The Inevitable Rule 11 Thread

[Vekter]

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.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

So, for the sake of clarity, the question is:

"Should rule 11 be changed in such a way that the usage of slurs is considered inherently bigoted, regardless of the surrounding context?"? Is that right?

So, for example, under current rules... uh... I could say something like "Vekter is my (n-word goes here), love that guy!" or something and it would be okay because the context of the sentence implies a positive connotation with the word usage, but you want to change it so that this sentence would be considered inherently bigoted because of word choice?

Just wanna make sure I'm getting this right.

[Vekter]

So, for the sake of clarity, the question is:

"Should rule 11 be changed in such a way that the usage of slurs is considered inherently bigoted, regardless of the surrounding context?"? Is that right?

I'll edit OP to be more clear, but the point is less that and more a general look at the rule for a potential rewrite in a post-MSO world. A lot of the way we generally handled rule 11 was at the mercy of her whims, so it makes sense we would look at rewriting it.

[britgrenadier1]

Yeah ban all slurs and anything slur adjacent.

[MatrixOne]

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. It is not our goal to create or enforce a list of banned words and instead our goal to eject the expression of bigotry from the community. Enforcement will be less PC based and more common sense based with that goal in mind.

This means rather than warning or banning for quoting a usage such as "Griff McNazi got banned for calling somebody a f****t" or even things like "n***a pls" and "what are you f*****s playing" which are generally not statements made to be bigoted, we'll focus more on statements like "you talk like a [insert stereotype]" or "x is a [insert slur]".

I'm not sure if there's a need for a large rewrite, only to finally put an end to the discussion about the l-word. Just ban it at this point, so we can get back to playing spacemens vs arguing over IRL shit and calling each other racists. With the MSO saga being so recent, anyone defending the l-word is gonna get dogpiled here and made an example of anyway. It's time to let it go. What I like about the r11 as it stands is that it gives clear examples to what's allowed and what's not, if a rewrite happens we should still have those. The rule should be as clear as possible to minimize having to argue about toeing the line. Mention the contested words like the l-word and clearly say in the rule that they're banned, if they are.

As for using the words as banter, I'm not sure how people feel about this nowadays. There's always a risk that when you banter with people, someone will not be 'in on it' and will accuse you or they simply won't appreciate it and feel hurt even if you didn't mean it. Also someone said to me that it still creates an atmosphere where it's 'okay' to use this kind of language and it can make people who get targeted by such language 'for real' feel unsafe in our community. I can understand that perspective, though I also think intentions should matter, but then the discussion gets moved into trying to get into people's minds and figure out their real intentions and find out how many masks they're hiding behind... these kinds of witch hunts for wrongthink, trying to find out just how evil someone is, make me sad. If we can't trust each other to sort out banter from real cruelty and will attack people for it even if they don't get enforced upon by the rules, it might as well just be a ban. A ban feels less personal than a witch hunt. And banning slurs would remove another immersion-smasher from our escapism video game, and make us think and talk less about depressing IRL shit.

Since Vekter clarified they want a full rewrite, I'll say I'm ultimately against it. We should just add the l-word to the list of banned words and state it explicitly in the rule. But if a lot of people want a full rewrite, this is probably the time. Our headmins might just approve it as their terms draw to a close.

[Vekter]

To be more specific, the things I would want looked at are namely whether or not we want to word filter slurs, how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc), and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard").

[DATAxPUNGED]

I think the community at large is better off without slurs in it.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

To be more specific, the things I would want looked at are namely whether or not we want to word filter slurs

For consideration - there may be utility in not filtering out slurs. If you explicitly ban them in the rules but leave them unfiltered, it could allow you to leave no question regarding rule 11 bans. "No, banned user, we're not lifting your ban, you explicitly called someone a (n-word goes here).". But otherwise, go for it, if you don't believe that utility is sufficient.

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc),

I don't believe there is any reason to change existing policy. If you saw a player on the server who was being explicitly hateful, abusive, and harassing explicitly on the basis someone was white, male, cisgender, etc., would you not want to ban them?

and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard").

As long as I can still call my engineering projects autism projects.

