/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 4:58 pm**

Bottom post of the previous page:

We knew it was coming.

Opening this thread to coordinate how the head admins want to rewrite Rule 11 now that MSO is gone. For context, Rule 11 was explicitly designed in an attempt to prevent situations where players were not using slurs in an insulting manner at other players but were just using them in general.

I imagine we will be looking at whether or not to implement a hard slur filter as well. I will post my opinions on the matter after folks have had some discussion as I imagine I'm not the only one who thinks the rule is not getting the job done properly.
E: To clarify, this is more to look into a full rewrite of the rule, not just adding slurs to the word filter.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 11:51 am**

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:47 pm I think it's my God given right to call you a retard if you are being retarded tbh, and I am a neurodivergent, I think it is insane molly coddling infantilising bullshit to say that neurodivergents need some sort of protection from the word retard and also has the implication that neurodivergents are somehow retards since they need protection from said word.

I am neurodivergent and find the word very hurtful. I also don't think it's infantilizing to say that we don't want to be called a specific word, just like how it's not infantilizing for black people to not want to be called the N-word.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:05 pm**

On the internet we are all equal, so the idea that certain things get a pass because this group happens to be a majority in your particular country is incredibly ignorant. All groups, including majority ones in your local area, should be covered (for instance white and male and even stra*ghts)

At the very least people should be honest about what they want here and stop dancing around the topic especially when it’s made with intent so it can be argued. Spare us the teasing and say the specific instances you want to address that aren’t being done currently instead of using lofty language to obscure what the rule will be covering in the future.

The obsession with handling bigotry so you feel like you saved the day needs to stop, it’s offensive as someone from a group who was the runner up in slurs used on the internet that I’m and others are being used as a prop to pat yourself on the back with constantly for doing the bare minimum on a platform of a really small group of individuals. My day was not made better because the benevolent moderator banned the guy who I know after calling me a f-g and someone else not in the conversation, likely not even gay, got upset on my behalf. If someone is calling me a f-g directly to be ugly, that is already covered by harassment (I’m not even upset if you wanna up the length because it’s hateful or whatever)

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 3:50 pm**

Yeah but I fundamentally don't agree with you, that's the thing. I think it's bullshit moralising from an Amero-centric perspective. I am extremely suspicious over people who want to get this 1984 the second MSO is gone and isn't blocking certain changes. People saying retard are not the antichrist or bigoted just for saying retard alone, it is not intrinsically evil.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 3:52 pm**

Cobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:05 pm On the internet we are all equal, so the idea that certain things get a pass because this group happens to be a majority in your particular country is incredibly ignorant. All groups, including majority ones in your local area, should be covered (for instance white and male and even stra*ghts)

At the very least people should be honest about what they want here and stop dancing around the topic especially when it’s made with intent so it can be argued. Spare us the teasing and say the specific instances you want to address that aren’t being done currently instead of using lofty language to obscure what the rule will be covering in the future.

The obsession with handling bigotry so you feel like you saved the day needs to stop, it’s offensive as someone from a group who was the runner up in slurs used on the internet that I’m and others are being used as a prop to pat yourself on the back with constantly for doing the bare minimum on a platform of a really small group of individuals. My day was not made better because the benevolent moderator banned the guy who I know after calling me a f-g and someone else not in the conversation, likely not even gay, got upset on my behalf. If someone is calling me a f-g directly to be ugly, that is already covered by harassment (I’m not even upset if you wanna up the length because it’s hateful or whatever)

hi cobby thanks for your insight

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:16 pm**

"Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated." I feel like we really could be fine with just this as rule 11, there is a lot more dancing around in the rule itself but this opener is pretty simply put. You don't need to put in "oh but saying a slur in this context is how to bounce around the rule". We could also just soft filter line-toeing words or w/e giving admins a pop up saying that someone said it so one can easily check the context.

For me I would at the very least put "nigga" on that filter.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:31 pm**

I agree with Timberpoes and Niknak.

Rule 11, despite its' flaws, has been a good thing for this community. It is a far more welcoming and honestly much less toxic place than it used to be years ago, although it's not the only reason that happened. But it has been irrevocably good for the health of the community.

The R word should go, but it might be troublesome to do so, because I feel like it's very popular with the young and immature crowd. I swear, the older I get, every new generation of teenagers learns to love this stupid word. You can already see it in this thread how much certain people would rather cling to it than use a completely interchangeable word like "stupid" or "idiot" or "moron" that doesn't bother anybody. Like, does the idea that your language hurts other people not mean anything to you? But still, especially with the pop being weak right now, I don't know if getting rid of it is the best idea.

