Add rape to the hard word filter

[WineAllWine]

There's no need for it.

[Vekter]

Part of me agrees, but part of me also acknowledges that there's valid reasons to use the word from time to time and another third part of me thinks it should stay because it's a good trap for the kind of person who gets really fucking mad at us for telling them they can't make rape jokes.

[vect0r]

Part of me agrees, but part of me also acknowledges that there's valid reasons to use the word from time to time and another third part of me thinks it should stay because it's a good trap for the kind of person who gets really fucking mad at us for telling them they can't make rape jokes.

What's a valid use case for the word?

[Vekter]

Part of me agrees, but part of me also acknowledges that there's valid reasons to use the word from time to time and another third part of me thinks it should stay because it's a good trap for the kind of person who gets really fucking mad at us for telling them they can't make rape jokes.

What's a valid use case for the word?

There's certain historical events that use the word. Imma be real, I'm not like significantly against wordfiltering this, I was just presenting possible reasons not to.

[britgrenadier1]

Part of me agrees, but part of me also acknowledges that there's valid reasons to use the word from time to time and another third part of me thinks it should stay because it's a good trap for the kind of person who gets really fucking mad at us for telling them they can't make rape jokes.

What's a valid use case for the word?

There's certain historical events that use the word. Imma be real, I'm not like significantly against wordfiltering this, I was just presenting possible reasons not to.

I don't think people would be talking about that 500 years into the future. +1 for hard filter

[RaveRadbury]

Part of me agrees, but part of me also acknowledges that there's valid reasons to use the word from time to time and another third part of me thinks it should stay because it's a good trap for the kind of person who gets really fucking mad at us for telling them they can't make rape jokes.

What's a valid use case for the word?

There's certain historical events that use the word. Imma be real, I'm not like significantly against wordfiltering this, I was just presenting possible reasons not to.

I doubt that the Rape of Nanking is going to come up IC, nor rapeseed oil. On the off chance that this or any other kind of Scunthorpe Problem occurs, the soft filter exists to ask people "Are you sure you want to say this? Because usually it's a bad idea to say this." I think that's pretty decent considering that we're ultimately seeking to help people avoid getting a note or a ban.

Some kind of filtering does seem appropriate as it's a viscerally unsavory word that will likely result in getting bopped if you use it.

[TheBibleMelts]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

[TheLoLSwat]

i dont think this is a bad idea necessarily, i just dont think its better than admins telling people off / punting people into the sun.

[Vekter]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

This is honestly my biggest reason for not wanting to block it, but I also don't care enough that if the headmins decided to block it I would raise a stink.

I'd absolutely support adding it to the soft filter though.

[Ezel]

I hear it very rarely and its usually used by some person that got arrested/kidnapped and screams help sec/antag raping me I don'/ really like the word. but i think its definitly worth putting it in on soft filter so admins get alerted (and its left on their juridisction) like we already have with other words antag etc

Edit: isn't this a code issue though?

[Bepis]

Would it also block the word therapeutic

[Jacquerel]

Edit: isn't this a code issue though?

Adding/removing things from the word filter?
Not only is it not a code issue, we literally can't have the word filter list on github because it turns out "here's a list of every slur" upsets github's moderation policy

[Metek]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

It would be trivial to notify the admins whenever someone tries to use the banned word.

[RaveRadbury]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

This frames moderation as a kind of morality test: that we need to "catch" people saying bad things to reveal their essential wrongness. I don't agree with that. The internet brings a mix of cultures and maturities, and I'd much rather someone get a nudge that they're being tone-deaf than be silently filtered and preemptively written off.

Hard filters aren't soul-saving devices. They're UX tools. We're not gatekeeping moral purity; we're just trying to keep the space civil. Treating people as if they're irredeemable because of a single misstep isn't protective: it's how you create the alienated villains you claim to oppose.

[TheBibleMelts]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

This frames moderation as a kind of morality test: that we need to "catch" people saying bad things to reveal their essential wrongness. I don't agree with that. The internet brings a mix of cultures and maturities, and I'd much rather someone get a nudge that they're being tone-deaf than be silently filtered and preemptively written off.

