/tg/Station 13

Simple as : )))

No.

Remove bad actors that interpret rule 11 to suit their own agenda or because their common sense doesn't exist.

in the defense of some admins they made their stance very clear that they were gonna be "overzealous" (depending on who you ask, i imagine they believe its firmly within the scope of the rule because whats common sense is different for everyone) with rule 11 and receive not only 0 pushback but in fact support for these rulings, so im not sure how anyone acts surprise when they dance around touchy subjects and gets reprimanded for them especially if MSO isnt going to babysit infractions pertaining to the rule if he wants it enforced in a particular manner (which he may have been doing, i dont know but its not obvious if he is).

If you speak in a manner that uses race/sex/sexual orientation/etc. as the butt of many of your jokes, I honestly recommend turning it off when on official tg platforms and/or just make your own private discord where that level of banter is allowed (besides its a lot easier to call it banter when you're in a small discord group with friends than expect everyone on a 1000+ server be ok with that kind of language when they dont know you and quite frankly have no interest in knowing you). YOU WILL GET BANNED OTHERWISE, it is only a matter of time especially when some people on the admin team are VERY VERY VERY PASSIONATE about btfoing anything that remotely sniffs of being bigoted (i mean just look at some of the candidate threads).

nice thread btw.

edit: reminder my stance on this is unless its targeted at a specific person to berate/harass them for things they cannot change, its fine and u should just realize some people have more crass way of speaking without actually being a nazi/klan mem(b)er/etc.

i will

I don't think that the rule should be removed, but I do think that MSO should weigh in on the direction of rule 11 interpretation and correct course accordingly.

it's far, far farrrrrrrrrrrr too late to be concerned about it now pugie

'ate queers
'ate pikeys
'ate pakis
'ate transsexuals
'ate homosexuals
'ate rugby
'ate catholics
'ate gypsies
'ate seagulls
'ate lefties
'ate muslims
'ate cider
'ate frenchies
'ate huns
'ate the EU

Love football
Love me wife
Love pints
Simple as

Enforcement has become arbitrary and entirely at the mercy of the banning admin. The express focus on targeted harassment and "common sense over PC" are being ignored entirely in favor of punishing for any perceived "bigoted" comment that is wholly defined by the observer, context and intent often dismissed.
Common sense is the least common thing when it comes to enforcement of rule 11. A great example of a lack of common sense is Rick Morty (god bless his soul) and his appeal.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=28564
Regardless of how autistic Ricky's logs might be, unless "referencing things in a derogatory manner" is considered targeted bigotry, it's hard to say any of the provided examples fall under its purview. Even then, you'd be hard-pressed to make the case for "sissy hypno" (lmfao), "he said 'inshallah'", "he dindu?" and referencing Lovecraft's cat.
With both Ricky's and now my own appeal, there's a substantial amount of disagreement not just among the playerbase but among the admin team as to what constitutes a valid rule 11 break, just look at the peanut threads.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28566
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28688
There is clearly a rift between what appears to be MSO's intent behind the creation of the rule and the way it's currently being utilized both by admins who are applying it liberally and those who are ignoring those same behaviors.

Malkraz wrote:Enforcement has become arbitrary and entirely at the mercy of the banning admin. The express focus on targeted harassment and "common sense over PC" are being ignored entirely in favor of punishing for any perceived "bigoted" comment that is wholly defined by the observer, context and intent often dismissed.
Common sense is the least common thing when it comes to enforcement of rule 11. A great example of a lack of common sense is Rick Morty (god bless his soul) and his appeal.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=28564
Regardless of how autistic Ricky's logs might be, unless "referencing things in a derogatory manner" is considered targeted bigotry, it's hard to say any of the provided examples fall under its purview. Even then, you'd be hard-pressed to make the case for "sissy hypno" (lmfao), "he said 'inshallah'", "he dindu?" and referencing Lovecraft's cat.
With both Ricky's and now my own appeal, there's a substantial amount of disagreement not just among the playerbase but among the admin team as to what constitutes a valid rule 11 break, just look at the peanut threads.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28566
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28688
There is clearly a rift between what appears to be MSO's intent behind the creation of the rule and the way it's currently being utilized both by admins who are applying it liberally and those who are ignoring those same behaviors.