That being said, if you look at /tg/ station's current main competitor, who have much higher population than us these days, they have a blanket ban on all slurs. I couldn't say how that's actually enforced, but certainly, the rule hasn't hurt them at all. Maybe it's helped them, who could say! I think what is best for the health of the server and the community matters more than my own personal feelings about slurs, but it doesn't seem like people want to play on a channer server these days anyway. Look at how /vg/ station is doing. We should be forwards thinking and focused on growing our pop, which to some extent means learning from what is popular in the ss13 community in 2025, and what isn't popular.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:33 pm**

How do we reconcile "I believe that this person is stupid and am therefore going to state that they are developmentally disabled" with "do not intentionally seek to demean others due to their actual or perceived disability"?

I think the (reasonably large, I dont think its just burger) contingent of people who want to call other people retarded is something that is going to be a consistent obstacle to there being any change (or indeed, to enforcing the rule as it currently is). The answer may in fact be "those people will not be pleased" but I think that is the specific word that is actually going to be what any conversation about this rule hinges around, there aren't really any holdouts for racial slurs any more.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:38 pm**

wrt the R word i think there is definitely a question to be asked as to whether or not we want to attract the kind of people vehemently obsessed with one word out of a thousand to call someone stupid that makes the most amount of people uncomfortable when they say it

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:05 pm**

itt rule 11 is well worded and works well for its purpose to remove bigotry from the community.

under r11 if you call someone retarded because they are neurodivergent then this is already bigoted and isn't allowed. using retarded as an insult when someone fucks something up is not bigoted, it's an insult. insults should be insulting and you should be able to beat people up ingame for insulting you.

there is also something to be said for encouraging the separation of a player and their character. insulting the character is not necessarily insulting the player. insulting the player is a rule 1 issue which extends into r11 when it's bigoted too.

i don't like the l word because nothing about the word divorces it from the fact that it's a pun of a racist slur that has nothing to do with lizards. call them rat eating fork-tongued egg-sitting taildraggers.

imo it will cause more headaches trying to create a black and white version of rule 11 that throws out common sense and nuance. we are not idiots and can tell when someone is using an insult in the context of a roleplaying game and when they are being a massive dick to the players at the game table.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:11 pm**

Cobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:05 pm On the internet we are all equal, so the idea that certain things get a pass because this group happens to be a majority in your particular country is incredibly ignorant. All groups, including majority ones in your local area, should be covered (for instance white and male and even stra*ghts)

At the very least people should be honest about what they want here and stop dancing around the topic especially when it’s made with intent so it can be argued. Spare us the teasing and say the specific instances you want to address that aren’t being done currently instead of using lofty language to obscure what the rule will be covering in the future.

The obsession with handling bigotry so you feel like you saved the day needs to stop, it’s offensive as someone from a group who was the runner up in slurs used on the internet that I’m and others are being used as a prop to pat yourself on the back with constantly for doing the bare minimum on a platform of a really small group of individuals. My day was not made better because the benevolent moderator banned the guy who I know after calling me a f-g and someone else not in the conversation, likely not even gay, got upset on my behalf. If someone is calling me a f-g directly to be ugly, that is already covered by harassment (I’m not even upset if you wanna up the length because it’s hateful or whatever)

The point isn't to like "Save the day" or end racism or anything, it's to remove people from the community who are being racist because I don't want them here.

If someone fucks up and says something stupid that's clearly just a poorly advised joke, they get a slap on the wrist and are told not to do it anymore. If someone comes in and starts talking about how much they hate Jews or Romani or black people, I'm going to ban them, not out of some moral superiority complex, but simply because I don't want to deal with that bullshit on my spaceman game.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:12 pm**

subject217 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 4:31 pm Rule 11, despite its' flaws, has been a good thing for this community. It is a far more welcoming and honestly much less toxic place than it used to be years ago, although it's not the only reason that happened. But it has been irrevocably good for the health of the community.

I ran on slur moderation, I got into my first term on slur moderation. The BDFL offered my term the opportunity to put the n-word on the hard filter list. I have worked directly towards lowering toxicity in the community and I will continue to.