Hard filters aren't soul-saving devices. They're UX tools. We're not gatekeeping moral purity; we're just trying to keep the space civil. Treating people as if they're irredeemable because of a single misstep isn't protective: it's how you create the alienated villains you claim to oppose.

that's why it belongs on a soft filter, not a hard one. our admins shouldn't be tyrranical puritans who ban someone the first time it is said without any context or 'hey we don't do that here' first. it's the people we already have warned and informed why they're being warned who go on to do it again that filter themselves out of the vibe check.

[RaveRadbury]

if we put every word we don't like to see onto a hard filter, we're not going to be able to filter the people who would unabashedly use those words out as effectively.

This frames moderation as a kind of morality test: that we need to "catch" people saying bad things to reveal their essential wrongness. I don't agree with that. The internet brings a mix of cultures and maturities, and I'd much rather someone get a nudge that they're being tone-deaf than be silently filtered and preemptively written off.

Hard filters aren't soul-saving devices. They're UX tools. We're not gatekeeping moral purity; we're just trying to keep the space civil. Treating people as if they're irredeemable because of a single misstep isn't protective: it's how you create the alienated villains you claim to oppose.

that's why it belongs on a soft filter, not a hard one. our admins shouldn't be tyrranical puritans who ban someone the first time it is said without any context or 'hey we don't do that here' first. it's the people we already have warned and informed why they're being warned who go on to do it again that filter themselves out of the vibe check.

I see, yeah. Soft filter good.

[NecromancerAnne]

Seems like a good soft filter candidate.

[kinnebian]

if we were hard filtering, id rather more prominent slurs/bigotry go first, aka the n word.

[BeefChunks]

if we were hard filtering, id rather more prominent slurs/bigotry go first, aka the n word.

Aren't those already hard filtered? I have obviously never tried to type them, but I would assume they would be.

[Timberpoes]

Not only is it already filtered, it was filtered many moons ago under MSO's former reign.

He ran the stats on the word's usage on Terry and discovered that was a rounding-error-to-0% """correct""" usage of the word and that basically every instance was OOC in IC. As a result, it was added to the hard word filter which was exclusively OOC in IC terms.

[RaveRadbury]

if we were hard filtering, id rather more prominent slurs/bigotry go first, aka the n word.

My first term did that after the host offered us the opportunity (after saying for years it wouldn't happen), Hulk made a video about it.

[iwishforducks]

it’s kind of funny that nobody actually knows what is on the soft filter or what is on the hard filter because you have to say the words to find out if they are for sure

Not only is it already filtered, it was filtered many moons ago under MSO's former reign.

is it currently hard filtered, then? or just soft filtered?

[Timberpoes]

The classical n bomb and some common variants should be/hopefully are hard filtered.

Only a small handful of people can see the word filter these days because it's locked behind top level ops access now and even headmins need to ask someone else to see a copy of it or change it.

[Maxipat]

I think rape should be in soft filter, hard filtering it makes no sense cause in theory there could be a valid use of it.

[Festkongendk]

[.....] Treating people as if they're irredeemable because of a single misstep isn't protective: it's how you create the alienated villains you claim to oppose.

Yeah everyone knows prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them when they use harmful language. I remember learning about that in history class. Anyway in all seriousness people aren't going to become "Villains" or any other anime thing because of an apparently already-existing hard filter.

[Jamarkus]

I mean, we have a psychologist role, dont we? that role actually opens up to using this word in the right context.

I go see the psych to get off my chest im struggling with being jumpy and anxious in public spaces, and it may come from being SA's in the past. or in more harsh terms, raped.
Theres valid times where using the word rape actually has a reason, but if a spaceman is running around saying rape just for the hell of it, or when the clown yells out over the radio that "sec is raping me!!!" then you can understand why people want it in the hard filter banlist.

it has merit BECAUSE of the psych role. if that role didnt exist, I can understand placing a hard ban on it.

also to veer off a bit, you are gonna run into things that trigger you, for lack of a better term. If we decide to just shut up every instance of negative words with bad meanings (no im not MSOing all over the place here, Im making a stance on smaller words that arent the n word) then we lose some of that substance that makes RP neat. Suicide is a serious topic that most people brush over to the wayside in game. THAT could be triggering to some people. Nobody is gonna want that filtered or removed though. I dont think it needs a hard filter. a soft filter seems fine. why not, least you get a chance to re-think if you should or shouldn't say this word.