[Vekter]

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc),

I don't believe there is any reason to change existing policy. If you saw a player on the server who was being explicitly hateful, abusive, and harassing explicitly on the basis someone was white, male, cisgender, etc., would you not want to ban them?

I think there's a distinction to make between "actively being bigoted" and "being a dick to other people". I guess that might be splitting hair, but it also differs from rule 1 in how seriously we enforce it. I think rule 1 can handle situations like this when we're not talking about vulnerable classes.

and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard").

As long as I can still call my engineering projects autism projects.

I don't have a problem with that, personally, but I also do not have autism.

[RaveRadbury]

Rule 11 is political brainrot.

We need to have a common sense rule that's based in people treating each other right while still letting their characters be assholes to each other.
We need that in a way that won't be embarrassing to have seen in the light of day, because we are a public community.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc),

I don't believe there is any reason to change existing policy. If you saw a player on the server who was being explicitly hateful, abusive, and harassing explicitly on the basis someone was white, male, cisgender, etc., would you not want to ban them?

I think there's a distinction to make between "actively being bigoted" and "being a dick to other people". I guess that might be splitting hair, but it also differs from rule 1 in how seriously we enforce it. I think rule 1 can handle situations like this when we're not talking about vulnerable classes.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you want here. From my understanding of rule 11 as it currently stands, the opening of which reads "Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated...", we currently ban people from demeaning others based on their personal characteristics, whether the victim is black or white, male or female, etc.

So, a reasonable interpretation of this would be that you can't call a woman a whore, because it's misogynistic and implies she's lesser for being sexually active. And the other direction is true as well, it would reasonably mean you can't call a man an inkwell because it's misandrist and it inherently implies he's lesser for being sexually inactive.

I think it's good that both of these are banned under rule 11.

Am I right in interpretation and understanding of your desires that you want to keep the first interpretation, but exclude the second interpretation?

If so, uh.... why? Wouldn't that just mean you're just allowing people to be openly misandrist, racist, and heterophobic? What exactly is the benefit in such a change?

[Vekter]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you want here. From my understanding of rule 11 as it currently stands, the opening of which reads "Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated...", we currently ban people from demeaning others based on their personal characteristics, whether the victim is black or white, male or female, etc.

So, a reasonable interpretation of this would be that you can't call a woman a whore, because it's misogynistic and implies she's lesser for being sexually active. And the other direction is true as well, it would reasonably mean you can't call a man an inkwell because it's misandrist and it inherently implies he's lesser for being sexually inactive.

I think it's good that both of these are banned under rule 11.

Am I right in interpretation and understanding of your desires that you want to keep the first interpretation, but exclude the second interpretation?

If so, uh.... why? Wouldn't that just mean you're just allowing people to be openly misandrist, racist, and heterophobic? What exactly is the benefit in such a change?

MSO's reasoning for setting up rule 11 the way we did it was because she wanted to be able to go around calling people misandrists for disagreeing with her. I am all for us dealing with people who are mean to men, but "being a misandrist" is significantly different than "being a misogynist". In a vacuum, they are the same. In reality, there's a lot of history and context behind those two things that makes them very different from one another.

We do not regularly have people being openly misandrist, insensitive to white people, or heterophobic. Some people make jokes but that is generally handled better by just telling them to knock it off than it is to treat it like we do Rule 11 problems, which often lead to being banned very quickly.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you want here. From my understanding of rule 11 as it currently stands, the opening of which reads "Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, disability, orientation or the like is not tolerated...", we currently ban people from demeaning others based on their personal characteristics, whether the victim is black or white, male or female, etc.

So, a reasonable interpretation of this would be that you can't call a woman a whore, because it's misogynistic and implies she's lesser for being sexually active. And the other direction is true as well, it would reasonably mean you can't call a man an inkwell because it's misandrist and it inherently implies he's lesser for being sexually inactive.

I think it's good that both of these are banned under rule 11.

Am I right in interpretation and understanding of your desires that you want to keep the first interpretation, but exclude the second interpretation?

If so, uh.... why? Wouldn't that just mean you're just allowing people to be openly misandrist, racist, and heterophobic? What exactly is the benefit in such a change?