Rule 11, as produced by the BDFL, is inherently warped by an overwrought ideology and for the benefit of the BDFL to say "I'm not racist/sexist/etc" btw

The whole thing is steeped in ideological judgement and weighing out of shit that, frankly, isn't really any of our business beyond "Sir this is a Wendy's"

As long as Rule 11 stands as it is, it will continue to produce the drama that it has produced from the moment of its creation.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't have a rule that fits a public space and manages the social atmosphere! Just that phrasing does matter and there's a more grounded and sensible way to go about it.

Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:11 pmThe point isn't to like "Save the day" or end racism or anything, it's to remove people from the community who are being racist because I don't want them here.

If someone fucks up and says something stupid that's clearly just a poorly advised joke, they get a slap on the wrist and are told not to do it anymore. If someone comes in and starts talking about how much they hate Jews or Romani or black people, I'm going to ban them, not out of some moral superiority complex, but simply because I don't want to deal with that bullshit on my spaceman game.

Vek, man, "I don't want to deal with racists" is a moral stance.
If you use it to inform your adminning, you are making moral judgements.
This contradicts your stance that your bans/notes aren't coming from a moral place.

I agree that the content is problematic.
I agree that its not a great look.
I would administrate against disruptive behavior like that.

But we need to step away from this "good/bad" "get out of my sight" kind of framing. Not because the people you mention in your example are worth saving, but because there's obviously more possibility for nuance (like the poorly advised joke you mentioned)

If we ground ourselves in this good/bad dynamic it ends up rubbing some people the wrong way on principle. I know this is true because I am one of those people. There have been many times where I've seen someone melt down over a lack of logical consistency and I've said "There but for the grace of God go I". It wasn't a fight worth getting into when the BDFL could just erase you from the timeline. Now it's worth talking about and getting into.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:39 pm**

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:12 pm But we need to step away from this "good/bad" "get out of my sight" kind of framing. Not because the people you mention in your example are worth saving, but because there's obviously more possibility for nuance (like the poorly advised joke you mentioned)

If we ground ourselves in this good/bad dynamic it ends up rubbing some people the wrong way on principle. I know this is true because I am one of those people. There have been many times where I've seen someone melt down over a lack of logical consistency and I've said "There but for the grace of God go I". It wasn't a fight worth getting into when the BDFL could just erase you from the timeline. Now it's worth talking about and getting into.

Rave is obviously in some fugue state to be making such a solid argument. I hope him the best in his recovery.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:45 pm**

dendydoom wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:05 pm under r11 if you call someone retarded because they are neurodivergent then this is already bigoted and isn't allowed. using retarded as an insult when someone fucks something up is not bigoted, it's an insult. insults should be insulting and you should be able to beat people up ingame for insulting you.

there is also something to be said for encouraging the separation of a player and their character. insulting the character is not necessarily insulting the player. insulting the player is a rule 1 issue which extends into r11 when it's bigoted too.

I have never quite understood this specific angle when it comes to this specific comparison of usage
What is the (not so) common sense difference between "I am calling your character a racial slur to compare your behaviour to a specific category of people that I hold in negative regard to insult you via reference to their stereotype and am also insulting by proxy" and "I am calling your character a slur relating to their mental ability to compare your behaviour to a specific category of people that I hold in negative regard to insult you via reference to their stereotype and am also insulting by proxy"?
Both are based in comparative relation to groups of people the term is usually applied to, but one is "obviously" acceptable and the other isn't (aside from the fact that this common sense is not shared by like, for instance, anyone at my place of work, which is outside of the USA, or most other social groups I am part of)

I'm lingering on this specific instance purely because as far as I can tell, whether or not the rule is enforced on this word is basically going to be the difference between if any change is made to the rule at all (which will piss some people off) or whether enforcement is basically identical to how it was before (maybe fine, but seems to have been a sore point for many)

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 8:11 pm**

is anyone in this thread actually going to propose an actual change to rule 11 or are you just going to continue grandstand to everyone about how changes to this rule will either destroy or improve tgstation?

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 8:51 pm**

I am kinda split on this, while I recognize that adding the n-word and variations to the filter is a good idea since honestly it's never good faith.

I also don't want to ban people for saying things like retard(I'm ND but I am not bothered by it as it has gotten into common use like calling someone slow or simple) and someone calling a fellow gay friend a fag(it's a term of endearment in my circles).

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:12 pm**

Now that i have called everyone out including myself.