[RaveRadbury]

[.....] Treating people as if they're irredeemable because of a single misstep isn't protective: it's how you create the alienated villains you claim to oppose.

Yeah everyone knows prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them when they use harmful language. I remember learning about that in history class. Anyway in all seriousness people aren't going to become "Villains" or any other anime thing because of an apparently already-existing hard filter.

Idk man I'm pretty sure if I was a smug asshole to you right now over something that you thought was okay (like the post you just made) you'd probably get a chip on your shoulder about it, but if instead I was like "Hey man, that's weird to say there are "prejudiced" and "non-prejudiced" people and that the former is ontologically evil, especially when you disqualify it with flippant humor. Could we engage with a bit of nuance and recognize that people are complicated and come from a variety of circumstances especially when it comes to chronically online behavior? People tend to respond to gentle adjustment better than they do condemnation and we're all capable of growth."

Do you see the difference?

[Festkongendk]

Idk man I'm pretty sure if I was a smug asshole to you right now over something that you thought was okay (like the post you just made) you'd probably get a chip on your shoulder about it, but if instead I was like "Hey man, that's weird to say there are "prejudiced" and "non-prejudiced" people and that the former is ontologically evil, especially when you disqualify it with flippant humor. Could we engage with a bit of nuance and recognize that people are complicated and come from a variety of circumstances especially when it comes to chronically online behavior? People tend to respond to gentle adjustment better than they do condemnation and we're all capable of growth."

Do you see the difference?

TBH this reply is mostly just you encouraging me to engage more "constructively" rather than the issue at hand. I don't think anyone here has said prejudiced people are "ontologically evil" so I'm not disqualifying that with my "flippant humor." I also never advocated for immediately permanently banning someone for saying rape. I think the gentle approach works best, but I don't see how hard filtering rape means we can't also be gentle. Nobody here sees the filter as a "moral purity" Test

@Jamarkus does /tg/ really need "rape survivor roleplay" in order to make engaging stories? Even if you want to go that direction, which I don't think is a good one, you don't need the word "rape" you can just allude to it through euphemisms.

[RaveRadbury]

TBH this reply is mostly just you encouraging me to engage more "constructively" rather than the issue at hand. I don't think anyone here has said prejudiced people are "ontologically evil" so I'm not disqualifying that with my "flippant humor." I also never advocated for immediately permanently banning someone for saying rape. I think the gentle approach works best, but I don't see how hard filtering rape means we can't also be gentle. Nobody here sees the filter as a "moral purity" Test

Yeah everyone knows prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them when they use harmful language. I remember learning about that in history class. Anyway in all seriousness people aren't going to become "Villains" or any other anime thing because of an apparently already-existing hard filter.

Yeah idk man putting things in quotation marks doesn't mean you didn't do it. Have a good day though!

T-T-T-TRIPLE EDIT: I realize now that my use of (like the post you just made) was interpreted as me saying your post was bad. Your post is okay. I was saying that if I was rude to you as a response to your post you'd respond differently. Sorry for the confusion!

Double Edit: The point of my post was to illustrate how going about things can impact reception and future behavior, as well as offering advice about how to engage. Things can be useful in more than one way!

EDIT: to show my work w/r/t your implication of ontological evil.

► Show Spoiler

Decomposition of Implied Ontology:

1. Prejudiced people are prejudiced...
Treats "prejudiced" as a fixed trait, not a behavior.

That's an ontological assertion: person = essence = prejudice.

2. ...because society is too mean to them...
Sarcasm presumes this is a bad faith excuse.

It implies that prejudiced people are unchangeable and use social mistreatment as a shield.

3. ...when they use harmful language.
Collapses contextual expression into essential identity.