MSO's reasoning for setting up rule 11 the way we did it was because she wanted to be able to go around calling people misandrists for disagreeing with her. I am all for us dealing with people who are mean to men, but "being a misandrist" is significantly different than "being a misogynist". In a vacuum, they are the same. In reality, there's a lot of history and context behind those two things that makes them very different from one another.

We do not regularly have people being openly misandrist, insensitive to white people, or heterophobic. Some people make jokes but that is generally handled better by just telling them to knock it off than it is to treat it like we do Rule 11 problems, which often lead to being banned very quickly.

Well, MSO is blacklisted and no longer in power, so, I don't think MSO abusing rule 11 for their personal political takes is much of a future concern, instead it would be up to you and the rest of the admin team to determine if someone is being misandrist from this point forward.

Additionally, even if we accept that people are less frequently misandrist, racist against white people, or heterophobic than the inverse, why would we not openly take a stand against these issues, and instead seem to take the position of seemingly openly inviting them? This seems incredibly obvious to me that these are all bad things to be. Right?

[Vekter]

Additionally, even if we accept that people are less frequently misandrist, racist against white people, or heterophobic than the inverse, why would we not openly take a stand against these issues, and instead seem to take the position of seemingly openly inviting them? This seems incredibly obvious to me that these are all bad things to be. Right?

Because I don't consider it on the same level as being intolerant towards a vulnerable class because those classes do be vulnerable.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Additionally, even if we accept that people are less frequently misandrist, racist against white people, or heterophobic than the inverse, why would we not openly take a stand against these issues, and instead seem to take the position of seemingly openly inviting them? This seems incredibly obvious to me that these are all bad things to be. Right?

Because I don't consider it on the same level as being intolerant towards a vulnerable class because those classes do be vulnerable.

I mean, even if EVERYONE shared that opinion, which I guarantee you they don't, that's like saying "Well, assault isn't as bad as assault with a deadly with a weapon, so lets make assault legal.".

I don't think we should make assault legal.

[MatrixOne]

It doesn't have to be on the same level, it just has to be unacceptable, and we can all agree it's unacceptable.

[Fren256]

To be more specific, the things I would want looked at are namely whether or not we want to word filter slurs,

Because of the existence of dogwhistles I’m a bit skeptical over this, as a word filter might encourage bigots to be more “creative” with their slur usage and get away with it.

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc),

Any kind of hatred towards any group or class shouldn’t be tolerated. Even though cra***r and ci**y don’t hold the same cultural weight as ni***r and fa***t, at the end of the day they’re still slurs. It’d be hypocritical to not enforce the rules equally and all in all it’d just bring a sour mood to the community.

and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard").

I agree with this one, don’t have anything to add.

[Vekter]

It doesn't have to be on the same level, it just has to be unacceptable, and we can all agree it's unacceptable.

This is fair, and it's definitely the least important of my suggestions compared to slur filtering and including neurodivergency. If I got those two and we didn't do anything about the third, I'd be happy.

Because of the existence of dogwhistles I’m a bit skeptical over this, as a word filter might encourage bigots to be more “creative” with their slur usage and get away with it.

They already do this; I've been having to tell other admins about random dog whistles that show up from time to time so we can catch them.

[nianjiilical]

To be more specific, the things I would want looked at are namely whether or not we want to word filter slurs

if a word exists purely to be hateful against an actual group filter it, otherwise encourage admins to ask in bus since obviously some of us are more clued in to modern day verbiage on some topics than others

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc)

bigotry against non-vulnerable classes obviously exists but the bar for admin intervention for discrimination against white people and straight people should be higher

as much as we should be trying to be equal on some fundamental level you have to accept that white-on-black racism is more serious and historically prevalent than the other way around and deserves harsher scrutiny

i think if someone is trying hard enough to be racist against straight white people they're probably brushing up against rule 1 as it is

and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard")

see my first point: i think there are a lot of people who would openly call themselves autistic and would be okay with others calling them autistic than there are people who would call themselves/want to be called retarded, though i dont feel *as* strongly on that one as the n-word

[Vekter]