My suggestion:
11. Bigotry is not allowed.
Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:14 pm**

Everyone comes from different social backgrounds and the most important thing is and will always be intent. What your friend group uses is different from other friend groups, your experience with a word will very much so differ from someone else as is evident in this thread.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:15 pm**

Capsandi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:39 pm Rave is obviously in some fugue state to be making such a solid argument. I hope him the best in his recovery.

I spent years doing mental gymnastics to interpret the will of a rule and rule-maker that were effectively inscrutable to everyone. MSO once said that I was the person on the team who best understood the intended interpretation of R11 and the principles of it. It resulted in me having to do a bunch of weird dancing around on topics because the whole framework doesn't really allow for pragmatic engagement.

---

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:12 pm But we need to step away from this "good/bad" "get out of my sight" kind of framing.

Gonna expand on this a little more, build.

Longpost within

► Show Spoiler

I assert that this entire thread has had many example of people conflating morality (good/bad) with comfort (comfortable/uncomfortable)

Before I carry that assertion out, I need to put down some establishing principles.

Morality and comfort are both strong subjective experiences.
Comfort is a valid reason for wanting a rule, this is obviously a place of comfort for many (and that's why there's desire to protect it!)
There will be some who value comfort more than morality (some people are principled rather than moral)
There are also those who value morality more than comfort, and some people who actually strike a close balance on it.

So, therefore, it is not meaningless to value comfort and if we take Cobby's assertion at face value

Cobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:05 pm The obsession with handling bigotry so you feel like you saved the day needs to stop...

We find ourselves in a position where the value of the moral aspect is called into question but the concept of comfort remains steady.

---

Looking through other posts and clashes within this thread there are many points that can be framed as comfort concerns.

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:47 pm ... I am a neurodivergent, I think it is insane molly coddling infantilising bullshit to say that neurodivergents need some sort of protection from the word retard...

This is a statement on comfort and a critique of comfort at the same time from someone claiming skin in the game. What I get from the post is that having to keep such considerations in mind

Makes him compromise on his authenticity
This compromise causes self-consciousness that is uncomfortable
Its regarding a group he identifies as a member of
Having to label himself as in need of the thing he inherently doesn't want effectively forces him to denigrate his own peace and confidence in himself for the benefit of people who are categorically like him but he is the one left at a loss.

Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 11:51 am I am neurodivergent and find the word very hurtful.

This is a statement on comfort and their effect on personal feelings.

He identifies as a member of the same group.
The words make him uncomfortable.
He doesn't want to be uncomfortable and he assumes that others don't want to be uncomfortable.
Do people experience comfort differently and therefore is projection possible? Yeah, but, them's the breaks.
Unless you want to embrace a framework that tries to explain human nature you're left with trying the best with what you have, and what you have is your experience.

This clash is demonstrative of the underlying dialectical truth that's been stated here and in like, every discussion of this: words can be complicated and play into concepts of the self but no word is an island.
For some people the word is hurtful and reminds them of pain
For others seeing the word normalized lets them feel like their problems are common because they can be engaged in public. I do believe this is what "normalization" is, and I personally think it's a terrible thing to strip someone's sense of fitting in and being accepted. A part of being normal is that there will be engagement of your abnormality in a humorous way, by your friends. This is, from what I can tell, the core of one of our deep recurring struggles in the community: Some assert that "anything goes" between friends because neither of them have a problem with it. Ideally humor is a safe way to explore difference and share thoughts and observations in a way that don't have to be harsh or hurtful.

iirc Zizek has a whole thing about how the turning point on large societal conflict is when people can't make jokes about each other anymore. I'm obviously clown-afflicted so it rattles around in my head.

---

NikNakFlak wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 1:25 am ...I know a lot of people who are the exact opposite... severely disliking the word and it upsetting them.
...barring usage of the word is about... respect, or fostering a nicer environment.
Just because someone doesn't like being called something or usage of the word...

I myself, strongly dislike the word for similar reasons...
I've been embarrassed of this communities behavior before and refrained from mentioning involvement in /tg/ or sharing it for that reason.
I don't use these words, I would never use them in public or private...