Therefore:

This statement implies that people who express harmful language are already fully prejudiced, and that this is an immutable identity trait.

That is ontological positioning.

[Festkongendk]

TBH this reply is mostly just you encouraging me to engage more "constructively" rather than the issue at hand. I don't think anyone here has said prejudiced people are "ontologically evil" so I'm not disqualifying that with my "flippant humor." I also never advocated for immediately permanently banning someone for saying rape. I think the gentle approach works best, but I don't see how hard filtering rape means we can't also be gentle. Nobody here sees the filter as a "moral purity" Test

Yeah everyone knows prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them when they use harmful language. I remember learning about that in history class. Anyway in all seriousness people aren't going to become "Villains" or any other anime thing because of an apparently already-existing hard filter.

Yeah idk man putting things in quotation marks doesn't mean you didn't do it. Have a good day though!

T-T-T-TRIPLE EDIT: I realize now that my use of (like the post you just made) was interpreted as me saying your post was bad. Your post is okay. I was saying that if I was rude to you as a response to your post you'd respond differently. Sorry for the confusion!

Double Edit: The point of my post was to illustrate how going about things can impact reception and future behavior, as well as offering advice about how to engage. Things can be useful in more than one way!

EDIT: to show my work w/r/t your implication of ontological evil.

► Show Spoiler

Decomposition of Implied Ontology:

1. Prejudiced people are prejudiced...
Treats "prejudiced" as a fixed trait, not a behavior.

That's an ontological assertion: person = essence = prejudice.

2. ...because society is too mean to them...
Sarcasm presumes this is a bad faith excuse.

It implies that prejudiced people are unchangeable and use social mistreatment as a shield.

3. ...when they use harmful language.
Collapses contextual expression into essential identity.

Therefore:

This statement implies that people who express harmful language are already fully prejudiced, and that this is an immutable identity trait.

That is ontological positioning.

1. Saying "prejudiced people are prejudiced" doesn't mean it's a "fixed trait." You can be prejudiced at one point in your life and then not prejudiced at another.

2. because of reason #1 it does not imply that prejudiced people are unchangable. Though a lot of people do justify their prejudice on mistreatment or perceived mistreatment it has no bearing on the issue at hand. People will not become "villains" as you call them just because we put a hard filter on the word rape. You have failed to prove why hard filtering this word means people will become villains. Also if we're talking about ontological assertions, isn't calling someone a villain an ontological assertion?

3. No it doesn't, prejudiced people are much deeper and nuanced than the language they use, but using harmful language creates an unwelcoming environment.

This post reads like a philosophy major trying to use deductive "logic" to prove their point. Unfortunately your "logic" is riddled with completely baseless premises and strawmans what I say. It's still unclear to me how hard filtering a word means people become villains.

[RaveRadbury]

1. Saying "prejudiced people are prejudiced" doesn't mean it's a "fixed trait." You can be prejudiced at one point in your life and then not prejudiced at another.

2. because of reason #1 it does not imply that prejudiced people are unchangable. Though a lot of people do justify their prejudice on mistreatment or perceived mistreatment it has no bearing on the issue at hand. People will not become "villains" as you call them just because we put a hard filter on the word rape. You have failed to prove why hard filtering this word means people will become villains. Also if we're talking about ontological assertions, isn't calling someone a villain an ontological assertion?

3. No it doesn't, prejudiced people are much deeper and nuanced than the language they use, but using harmful language creates an unwelcoming environment.

This post reads like a philosophy major trying to use deductive "logic" to prove their point. Unfortunately your "logic" is riddled with completely baseless premises and strawmans what I say. It's still unclear to me how hard filtering a word means people become villains.

Hey thanks for clarifying your post, I appreciate that! Ultimately you walked in to a discussion between me and TheBibleMelts, wherein he clarified after that he feels that it should be on the soft filter and I agreed with that!

that's why it belongs on a soft filter, not a hard one. our admins shouldn't be tyrranical puritans who ban someone the first time it is said without any context or 'hey we don't do that here' first. it's the people we already have warned and informed why they're being warned who go on to do it again that filter themselves out of the vibe check.

I see, yeah. Soft filter good.