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc)

bigotry against non-vulnerable classes obviously exists but the bar for admin intervention for discrimination against white people and straight people should be higher

as much as we should be trying to be equal on some fundamental level you have to accept that white-on-black racism is more serious and historically prevalent than the other way around and deserves harsher scrutiny

i think if someone is trying hard enough to be racist against straight white people they're probably brushing up against rule 1 as it is

This gets my point across better than I am able to.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc)

bigotry against non-vulnerable classes obviously exists but the bar for admin intervention for discrimination against white people and straight people should be higher

as much as we should be trying to be equal on some fundamental level you have to accept that white-on-black racism is more serious and historically prevalent than the other way around and deserves harsher scrutiny

i think if someone is trying hard enough to be racist against straight white people they're probably brushing up against rule 1 as it is

This gets my point across better than I am able to.

Does it?

The way I read the post, nian is saying that white-on-black racism is more serious and deserves harsher scrutiny than black-on-white racism, and therefore they should be administrated differently.

However, that sounds to me like you want to administrate the server based on your political opinions, rather than impartial standards.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the issue with MSO was? Isn't that hugely hypocritical?

[Vekter]

Does it?

The way I read the post, nian is saying that white-on-black racism is more serious and deserves harsher scrutiny than black-on-white racism, and therefore they should be administrated differently.

However, that sounds to me like you want to administrate the server based on your political opinions, rather than impartial standards.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the issue with MSO was? Isn't that hugely hypocritical?

The difference is that I'm not going around sniping people for saying such hot takes as "I think it's fucked up how men prioritize their own health over womens'."

If you think I'm a hypocrite for thinking it's way worse to call a black person the N word than it is to call a white person a cracker, then fine, I'm a hypocrite.

E: Also I'm probably overcomplicating this; whatever Rave comes up with will probably be better.

[distributivgesetz]

Rule 11 is political brainrot.

We need to have a common sense rule that's based in people treating each other right while still letting their characters be assholes to each other.
We need that in a way that won't be embarrassing to have seen in the light of day, because we are a public community.

The ever humble rule 1:

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Does it?

The way I read the post, nian is saying that white-on-black racism is more serious and deserves harsher scrutiny than black-on-white racism, and therefore they should be administrated differently.

However, that sounds to me like you want to administrate the server based on your political opinions, rather than impartial standards.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the issue with MSO was? Isn't that hugely hypocritical?

The difference is that I'm not going around sniping people for saying such hot takes as "I think it's fucked up how men prioritize their own health over womens'."

If you think I'm a hypocrite for thinking it's way worse to call a black person the N word than it is to call a white person a cracker, then fine, I'm a hypocrite.

E: Also I'm probably overcomplicating this; whatever Rave comes up with will probably be better.

No no, you're not a hypocrite for thinking that, or for having your own personal political opinions.

You're a hypocrite if you want to use those personal political opinions to inform your administrative decisions. Huuuuuge difference. Admins should be impartial, not political actors.

At least, that's what I think. Does that make sense?

[iwishforducks]

i want more admins with more conviction and opinion… not everyone believes the same, imitates

[TheFinalPotato]

bigotry against non-vulnerable classes obviously exists but the bar for admin intervention for discrimination against white people and straight people should be higher
as much as we should be trying to be equal on some fundamental level you have to accept that white-on-black racism is more serious and historically prevalent than the other way around and deserves harsher scrutiny

I get this and all but like, why do we need to make a distinction? You're right that bigotry is often a social restriction and such and so on but why do we need to place our cutoff line between the two?
What's the justification for placing it there rather then below?

[SpaceInaba]

Everything is political. Any decision you make is going to be political. I think the goal should be to find a good middle ground that makes the most amount of people happy. Ultimately a lot of these cases that are being brought up are going to be covered better by rule 1 if someone is being obnoxious about cis people or men or white people or whatever. There is historical (history is political) precedent (precedents are political) that are more applicable to a lot of situations (ie: the n word) than others. There's no reason to argue about not calling people crackers or whatever because white people do not face oppression in real life for being white. If someone is constantly calling people crackers and yelling in the ears of white community members the problem is that they're being a dick more than it is anything else.

[DaBoss]

Just have a flat ban on slurs. Keep it very simple, don't use these kinds of words at all or you risk punitive action. Carving out exceptions and limits and acceptible circumstances and so on is counterproductive, it's much easier for an admin to apply leniency at extenuating circumstances as they happen than to justify taking action on someone who may or may not be breaking any rules in the first place.