I think this is a really solid appeal to comfort and speaks to values that we can elevate over "bigotry" and "slurs"

Embarrassment is a real concern for people who contribute to the project.
Respect and comfort both are very important for many people
- (Respect also requires you to treat others fairly and try to understand their perspective even when you disagree with them or find them to be moral opponents)
Regardless of whether or not "society is right" for saying we should or shouldn't say things in public
- We live in a society
- Societal change does not start in a niche game community

I think this speaks to the practical reality that we're facing in terms of "challenges to growth", but the other side of that argument also has concerns in re: freedom and the ability to feel natural without having to fear administration you don't agree with (which also points to the can of worms that is admin conduct and R11 admin conduct (which is part of what brings us here today).

---

CPTANT wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:44 am Retarded has long passed the stage of being a slur and has become a general insult, just like moron, idiot or imbecile.

I've laid out how I view the opposing sides of the usage of this word by people who identify as part of the target group.
Having said all that, I think that the above point underlines a few things.

Pretty much every insult to intelligence we have in English started out as a medical term.
This category is frequently cited as the slippery slope of ableism
People who use any of these words, including the word in question, assert that they are not using it in the literal sense and are instead using it in the modern colloquial sense.
Therefore there is a fundamental tension between the associative meaning in the history of a word vs its societal use.

TL;DR: some people find comfort in a community by feeling protected by it, others find comfort in feeling accepted by it.
This is a fundamental conflict and the way we've been treating it as a community has caused unnecessary friction and hostility, both within staff and between staff and players.
We need to fix that.

---

oranges wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 8:11 pm is anyone in this thread actually going to propose an actual change to rule 11 or are you just going to continue grandstand to everyone about how changes to this rule will either destroy or improve tgstation?

I'm building towards something, but I need engagement to refine it. Sorry for the wait.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:17 pm**

i agree with oranges' rewrite

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:00 pm**

oranges wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:12 pm Now that i have called everyone out including myself.

My suggestion:
11. Bigotry is not allowed.
Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated.

This is good. We should add an addendum that addresses slurs, as I think it is unfortunately necessary (unless the hard filter is added, in which case it’s not):

The use of slurs such as “nigger”, “faggot”, “tranny” and the like is strictly forbidden under any circumstance, regardless of the context in which it is said. Likewise, any word that resembles IRL slurs (ie. ligger) is not allowed.

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:02 pm**

Fren256 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:00 pm
oranges wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:12 pm Now that i have called everyone out including myself.

My suggestion:
11. Bigotry is not allowed.
Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated.
This is good. We should add an addendum that addresses slurs, as I think it is unfortunately necessary (unless the hard filter is added, in which case it’s not):

The use of slurs such as “nigger”, “faggot”, “tranny” and the like is strictly forbidden under any circumstance, regardless of the context in which it is said. Likewise, any word that resembles IRL slurs (ie. ligger) is not allowed.

a hard filter already exists and most of these words are already on based on the configs i've seen, and you don't need to call out slurs specifically they are covered by the rule already they are intentional expressions of bigotry

Posted: **Wed Feb 26, 2025 10:58 pm**

oranges wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 9:12 pm Now that i have called everyone out including myself.

My suggestion:
11. Bigotry is not allowed.
Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated.

I am unironically perfectly fine with this but would also appreciate some expansion to the hard word filter to encompass OOC usages as well.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:10 am**

Vekter wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2025 5:11 pm If someone fucks up and says something stupid that's clearly just a poorly advised joke, they get a slap on the wrist and are told not to do it anymore. If someone comes in and starts talking about how much they hate Jews or Romani or black people, I'm going to ban them, not out of some moral superiority complex, but simply because I don't want to deal with that bullshit on my spaceman game.

Im a bit confused youre not arguing for the implementation of rule 11, it's already in the game. youre arguing for a rewrite to rule 11.

Rule 11 already disallows you from hating towards jews/romanis/blacks or even whites. If you are legitimately just trying to say you hate X people then sure whatever get removed.

Where I differ is the more nuanced situations where someone told a joke that didnt land or was exposed to an audience that was larger than intended, and those youd want administrative actions on. If the intent is not to be bigoted, then there shouldnt be an issue. This includes no no words where you believe theres an implicit hatred for the group to use that word (####ist), I dont hold that opinion.

That said, I think "read the room" should also be in play, its just if the room gets larger than intended its not the users fault but the one who expanded the room, and im not sure if its treated as such even with current rules.

Hard filter tho to me is the best option with the caveat admins dont try to ban people for using theword unless they are bypassing the filter. I know someone once upon a time mentioned to track the usage, and I think thats absurd.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:11 am**

I would like to point out that while my statement and example was around the usage of the word Retard, when I last ran stats on bad words and slurs a couple years back, one of the biggest offenders that wasn't covered yet was a series of Jewish slurs that were since added to the hard filter. I hold this stance for all words of these kinds, slurs, derogatory insults based on race, sex, gender, etc.