If you're now saying people are nuanced, changeable, and responsive to social context: I agree. That was the entire point of my post. But that means we're no longer disagreeing about why I raised the issue, only how it was received. If we're aligned on outcome modeling and behavioral engagement, then we're done here.

Having that said, you've laid down pretty some strong claims, so let me help you out as I walk through your argument. It ran long so I'm spoilering it.

► Show Spoiler

1. Saying "prejudiced people are prejudiced" doesn't mean it's a "fixed trait." You can be prejudiced at one point in your life and then not prejudiced at another.

This is true in a vacuum but it doesn't repair the contradiction I pointed out.

Your original sentence did not say "Some people are temporarily prejudiced" it said "Prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them..." there's no signal of temporary or conditional.

2. because of reason #1 it does not imply that prejudiced people are unchangable. Though a lot of people do justify their prejudice on mistreatment or perceived mistreatment it has no bearing on the issue at hand. People will not become "villains" as you call them just because we put a hard filter on the word rape. You have failed to prove why hard filtering this word means people will become villains. Also if we're talking about ontological assertions, isn't calling someone a villain an ontological assertion?

This is scattershot deflection.
1. My villain-creation claim was always contingent and behavioral.

• Not "hard filter -> villain."
• But: "Condemnation without engagement -> alienation -> hardened oppositional identity."

This is a social dynamics claim, not a metaphysical one.

2. Your original sarcasm framed the opposite:
"People aren’t going to become villains..."
This is a hard denial of transformation risk. So you were treating categories as fixed in that moment.

3. "Isn’t calling someone a villain ontological?"

• This is an attempt at false equivalence.
• I didn't call anyone a villain, I described a behavioral trajectory toward villainization under certain social pressures.

So even here you are the one strawmanning. You're trying to reframe my model of transformation as static labelling then accusing me of essentialism.

3. No it doesn't, prejudiced people are much deeper and nuanced than the language they use, but using harmful language creates an unwelcoming environment.

This is a contradiction of your own prior sarcasm.
If prejudiced people are "deeper and nuanced" then:

• Why did your original sarcasm treat them as inherently and permanently prejudiced?
• Why mock the idea that the social response could shape their behavior?

This line is an attempted recharacterization that Isn't backed by any modification or retraction of your earlier quote.

So you're performing nuance without reconciling your prior framing. The contradiction stands.

This post reads like a philosophy major trying to use deductive "logic" to prove their point. Unfortunately your "logic" is riddled with completely baseless premises and strawmans what I say. It's still unclear to me how hard filtering a word means people become villains.

[dendydoom]

im a SA survivor and while just hearing the word rape doesn't necessarily set me off, certain conditions for it being present in a round of the funny spaceman game can very quickly make me want to turn it off and do something else, and for my own comfort (i realize i am only 1 person here but if we're sharing thoughts then this is mine) i would much prefer it to not exist within the IC when we don't allow sexually charged roleplay in the first place

[Festkongendk]

► Show Spoiler

1. Saying "prejudiced people are prejudiced" doesn't mean it's a "fixed trait." You can be prejudiced at one point in your life and then not prejudiced at another.

This is true in a vacuum but it doesn't repair the contradiction I pointed out.

Your original sentence did not say "Some people are temporarily prejudiced" it said "Prejudiced people are prejudiced because society is too mean to them..." there's no signal of temporary or conditional.

2. because of reason #1 it does not imply that prejudiced people are unchangable. Though a lot of people do justify their prejudice on mistreatment or perceived mistreatment it has no bearing on the issue at hand. People will not become "villains" as you call them just because we put a hard filter on the word rape. You have failed to prove why hard filtering this word means people will become villains. Also if we're talking about ontological assertions, isn't calling someone a villain an ontological assertion?

This is scattershot deflection.
1. My villain-creation claim was always contingent and behavioral.

• Not "hard filter -> villain."
• But: "Condemnation without engagement -> alienation -> hardened oppositional identity."

This is a social dynamics claim, not a metaphysical one.