Also having a list of banned words cannot be the full rule. People make up new slurs all the time, or pluck ancient slurs from the 17th century, or just circle around it in other ways. I think it was called "dog whistles" higher up. We shouldn't be looking at banning words so much as banning types of hate speech. We have human admins who can make decisions about whether or not something was said to cause offence and to what degree. IMO just put something in the admin training about it and trust them to enforce the rules as intended.

Any kind of hatred towards any group or class shouldn’t be tolerated. Even though cra***r and ci**y don’t hold the same cultural weight as ni***r and fa***t, at the end of the day they’re still slurs. It’d be hypocritical to not enforce the rules equally and all in all it’d just bring a sour mood to the community.

The rules aren't going to be enforced equally, and they never have been. At the end of the day the admins have discretion over punishments so they're going to look at severity, context, etc. Someone making a crap pun about saltines is not going to get into the same level of trouble as someone spamming the n word, that's inevitable and not really a bad thing.

Everything is political. Any decision you make is going to be political. I think the goal should be to find a good middle ground that makes the most amount of people happy. Ultimately a lot of these cases that are being brought up are going to be covered better by rule 1 if someone is being obnoxious about cis people or men or white people or whatever. There is historical (history is political) precedent (precedents are political) that are more applicable to a lot of situations (ie: the n word) than others. There's no reason to argue about not calling people crackers or whatever because white people do not face oppression in real life for being white. If someone is constantly calling people crackers and yelling in the ears of white community members the problem is that they're being a dick more than it is anything else.

It's kind of besides the point. If I'm not offended by someone using a weak-ass slur, well, they still shouldn't be doing it. It's like throwing a punch at someone and missing, no harm done but it's still wrong because of the intent. For what it's worth the only time I've seen that word used was for a racist stereotypical portrayal of a black character, by someone who got in trouble not for saying it but because of their entire "gimmick".

[SpaceInaba]

Really my point is that ultimately a lot of people are asking "what if" about problems that we don't have here. (because they are not problems in real life)

[Scriptis]

bigotry and anything passing as a low-to-medium effort mask over bigotry shall be ejected from the community

e: this is my recommendation to headmin ruling
e2: but i will veto replacing rule 11 with anything less than it

[Mothblocks]

put things on the hard filter. thank you

[oranges]

Really my point is that ultimately a lot of people are asking "what if" about problems that we don't have here. (because they are not problems in real life)

that is because if you don't consider the edge cases you will have 40 ban appeals saying "well the rule doesn't say y" so I can do y from the average tg player.

[subject217]

To what degree do we need a change in the rule itself, when the primary distinction is going to be a change in enforcement?

We all agree (I think) that bigotry is bad. However, the way bigotry is defined can differ. For example, MSO considered terms like "incel" and "manchild" to be bigoted, and you could get banned for saying these. Now that they are gone, nobody is enforcing that as is, so at least in that respect, the rule is already changed. The question should be what specifically about the current rule do we find problematic, and how could it better reflect how the rule is actually going to be enforced in the community.

[vect0r]

Does it?

The way I read the post, nian is saying that white-on-black racism is more serious and deserves harsher scrutiny than black-on-white racism, and therefore they should be administrated differently.

However, that sounds to me like you want to administrate the server based on your political opinions, rather than impartial standards.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the issue with MSO was? Isn't that hugely hypocritical?

The difference is that I'm not going around sniping people for saying such hot takes as "I think it's fucked up how men prioritize their own health over womens'."

If you think I'm a hypocrite for thinking it's way worse to call a black person the N word than it is to call a white person a cracker, then fine, I'm a hypocrite.

E: Also I'm probably overcomplicating this; whatever Rave comes up with will probably be better.

I don't think anybody will disagree that like calling a black person the n word is worse than calling a white person a "cracker" but I don't think something should have to be as bad as the n word to be banned. I agree with the premise that white on black violence has historically and currently more dangerous, more active and just in general more of a thing than vice versa, but what benefit do we get from not banning 'slurs' aimed at cis/white/whatever else people? I don't really see that much that we gain from being able to call people crackers or w/e.