Just because a word doesn't offend you or you don't use it like that, I promise you, someone is.
I am advocating less for a rules change, though I do believe in a community wide turning away from any and all slur usage. Again, going towards a societal norm.
If you wouldn't say these words in a park, I generally don't think they should be used here.

I more so think the filters should be expanded, code solutions/config solutions work better anyway. Bar the rest of the borderline words, just be done with it.
These words can't even be added to the codebase due to Github TOS, I don't see a reason to let them be free to be used in the community at large.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:26 am**

NikNakFlak wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:11 am I would like to point out that while my statement and example was around the usage of the word Retard, when I last ran stats on bad words and slurs a couple years back, one of the biggest offenders that wasn't covered yet was a series of Jewish slurs that were since added to the hard filter. I hold this stance for all words of these kinds, slurs, derogatory insults based on race, sex, gender, etc.

Just because a word doesn't offend you or you don't use it like that, I promise you, someone is.
I am advocating less for a rules change, though I do believe in a community wide turning away from any and all slur usage. Again, going towards a societal norm.
If you wouldn't say these words in a park, I generally don't think they should be used here.

I more so think the filters should be expanded, code solutions/config solutions work better anyway. Bar the rest of the borderline words, just be done with it.
These words can't even be added to the codebase due to Github TOS, I don't see a reason to let them be free to be used in the community at large.

Meeting TOS via hard filter and then sorting out stuff that doesn't get caught by that is a sane and solid way to deal with it and it doesn't force anyone who disagrees with it into de facto villainy.
Combined with the anti-harassment clause of Rule 1 and I think it could be argued that rule 1 takes care of it (as others have mentioned). In that way Rule 11 was a solution to a false dilemma that MSO created by being unwilling to engage common sense hard filters (although that was later done for spam reasons).

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 2:45 am**

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:26 am Meeting TOS via hard filter and then sorting out stuff that doesn't get caught by that is a sane and solid way to deal with it and it doesn't force anyone who disagrees with it into de facto villainy.
Combined with the anti-harassment clause of Rule 1 and I think it could be argued that rule 1 takes care of it (as others have mentioned). In that way Rule 11 was a solution to a false dilemma that MSO created by being unwilling to engage common sense hard filters (although that was later done for spam reasons).

The more I read everyone's thoughts on the matter, I feel like this is probably the way forward - the filter is going to take care of most situations. I do think keeping rule 11 as oranges rewrote it (just removing all the ancillary bullshit and keeping it as a blanket bigotry ban) is valuable if just to be explicit about it and have something we can point at for more severe issues of bigotry, but just taking away the ability to use words that are explicitly harmful in most situations is going to filter most of the behavior it's meant to.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 8:01 am**

If you want to ban all forms of IC bigotry then please have sensible bans and not some blanket "Zero tolerance", because every other zero tolerance rule has led to dumb results.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:44 am**

That sounds reasonable, but is the idea that we would sometimes give slaps on the wrist if it was obvious someone was telling a poorly-advised joke and not doubling down on it? Because I'm definitely cool with that.

The only instance where someone should be getting yote on-sight permanently for a rule 11 violation is if it's very clearly explicit and targeted bigotry and they refuse to acknowledge their mistake.

Posted: **Thu Feb 27, 2025 1:11 pm**

I'm in favor of oranges' take. In the past I've suggested "hurtful language may be encountered but players who use it to purposefully harm others will be removed from the community" or something approximating that.
In terms of specific enforcement, I'm opposed to a ban on "retard", though if it's being used to insult people who would much rather avoid being called that rule 1'll cover em.
I'm fine with adding slurs to the hard filter list ingame, I don't think we have a distinct need to do so in the discord as they're generally unused and users who do use them get reported by the community or auto flagged by the bots and then banned out. It's easier to have coverage of the discord than the game, and I don't think we've got issues to the point where people are somehow getting away with saying these words in any harmful form.

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2025 1:48 pm**

Queer is definitely fine, us queers use it for ourselves all the time.

I think manchild is fine, it's an insult but not all insults are slurs. If we ban manchild I think we have to ban dickhead and bitch as well and I think that'd be a shame, those words are fun.

