could ever warrant a ban. And how am I supposed to promise I will never end up in a similar situation again, when you don't let me know which specific words aren't "[...] justifiable on these forums irregardless of context"?***


Tl;dr: In future, think before you ban.


P.S. As you are well aware I was busy writing that infamous post at the time you posted your warning in the thread, so your attempt to imply that I was warned and then subsequently posted fails. Why re-iterate something you know is a half-truth at best? That's not conducive to a friendly debate.



* It works in law because law is a clearly confined system in its own. Even within relatively homogenous regions such as the EU you will find that '€œhate speech'€ differ between the member states, with different groups getting a special status within the legislative framework. Still intent and context (let alone subject) are the keys - in my country's "hate speech" legislation, intent is technically divided into "threaten"/"insult"/"degrade" (did I do any of those things?). I'm sure something similar is the case in any other country with this kind of legislation. By the way, here'€™s a quote from the Council of Europe'€™s fact sheet regarding '€œhate speech'€ which ought to interest you:

Quote:'€œThe basic criterion the Court uses to determine whether a restriction of freedom of expression is acceptable or not is the original aim of the author of the statement. This may be difficult to determine and that is why the Court gives great importance to the context in which the statement was made.

** That was a video with Ol' Dirty using the n-word - by your account does this distinguished member of the Wu-Tang Clan (notorious for referencing Black Nationalism in their lyrics and mythology) in fact hate african-american people?

*** For fun I did a forum search for that particular word I used, and lo and behold: It capped out at a 1000 hits/27 pages. Guess you are going to have a busy day ahead of you retro-banning people. Or perhaps you should ease up your statement ("The usage of the word, at all, period, is what was at fault here") accordingly to maintain just a shred of consistency?