[Vekter]

I don't think anybody will disagree that like calling a black person the n word is worse than calling a white person a "cracker" but I don't think something should have to be as bad as the n word to be banned. I agree with the premise that white on black violence has historically and currently more dangerous, more active and just in general more of a thing than vice versa, but what benefit do we get from not banning 'slurs' aimed at cis/white/whatever else people? I don't really see that much that we gain from being able to call people crackers or w/e.

There's some difficulty in that, namely that "cracker" is a pretty damn normal word outside of that context and that we'd need to determine what else would be filtered.

I'm pretty sure "incel" and "manchild" should be removed but I'll leave that up to everyone else's vibes.

[vect0r]

I don't think anybody will disagree that like calling a black person the n word is worse than calling a white person a "cracker" but I don't think something should have to be as bad as the n word to be banned. I agree with the premise that white on black violence has historically and currently more dangerous, more active and just in general more of a thing than vice versa, but what benefit do we get from not banning 'slurs' aimed at cis/white/whatever else people? I don't really see that much that we gain from being able to call people crackers or w/e.

There's some difficulty in that, namely that "cracker" is a pretty damn normal word outside of that context and that we'd need to determine what else would be filtered.

I'm pretty sure "incel" and "manchild" should be removed but I'll leave that up to everyone else's vibes.

Oh yeah I just came up with cracker as the only "slur" I know that targets white/cis/whatever people and that one would be a nightmare to moderate. Pretend to replace that with a different slur in your head please.

[Timberpoes]

To what degree do we need a change in the rule itself, when the primary distinction is going to be a change in enforcement?

We all agree (I think) that bigotry is bad. However, the way bigotry is defined can differ. For example, MSO considered terms like "incel" and "manchild" to be bigoted, and you could get banned for saying these. Now that they are gone, nobody is enforcing that as is, so at least in that respect, the rule is already changed. The question should be what specifically about the current rule do we find problematic, and how could it better reflect how the rule is actually going to be enforced in the community.

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. It is not our goal to create or enforce a list of banned words and instead our goal to eject the expression of bigotry from the community. Enforcement will be less PC based and more common sense based with that goal in mind.

This means rather than warning or banning for quoting a usage such as "Griff McNazi got banned for calling somebody a faggot" or even things like "nigga pls" and "what are you faggots playing" which are generally not statements made to be bigoted, we'll focus more on statements like "you talk like a [insert stereotype]" or "x is a [insert slur]".

It's just the wording. MSO would tell you she created Rule 11 because nobody else had the balls to and she was the hero of equality that finally did it.

The people trying to create an anti-bigotry rule that MSO would actually approve of would tell you she created and held broad executive control Rule 11 (and its enforcement) to pre-empt and prevent anyone else making a different version of Rule 11 that would cause MSO herself to be drawn under the umbrella of being a bigot.

Rule 11 doesn't prevent you being a bigot. It doesn't even prevent you saying bigoted things. It rejects the PC and appeals to common sense. It simply prevents you saying statements made to be bigoted.

Which is fine in the sense that like, as a community member sometimes I need to be able to say stuff like "Hey, I think we should add nigger to the hard filter" - and even though any particularly delicate snowflakes reading it just melted into a puddle of PC outrage on behalf of some hitherto unidentified third party, common sense would dictate that no, I don't need to be banned and that discussion of the word in this kind of context is necessary.

It's one of the examples from the rule; "Griff McNazi got banned for calling somebody a faggot". And in some ways that's an important necessity that allows discussion about the word itself without fear that you'll get banned for suggesting we ban a word by using the word you suggest we ban in suggesting we ban it.

But it's also so much more than that. It then goes into statements like saying "nigga pls" and "what are you faggots playing" being fine because they're generally not made to be bigoted.

This weird middle-ground is why MSO's involvement in Rule 11 appeals often manifested as "fuck you this isn't the Rule 11 I designed, don't enforce it this way, this isn't bigoted by my definition".