2. Your original sarcasm framed the opposite:
"People aren’t going to become villains..."
This is a hard denial of transformation risk. So you were treating categories as fixed in that moment.

3. "Isn’t calling someone a villain ontological?"

• This is an attempt at false equivalence.
• I didn't call anyone a villain, I described a behavioral trajectory toward villainization under certain social pressures.

So even here you are the one strawmanning. You're trying to reframe my model of transformation as static labelling then accusing me of essentialism.

3. No it doesn't, prejudiced people are much deeper and nuanced than the language they use, but using harmful language creates an unwelcoming environment.

This is a contradiction of your own prior sarcasm.
If prejudiced people are "deeper and nuanced" then:

• Why did your original sarcasm treat them as inherently and permanently prejudiced?
• Why mock the idea that the social response could shape their behavior?

This line is an attempted recharacterization that Isn't backed by any modification or retraction of your earlier quote.

So you're performing nuance without reconciling your prior framing. The contradiction stands.

This post reads like a philosophy major trying to use deductive "logic" to prove their point. Unfortunately your "logic" is riddled with completely baseless premises and strawmans what I say. It's still unclear to me how hard filtering a word means people become villains.

The quote chain is getting unwieldly so I cut most of it out and will just respond to your sign posts that you laid out in your spoilers.

1.There's also no "signal" that it's a permanent immutable trait either. This is one of the baseless premises that is foundational to your argument. Calling someone a prejudiced person does not imply that this prejudice is a fixed immutable trait of that person any more than it implies it's a temporary one capable of change.

2. Right, but you're treating the "hard filter" as condemnation without engagement in the context to TBM's post. In any case this was always a strawman of what the hard filter was supposed to be. Nobody, including The bible Melts, said we should "condemn" people without engagement for their harmful language, he said the filter would make it so we can't weed people out who we don't want here. Two separate things entirely.

At no point did I commit to "fixed" categories of villain and not villain. I was using the language you had already used. I'm not going to engage in postmodern deconstruction of concepts and identities every time someone uses essentialist language (which you did) because it distracts from the overall point.

Re: the you calling someone a villain part, I agree that you didn't call someone in particular a villain but rather introduced the concept of a villain which is an ontological, essentialist claim. You cannot have it both ways. And in any case I never called anyone ontologically evil this is something that is completely strawmanned by you.

3. My original sarcastic post did not treat people as permanently prejudiced. You just decided I treated them that way with no evidence for reasons I cannot yet ascertain. And I am mocking the idea because it's not really true. People who engage in bigoted behavior don't become "villains" (whatever that means) because they aren't allowed to use certain words via the hard filter. Look at how Gamergate developed.

You can say the "contradiction stands" and treat this as a formal debate and courtroom exercise but you are still wrong about the most important matter at hand. As a reminder, that matter isn't about ontological framing or engaging in essentialism or whatever it's about whether hard filters aren't going to cause bigoted people, or people who engage in bigoted behavior, to become "alienated villains" (whatever this means). You have yet to prove this and are focused entirely on pointing out flaws in my reasoning based on unfounded assumptions and strawmans of my arguments.

Also it's not an ad hom attack. The kind of approach you are doing is appropiate for formal academic exercises where the goal is to examine foundational logic and epistemology or whatever but is ill-suited for a policy discussion about using more inclusive language.

Personally I think the person above me testifying that they are an SA survivor and the word could upset them during a round is more than enough to hard filter the word. There's no reason to allow it. Not one person in this thread has provided an example where this word would be appropriate in its normal usage (rape, rapes, raping, raped, rapist). I would be okay with allowing "rapeseed". And just because we hard filter it doesn't mean we publicly name and shame everyone who tries typing it but gets a "you cant use this word" message. So we can create a more inclusive environment through the hard filter without creating anime villains. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[iain0]

We've agreed to add this to the soft filter list.

Personally I question if this word ever has place in our game (though there was this one ticket...), and is a word that we can all just avoid and don't need to bring up, however, the consensus is to soft filter this which will result in admins getting alerted to use, and can evaluate it from there. Ultimately in the long term that may have more significant effects than just silently hard filtering it.

This should be rolling out to servers now.