How skull dented do you have to be to choose this clown to be the one you want to die on a hill next to
[youtube]MFP6rm0fNCw[/youtube]

I'm using the examples explicitly provided by the banning admin in his appeal. Nobody is going to pretend Ricky isn't a based retard but you should really stick to the points at hand. Those particular statements don't appear to fall under the intent of the rule, and illuminate an issue with its current enforcement.

MSO wrote: A good chunk of people* both don't like racism, and also think that language policing must have zero false positives. Among these people is a strong trend to seperate out racist speech and insensitive speech (with no racist intention) in their mind, which they think shouldn't be included in language policing.
-
Is nationality even a protected class under rule 11? should it be? Should I even bother to ridgely define that seeing as how I don't want religion to be a protected class but then what you do about the nazis since judism is a religion.
How much should context matter? Is the context of the person (and their history) a part of this? like, If somebody say self identified as a nazi or a racist would that make even soft-a's racist? in the actual example of this note, was mal's history enough?
The primary goal of writing the rule the way I wrote it was to ensure that non-racist people could still interact in this community without having to worry about having what they said taken in bad faith or brought out of context.
*I'm people

cacogen wrote:'ate queers
'ate pikeys
'ate pakis
'ate transsexuals
'ate homosexuals
'ate rugby
'ate catholics
'ate gypsies
'ate seagulls
'ate lefties
'ate muslims
'ate cider
'ate frenchies
'ate huns
'ate the EU

Love football
Love me wife
Love pints
Simple as

This entire post is invalidated because you forgot to say you love grilling.

Malkraz wrote:I'm using the examples explicitly provided by the banning admin in his appeal. Nobody is going to pretend Ricky isn't a based retard but you should really stick to the points at hand. Those particular statements don't appear to fall under the intent of the rule, and illuminate an issue with its current enforcement.

MSO wrote: A good chunk of people* both don't like racism, and also think that language policing must have zero false positives. Among these people is a strong trend to seperate out racist speech and insensitive speech (with no racist intention) in their mind, which they think shouldn't be included in language policing.
-
Is nationality even a protected class under rule 11? should it be? Should I even bother to ridgely define that seeing as how I don't want religion to be a protected class but then what you do about the nazis since judism is a religion.
How much should context matter? Is the context of the person (and their history) a part of this? like, If somebody say self identified as a nazi or a racist would that make even soft-a's racist? in the actual example of this note, was mal's history enough?
The primary goal of writing the rule the way I wrote it was to ensure that non-racist people could still interact in this community without having to worry about having what they said taken in bad faith or brought out of context.
*I'm people

He straight up says "I hate black people" multiple times

SuperNovaa41 wrote:

cacogen wrote:'ate queers
'ate pikeys
'ate pakis
'ate transsexuals
'ate homosexuals
'ate rugby
'ate catholics
'ate gypsies
'ate seagulls
'ate lefties
'ate muslims
'ate cider
'ate frenchies
'ate huns
'ate the EU

Love football
Love me wife
Love pints
Simple as

This entire post is invalidated because you forgot to say you love grilling.

I got this out of the /pol/ archive from a thread from like 2018 or something

Cobby wrote:in the defense of some admins they made their stance very clear that they were gonna be "overzealous" (depending on who you ask, i imagine they believe its firmly within the scope of the rule because whats common sense is different for everyone) with rule 11 and receive not only 0 pushback but in fact support for these rulings

all is lost.