Incel I'm inclined to also say is fine but I don't really use it so I probably wouldn't miss it - would we also ban virgin?

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2025 4:20 pm**

Queer itself is covered as part of the LGBTQ(ueer or Questioning) umbrella term.

Manchild just don't even go there, some stereotypes may be offensive and some may be bigoted, but not all stereotypes are bigoted and the classic stereotype of a fully grown adult that cannot take care of themselves or cope in the real world doesn't strike me as bigoted just because it references men.

Incel is just a dumb term. Femcel occupies the same space. I'd ban people that use these two phrases for being under 18.

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:29 pm**

I find it funny how most policy threads are people waxing philosophical about issues only tangentially related to the rule. Then, either nothing is changed because the conversation never has a conclusion, or someone at the top makes an executive decision based on their own opinion regardless of the conversation. Good ol' American-style "Democracy".

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:51 pm**

bingusdingus wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 5:29 pm I find it funny how most policy threads are people waxing philosophical about issues only tangentially related to the rule. Then, either nothing is changed because the conversation never has a conclusion, or someone at the top makes an executive decision based on their own opinion regardless of the conversation. Good ol' American-style "Democracy".

...what

Posted: **Fri Feb 28, 2025 7:44 pm**

We've seen concrete suggestions in this thread, from me and Oranges just on this page, mainly just cutting most of rule 11 and trimming it to "Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated" which seems like a popular choice

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2025 5:17 am**

After reading through this post I would like to add my 2 cents on this discussion.

When I first started SS13 I used to play on goonstation, as you might know they have a very strict no slurs policy (anything that might be considered a slur by anyone is banned). despite the server being relatively non toxic this was extremely oppressive as even calling someone a dick would get you a 3 hour instant ban.

I feel the best way to do this is to divide every kind of slur into three categories.
1. Hard slurs.
I’m sure you know what the contents of this category should be.
words that fit into this category are either only or primarily used as a slur. for example faggot, even though it can be used as a term for a cigarette but it is primarily used as a slur against the LGBTQ+ community.

2. contextual slurs.
these are slurs that can be used with or without malicious intent, context is usually required to determine if it was used in good faith or not. an example would be the word retard. saying “you are such a retard” to someone can be considered bad, but if you are using it to describe a something as an adjective (ex. “the captain just executed the CMO for littering. this is so fucking retarded”) it could be assumed that you did not intend to harm anyone by using it. I would split this group into two sub categories generally a slur or generally offensive.

3. offensive words
these are simply words that are plain offensive and are either slightly or not targeted towards a group of people, this includes the standard fuck, shit, cunt, bitch, dick, prick etc which are generally considered safe to use.

it should be up to the admins to decide enforcement but I would recommend considering
1. as a ban minimum
2. as a note minimum
3.no punishment at all unless they are being a dick.

Posted: **Sun Apr 13, 2025 12:22 pm**

We're chaging Rule 11's wording to the follows:

11. Bigotry is not allowed.
Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated.

The rest of the fluff around the rule is just that. Fluff. And it makes it both harder and more confusing to enforce as it tried to carve out exceptions to statements not made to be bigoted, even though they also may have expressed bigotry. Similar with not creating a banned word list, that part of the rule was only observed up until a certain someone that wrote the damn rule decided they wanted to ban half the Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional Language because people said words that actually impacted them.

Enforcement of this rule will not change, it's just less dumb and wordy. Admins will continue to not be allowed to create a banned word list. Calling someone a retard still isn't classified as bigoted, just hurtful. Admins can continue to deal with excessive use of non-bigoted no-no words under Rule 1.

I have taken the executive decision to remove MSO's amendment to our admin conduct telling them how to enforce the bigotry rule because MSO never followed it anyway so clearly it was a load of utter crap from the beginning.

I will be amending the global forum rules to reflect the amended Rule 11 wording.

At some point either Omega or Scriptis are going to actually replace the #welcomebus content on Discord to have posts by our new leadership so someone can actually edit the rules there too, but because enforcement won't change with the rewording it's not imperative that we update it like RIGHT THIS DAMN SECOND.

The hope is simply that the more succinct wording and removal of extaneous crap around the rule will make it less confusing for community participants and less annoying for admins to figure out if they can and do need to enforce it in any given instance.

Omega: Spearheaded the debate internally, picked a wording he liked
Timberpoes: +1
DrAmazing: +1

/tg/Station 13

The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

Re: The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread