/tg/Station 13

I was recently in a situation where a prisoner I was sending to the gulag called me a "dumb slut", a misogynistic slur. I pondered whether or not to ahelp it, but I didn't want to be the kind of player that ahelps over every little thing. However, upon this criminal's return to the main Z level, he proceeded to shower me with a flurry of similar misogynistic insults, such as "whore", "bitch" and "cunt", over and over and over, as if he knew no other words. Given his insistence on being a sexist bigot and refusal to learn his lesson, I ahelped asking for permission to execute him. I did not end up getting an answer as to whether that would be allowed, since he disconnected in the meantime. The admin ended up taking action against him, not under rule 11 but under rule 1, with apparently there having been a number of admins advising that, despite most of his insults being obviously dependent on my character's gender.

Thus, the context provided, my questions:

Where is the line for misogyny to be considered in breach of rule 11?

At what point can you remove a bigot from the round?

Over on Manuel we have a cherished history of introducing bigots to the yellow rock or tossing them out of airlocks. In terms of rules-as-written it’s definitely against the rules, but admins on Manuel kinda look the other way when this stuff happens.

Someone tossing insults at someone else or denying them a resource based on their appearance ought to be valid for physical retaliation, that type of escalation is certainly allowed right now. The issues start to crop up when someone who is being a dick screams for security or the AI to get involved. They’re gonna side with the bigot since they’re on the floor, but can I defend myself from the impending security doomstack? It’s a situation that gets messier the more it plays out.

I mean, I can't even imagine you getting in trouble over this. Can you imagine being the admin who would have to defend noting or banning you over this in an appeal?

Admins probably don't want to ban or take action against them or similar due to not wanting to overstep into making this a hugbox where no common insults are allowed, is my guess. This is a roleplaying social game where emotions run high sometimes.

It was a Sec/Prisoner dynamic in which there are multiple ways you could have handled it, that aren't an ahelp tbh. Stick a muzzle on them, take out their tongue, or just immediately send them back down to the gulag with no point goal so they won't bother you. Or just rough them up and/or kill them, even if they ahelp I doubt an admin would have an issue with you killing someone that was trying to get a rise out of you, and obviously succeeded. Sometimes you just need to robust people. Luckily killing isn't an end, so you can at least take out your frustration and teach them a lesson about consequences. In my experience, an admin would have just told you to try killing them and see if that sorts them out. Lastly, if you feel that frustrated at people in game, I would recommend taking a break. It helps wonders when you start getting too wound up every time you play, SS13 is supposed to be fun.

On the policy side: If we adjusted the language rules over every case of hurt feelings, we would end up with a reputation like Goon. Simple as.

bingusdingus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 12:04 am trying to get a rise out of you, and obviously succeeded (...) Luckily killing isn't an end (...) If we adjusted the language rules over every case of hurt feelings, we would end up with a reputation like Goon

This post is barely related, even tangentially, to the thread's opening post. You make assumptions about how I felt, talk about killing rather than round removal, and talk about adjusting rules, none of which are its purpose. This thread seeks clarification on existing rules. It's not about insults in general, much less about hurt feelings, it's about bigotry against women apparently not being held to the same rule 11 standard as other forms of bigotry.

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 9:40 pm Admins probably don't want to ban or take action against them or similar

The thing is that it was dealt with (or so the admin told me), but under rule 1 rather than rule 11, which struck me as really odd when I thought it a clear cut case of bigotry, hence me seeking clarification.
The enforcement page contains the following line, adding to my confusion (emphasis mine):

Rule 11 Precedents wrote:Admins are encouraged to use rule 1 to deal with instances where """IC""" bigotry is excessive or designed as a mask for OOC bigotry.

ekaterina wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:52 pm Where is the line for misogyny to be considered in breach of rule 11?

prob a sniff test like with 99% of the other things considered rule 11 breaches. If it gets to the point where it makes you feel uncomfortable you should ahelp and see what a third party thinks

ekaterina wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:52 pm At what point can you remove a bigot from the round?

you can escalate against someone being a bigot normally through IC means and let the situation evolve organically, imo its way easier going that route than trying to pinpoint an exact point where you can become the game police and rr them for it.

ekaterina wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 8:52 pm Where is the line for misogyny to be considered in breach of rule 11?

Personally, I'd consider the line to be a genuine, constant, out of character expression of bigotry that exists in the real world, like discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
If someone calls you a bitch once or twice, how can you be sure it's because of your gender? The repeated use of, and variety of gendered words used in this case, as you describe, indicates consistency in the individual's bigotry, which indicates a genuine expression of bigotry to me.

At what point can you remove a bigot from the round?

Once they are expressly showing OOC bigotry as I described, I'd say it's clear that the individual is not here to play in good faith, and I would not be bothered by said bigot's round removal, nor would I act administratively.

There's no single line where Rule 11 ends, as per the following Rule 11 precedent.

Admins are encouraged to use rule 1 to deal with instances where """IC""" bigotry is excessive or designed as a mask for OOC bigotry.

So Rule 1 blends into Rule 11 and players being excessive assholes trying to But Ackshually their way around the anti-bigotry rule can still be captured under Rule 1. That line where R11 ends and R1 begins is going to be different for every admin based on their own life experiences and maybe the active admins on Discord at that point in time if they come for advice there.

With when a player can be removed, consider escalation policy:

... Killing a crewmate is a severe response, and requires severe justification to do, such as those in Rule 1's precedents, or Rule 4.

So there's even more grey area where there'll be a blending of a Rule 1 issue into escalation permitting you to handle something ICly via violence, ahelping it or both.

Rule 11 overlaps with Rule 1 overlaps with Escalation Policy. Rule 11 issues being the most serious cases. Rule 1 overlapping Rule 11 for where players are on the line between bigoted and excessively """IC meanie""", and overlapping with escalation policy where players are being kinda """IC meanie""" depending on how justified the admin thinks you are in just getting rid of the shitter instead of tolerating them.

This is a situation where context is gonna be kind of important. Just calling you a slut, whore, etc. isn't usually going to be enough to push it into rule 11 territory by itself. The repeated use of gendered insults could be justified as a rule 11 issue, since it helps establish that they're only insulting you because you're that gender, but it's shaky without any other context because those words are often used devoid of their gendered context.

Insults that explicitly play into negative tropes about women ("loose slut", "are you having your period", "vapid bimbo") are more solidly rule 11 violations because they establish that the insult is intended to be about one's gender. This is why calling someone "black" in and of itself isn't a rule 11 violation, but saying something like "fucking black people" is.

As for IC consequences, if you're insulting someone over and over again and you ahelp when they body you for it, I'm going to laugh at you and close the ticket, rule 11 or no.

me on my way to toss a guy into the SM because they called me a dick (that is a gendered slur)

As others have said, it really depends on the ingame situation. I would never want it to reach a point where you have administration approval to chuck someone into the SM for them calling you a "cunt" or a "bitch, or a "moron"." I want to think that players have a reasonable ability to insult others ICly*, but also have to bear whatever consequences* that come because of that. Ideally, players would use reasonable IC justification for busting out anything bigger than words like idiot, etc.

*WITHIN REASON

as per any rule that isn't a completely "yes" or "no" style one (i.e. no calling people slurs like the n-word) and requires a bit of nuance and judgement, there will forever be people going "yes, but what does that mean exactly" See: reasonable escalation, some people will look at that and instantly default to unga-bunga toolbox to the head because you shoved them once as they see that as reasonable escalation.

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 27, 2024 4:33 pm me on my way to toss a guy into the SM because they called me a dick (that is a gendered slur)

As others have said, it really depends on the ingame situation. I would never want it to reach a point where you have administration approval to chuck someone into the SM for them calling you a "cunt" or a "bitch, or a "moron"." I want to think that players have a reasonable ability to insult others ICly*, but also have to bear whatever consequences* that come because of that. Ideally, players would use reasonable IC justification for busting out anything bigger than words like idiot, etc.

*WITHIN REASON

as per any rule that isn't a completely "yes" or "no" style one (i.e. no calling people slurs like the n-word) and requires a bit of nuance and judgement, there will forever be people going "yes, but what does that mean exactly" See: reasonable escalation, some people will look at that and instantly default to unga-bunga toolbox to the head because you shoved them once as they see that as reasonable escalation.

This. The litmus test is generally "If I replace (insult) with 'asshole', does it make sense by itself?". If so, it's probably not a rule 11 violation.

We had a talk about this and agreed that sentiment is important, from your description it sounds like it could meet the criteria for misogyny. As timber explained in this post, rule1 OR rule 11 are valid use cases in this situation.- we think this take describes it well;

"I want to think that players have a reasonable ability to insult others ICly, but also have to bear whatever consequences that come because of that. Ideally, players would use reasonable IC justification for busting out anything bigger than words like idiot, etc."