Recall still, this rule was written by the same person with the following take on our Discord:

Riley - MSO/MTO - She/They — 20/09/2022 18:49
there is nothing wrong with saying the nigger word
its only when you use it to be bigoted that it becomes an issue

One of many instances of MSO wearing the skin of a bigot while claiming not to be one, using the words and phrases of the bigot while claiming not to be one.

It's also why MSO had to write an entire addendum to Admin Conduct that told admins how to enforce Rule 11. An addendum MSO herself didn't follow. I would hypothesise she didn't follow it because it simply wasn't convenient for her to do so, as it would massively stifle her ability to flex the rules to progress her politics within our community. While it further prevented admins using Rule 11 against stuff she didn't think was bigoted/she himself might say or do.

So what you're likely seeing is people evolving the rule from being against simply expressing bigotry to a rule also against utilising language, words and phrases that are bigoted in nature or character.

[iwishforducks]

Recall still, this rule was written by the same person with the following take on our Discord:

Riley - MSO/MTO - She/They — 20/09/2022 18:49
there is nothing wrong with saying the nigger word
its only when you use it to be bigoted that it becomes an issue

One of many instances of MSO wearing the skin of a bigot while claiming not to be one, using the words and phrases of the bigot while claiming not to be one.

bruh timber you know how like insanely ironic this is when you dedicated a big portion of this post pointing out the exact same thing of "the words are only problematic when used in a bigoted context"

like Bro this is the most "bigot claiming not to be one" shit i have ever read if we're going to take this angle

any particularly delicate snowflakes reading it just melted into a puddle of PC outrage on behalf of some hitherto unidentified third party

like every time the Slur Discussion comes up you come out swinging and typing the words in full. im assuming that in your head the difference is that mso actually is a bigot but you're not because you're just trying to bully the conversation by being like "Look! I'm confident enough to type these words out in full!"

anyways just hard filter the words lol how is this thread still even alive

[Fren256]

Assuming the hard filter is implemented, are we also going to ban words that resemble irl slurs (ie. the L word)?

[Jacquerel]

is retarded a slur
is queer a slur
there's probably more edge cases people are going to argue about that i havent thought of yet

[Timberpoes]

bruh timber you know how like insanely ironic this is when you dedicated a big portion of this post pointing out the exact same thing of "the words are only problematic when used in a bigoted context"

like Bro this is the most "bigot claiming not to be one" shit i have ever read if we're going to take this angle

any particularly delicate snowflakes reading it just melted into a puddle of PC outrage on behalf of some hitherto unidentified third party

like every time the Slur Discussion comes up you come out swinging and typing the words in full. im assuming that in your head the difference is that mso actually is a bigot but you're not because you're just trying to bully the conversation by being like "Look! I'm confident enough to type these words out in full!"

anyways just hard filter the words lol how is this thread still even alive

My take is that some words (not all, just the worst of the worst) are inherently bigoted by default, and that in a healthy community you should never tolerate their usage in any normal or casual context; only in an administrative or enforcement context.

So I wouldn't agree with MSO excepting that in some contexts the choice to use a particular bigoted word has some overriding necessity despite how wrong the word itself is. Meanwhile MSO would claim no word is bigoted, only through using it can the context as to whether it was a bigoted use or not become clear.

I don't type the words in full to be edgy. I type the words in full so that dull people like yourself understand exactly and precisely what I am talking about without ambiguity or confusion. Because the topic is serious, the conversation is serious and I expect the people making or providing input on decisions relating to topics like this will have the maturity level to handle the subject matter. You can do better than this.

To be clear, my own views are wholly incompatible with Rule 11 as-written. I could be pushed as far as a simple word ban on using bigoted words and language at all outside of an administrative/policy context, regardless of the true meaning or intent of the user. I doubt I'd go that far in practice, since it represents a huge extreme. I just like it because it's really easy to enforce. Say a bad word, get told off for it. No need to think too deeply about it, trivial to enforce, trivial for community members to understand.

And that is why I replied to the person asking why we needed to fuss around with changing Rule 11 when all we wanted to do was change enforcement, by explaining how some of the nuances around the rule mean some of the ways people would like to see it enforced are incompatible with the wording of the rule itself and that something would inevitably need to change about it due to that.