As probably its biggest user, rule 11 sucks. Like, it sucks a lot. It's a weak, subjective half measure that removes its own claws before you even finish reading it. It sucks for players who don't know what's safe to say or what will get them bwoinked. It makes people adminwho before saying something - this should never be happening. It sucks for admins because any use of it for literally anything turns into a long, dramatic appeal / argument between two people with very different definitions of bigotry who will never agree or back down, that goes to headmins and creates a melodramatic peanut thread 100 % of the time. I could live with rule 11 following weaker standards than my own as long as it's not such a headache for everyone involved to use - It needs to be rewritten, not removed, to have a firm, clear position on how much bigotry we're going to pretend is okay.

or maybe mso is going to be disappointed at the clear lack of reasonableness you display and remove you instead of pointlessly rewriting a rule you're going to interpret to the maximum possible available to you anyway

I thought it banned bigotry. You can just say slurs provided they aren't against a person or a group and you aren't using them to promote bigotry. Is that wrong?

Sylphet wrote:It sucks for players who don't know what's safe to say or what will get them bwoinked. It makes people adminwho before saying something - this should never be happening. It sucks for admins because any use of it for literally anything turns into a long, dramatic appeal / argument between two people with very different definitions of bigotry who will never agree or back down.

Moreso than what it expressly bans, the highly subjective nature of it is the biggest problem both in the arbitrary nature of enforcement and the potential for "slur creep" as you get new blood in administrative positions.

Sylphet wrote:It needs to be rewritten, not removed, to have a firm, clear position on how much bigotry we're going to pretend is okay.

100%. This type of rule will always be a black hole of bickering as we've gotten a glimpse of recently without that firm, clear position.

cacogen wrote:You can just say slurs provided they aren't against a person or a group

That would be a word ban, which MSO wanted to avoid. As much as it makes some people seethe, you can call someone a nigger or a faggot without it "being bigotry." MSO even stated in the peanut for my appeal that he wasn't sure exactly what groups he wanted protected, such as nationalities, and that he didn't want it extended to religions. In addition, context should be playing a role.

MSO wrote:Questions i'll have to mull in my head:
Is nationality even a protected class under rule 11? should it be? Should I even bother to ridgely define that seeing as how I don't want religion to be a protected class but then what you do about the nazis since judism is a religion.
How much should context matter? Is the context of the person (and their history) a part of this?

cacogen wrote:and you aren't using them to promote bigotry.

This is against Rule 11, and would be something like "I hate niggers." This statement does not pertain to the game or the players in it at all, it's wholly OOC and presents nothing but "race bad."
In regards to "promoting" bigotry however, how far does that extend? If someone said "two jews walk into an oven", is that promoting bigotry or just a shitty joke? What about "two jews walk into a bar. they own the place"?
Do jokes at the expense of a group eventually cross a line into promotion, or should they just be banned outright? I can definitely see them being OOC in most cases, but we're also implementing highly stereotyped tourist bots.

If I call you a nigger Malkraz expecting that you're white is it not insulting black people by using an ugly and dehumanising word for being black as an insult?

cacogen wrote:If I call you a nigger Malkraz expecting that you're white is it not insulting black people by using an ugly and dehumanising word for being black as an insult?

Rule 11 wrote:Intentionally seeking to demean others due to their actual or perceived race, sex, gender, orientation or the like is not tolerated.

I'll invoke a little of that crafty "common sense" here and say that faggot has been largely detached from gay people in the majority of its use these days, as I believe is the case for a number of online communities when it comes to dropping N's.
We also use autistic and retarded VERY liberally here. We're generally not targeting each other specifically with these insults, which I think is what MSO was primarily aiming to get rid of. I think that "never go full Dootdoom" is a good standard to try to set.

I don't think we need to remove it, but we could do to tighten up how we're enforcing it across the board.

That being said, that's more a criticism of how we handle rules in general than a criticism of rule 11.

Cobby wrote:in the defense of some admins they made their stance very clear that they were gonna be "overzealous" (depending on who you ask, i imagine they believe its firmly within the scope of the rule because whats common sense is different for everyone) with rule 11 and receive not only 0 pushback but in fact support for these rulings, so im not sure how anyone acts surprise when they dance around touchy subjects and gets reprimanded for them especially if MSO isnt going to babysit infractions pertaining to the rule if he wants it enforced in a particular manner (which he may have been doing, i dont know but its not obvious if he is).

If you speak in a manner that uses race/sex/sexual orientation/etc. as the butt of many of your jokes, I honestly recommend turning it off when on official tg platforms and/or just make your own private discord where that level of banter is allowed (besides its a lot easier to call it banter when you're in a small discord group with friends than expect everyone on a 1000+ server be ok with that kind of language when they dont know you and quite frankly have no interest in knowing you). YOU WILL GET BANNED OTHERWISE, it is only a matter of time especially when some people on the admin team are VERY VERY VERY PASSIONATE about btfoing anything that remotely sniffs of being bigoted (i mean just look at some of the candidate threads).

nice thread btw.

edit: reminder my stance on this is unless its targeted at a specific person to berate/harass them for things they cannot change, its fine and u should just realize some people have more crass way of speaking without actually being a nazi/klan mem(b)er/etc.

don't you get banned for being in discords like that with other /tg/ players nowadays?

Even if it isn't targeted at one specific person for their specific identity, stuff like the n-word still creates an acid atmosphere for anyone who belongs to the groups they originally targeted, because it's hard to tell if people using it are just crass or if they're actually bigoted (and the doubling down when asked to avoid them in favor of less bigoted insults doesn't help). I wouldn't be keen on playing with people who would think i'm an inferior human being if they knew me personally. Or anyone else for that matter.
This goes double for potential new players who don't come from a context where these insults are "detached from their meaning".

Qustinnus wrote:

Cobby wrote::words:

don't you get banned for being in discords like that with other /tg/ players nowadays?

Not that I know of. Only reason I'd see banning for that is if it was obvious you were metacomming.

XDTM wrote:Even if it isn't targeted at one specific person for their specific identity, stuff like the n-word still creates an acid atmosphere for anyone who belongs to the groups they originally targeted, because it's hard to tell if people using it are just crass or if they're actually bigoted (and the doubling down when asked to avoid them in favor of less bigoted insults doesn't help). I wouldn't be keen on playing with people who would think i'm an inferior human being if they knew me personally. Or anyone else for that matter.
This goes double for potential new players who don't come from a context where these insults are "detached from their meaning".

You can't do anything about what others think, specially in an old 2D spessman game, so forget about it. The rule is reasonable as it is. Being insensitive =/= showing bigotry. And if we agree we all are +18 there is a limit to how sensitive someone is matters in the context of this rule.

Yeah someone might have a mouthful and be insensitive to people around by throwing words, but this doesn't immediately mean their goal is to demean or harrass an individual or a group of people for their race or their way of life.

People likes to dick around and throw insults without wanting to make someone else's life miserable. If hearing a single slur or insensitive word makes your life miserable then go to a server with a list of banned words.

Bad actors exist tho and they need to be shut down as soon as they show signs of bigotry. Until then, you can't do much, because false positives are shit.

If you wouldn't be comfortable with screaming at the top of your lungs in a crowded street what you're about to type on your keyboard, consider the pros and cons of not typing it at all and you won't have any fear of getting banned

This is just a simple life lesson from little old me on how to not to be an asshole on the internet

This is the internet, not real life

Then you might just be the guy this rule is trying to get rid of

I am a known nazi yes.
doctormayhem you have proven yourself as a standup guy, I just wish you linked a funny youtube poop instead of a very racist song and none of this would ever happen, just imagine if you were born as an African American and someone was making these jokes at your expense, please try to put yourself in the shoes of a person of color, comedy may be subjective but bigotry is not. This is coming from someone who loved "funny" racist jokes in FYAD/SomethingAwful at 15 before I grew up and realized that it isn't funny and that ironic racism absolutely can evolve into real racism. Luckily that was not the case for me but I saw lots of people go down a very dark path. Take this experience as a lesson that bigotry and hate can have very real consequences - admin punishment today, beaten to an inch of your life tomorrow. What if your parents saw this thread, what would they think? About your behavior? Or friends, co-workers? Would they be laughing along with you? I ask you to step back and look at the situation from another person's perspective and realize that hate in any form can poison you down to your bones. Your soul. Do not give in and try to enjoy life for what it is with new sincerity.