[SpaceInaba]

thank you timberpoes for the truth nukes

[GamerAndYeahMick]

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.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

is retarded a slur
is queer a slur
there's probably more edge cases people are going to argue about that i havent thought of yet

no
queer has a bunch of use cases non-related to homosexuality that are still in modern use lol

[Vekter]

is retarded a slur

It can be used as one and most often is.

is queer a slur

It can be used as one but has generally been reclaimed by the LGBT+ community. I refer to myself as queer, as do the majority of LGBT+ people I know.

there's probably more edge cases people are going to argue about that i havent thought of yet

The point of this more seems to be to point out that there's a lot of edge cases, so I feel like adding words that are often used as slurs but have other valid uses to the soft filter is the play while having words that are almost exclusively used as slurs on the hard filter.

[Boot]

Just get rid of rule 11 and the word filter. Vibe check people who you don't like.
----
I get that isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons so I'll just say that rule 11/word filter was already the middle ground that favored the censorious crowd. Even so I think it's better if the status quo remains.
As rule 11 is a down from the top ruling from the host I think that this is only going to be solved by the host coming down. Scriptis has said so already.

bigotry and anything passing as a low-to-medium effort mask over bigotry shall be ejected from the community

So the question ought to be what Scriptis thinks bigotry is and how we identify it.
----
I believe that it's pretty difficult to pin that down.
If a captain makes an announcement that we need to build a wall to keep the moths out is that a funny meme/fun round that happens to reference irl events or is this a bigot trying to make Hispanic players feel uncomfortable? I think it would be ludicrous to claim the latter.
Even when it comes to direct words that are seen as slurs it can be hard to tell. Even Vekter agrees.

I think there's a distinction to make between "actively being bigoted" and "being a dick to other people". I guess that might be splitting hair, but it also differs from rule 1 in how seriously we enforce it. I think rule 1 can handle situations like this when we're not talking about vulnerable classes.

If I were to call the chef a fucking retard because he killed Pete while kudzu eats the station I don't think people would be screaming bigotry.
If John McTider took the last pair of insuls I might call him a faggot, I wouldn't think of that as bigotry but many would disagree.
Hell I've called secoffs niggers before and never did "I wonder what their skin color/socio-economic position" cross my mind. I was just having a bad night and was pissed.

I don't think that throwing words onto a filter is a good way to root out bigotry not just because I personally like using these words. Not just because it leaves one open to the biases of the admin team who might not filter words they don't consider but others would. Not also because some of these words aren't just slurs. While these are all reasons to keep them around, the words alone arn't a good metric for gauging bigotry.

I think that Timber's position that "Some words are inherently bigoted by default" Is wrong.
----
One thing that really worries me is that the person making this thread who no doubt thinks of themself as a noble and upstanding person is saying what I view as the most bigoted thing in the thread.

To be more specific, the things I would want looked at are namely whether or not we want to word filter slurs, how we handle scenarios where non-vulnerable classes are referred to in rule 11 scenarios (whether or not we define "bigotry" as including classes such as white, male, cisgender, etc), and whether or not we include mental disability/neurodivergency as a protected class (banning the word "retard").

Just to be clear here, even bringing to the table the idea that people they deem "non-vulnerable' is fucking BONKERS. The fact that the one time Vekter seems to understand nuance when it comes to bigotry its if we should be considering being racist to white people as bad as racist towards anyone else is very worrying.

[RaveRadbury]

Y'all are gonna be stuck in a rhetorical trap as long as you're anchoring your public decency system in slurs and bigotry. I don't understand why we have to ideologically re-invent the wheel.

When you guys are dizzy enough from the purity spiral of deciding where the slope starts to be slippery lmk ig.

At the end of the day we're seeking to stop disruption of immersion that gives people a bad time. We are not looking to quash all thought-crime or make the perfect moral world.

Like, my whole goal with community cleanup has been so that we can meet twitch TOS minimums, which are, guess what, rooted in norms and expectations of society.
- Are they unbiased? No
- Are they fair? No
- Do they determine whether or not you can be platformed? Yes

Society polices itself just fine, we do in fact have a little society here in our nerd social club.

We're not an enlightenment French salon, people are not going to be looking to us on how to shape society. We are just trying to get by and have a good time.