Mickyan wrote:If you wouldn't be comfortable with screaming at the top of your lungs in a crowded street what you're about to type on your keyboard, consider the pros and cons of not typing it at all and you won't have any fear of getting banned

This is just a simple life lesson from little old me on how to not to be an asshole on the internet

Dumb test. If you’d feel comfortable screaming the innocuous words you just typed on a crowded street, I would venture that you suffer from a mental illness.

Mickyan wrote:If you wouldn't be comfortable with screaming at the top of your lungs in a crowded street what you're about to type on your keyboard, consider the pros and cons of not typing it at all and you won't have any fear of getting banned

This is just a simple life lesson from little old me on how to not to be an asshole on the internet

You are comfortable screaming "HELP MICKYAN IS A TRAITOR, FUCKING SHOOT HIM!!!!" in a crowded street? O "THE AI IS ROGUE, CUT ALL CAMERAS" or "MICKYAN IS A LING, GIB HIM IN THE FOOD PROCESSOR"?

I want to add more examples but I think the point has been made.

As to what sylphet said - I agree that it’s wording isn’t quite the best, but the “removing its own claws” aspect seems very intentional to me. It’s my understanding that rule 11 is reserved for obvious situations, and if you find yourself constantly having to defend your use of the rule, perhaps you should use it less liberally.

space station 13 is an autism containment game

perhaps we could replace rule 11 with a more traditional approach to determine bigotry that welsh admins like pugie use.
they would take a sheep and offer it food from both hands. if the sheep chooses the right hand, the person is bigoted and has to be banned. otherwise the person is allowed to go free as their bigotry has been ruled out. if sheep doesn’t accept food, the admin has to be demoted forever.

this will eliminate rules lawyering and banbots forever. a simple and fair solution, which obviously is better at determining the right course of actions than sybil/manuelmins “logical”, “rational” “thought” they apply on daily basis.

Farquaar wrote:Dumb test. If you’d feel comfortable screaming the innocuous words you just typed on a crowded street, I would venture that you suffer from a mental illness.

It's posts like this that convince me no amount of changing the rules' vague wording is going to suffice since there's people incapable of understanding concepts beyond their most literal meaning

Mickyan wrote:

Farquaar wrote:Dumb test. If you’d feel comfortable screaming the innocuous words you just typed on a crowded street, I would venture that you suffer from a mental illness.

It's posts like this that convince me no amount of changing the rules' vague wording is going to suffice since there's people incapable of understanding concepts beyond their most literal meaning

In the real world, there's a complex history of legal precedent that allows us to effectively interpret vague wording in a way that makes sense.

This is an internet game community, and rule 11 is a new rule with unclear precedent. If you're going to propose a new test for bigotry, and that test is dumb, then don't go back and say "omg you're taking me too literally". This is a policy thread, not a peanut.

It's not a test for bigotry it's a test for not being an asshole on the internet, which is relevant because Rule 1 exists

So my policy suggestion is to just ban people for rule 1 instead so we don't need to have this conversation anymore

I also agree with others that rule 11 is inherently fangless and indecisive with vague enforcement.
It can be confusing to know exactly where I’m supposed to be issuing the varying levels of penalty we apply as admins, and what qualifies (Clearly its beyond the simple “if someone is directly harassing someone else on protected characteristics, put them in the trash can” these days)

reminder being italian or swedish ingame is counted as a disability

Mickyan wrote:It's not a test for bigotry it's a test for not being an asshole on the internet, which is relevant because Rule 1 exists

So my policy suggestion is to just ban people for rule 1 instead so we don't need to have this conversation anymore

Now you're thinking with portals.
I think I have the asshole test 4u tho : )) https://www.digg.com/r/AmItheAsshole/

Mickyan wrote:Then you might just be the guy this rule is trying to get rid of

Good player that is dedicated to community and not yet completely deprived of common sense?
Yeah, I hard agree with you here.

>Common sense is being able to say the n word in ss13

Nah, that probably ain't it.
Noticing that giving admin team institution that is so broad and unspecified that it makes your game and whether you will be bwoinked over something, most likely, inane rely heavily on admin's personal beliefs on matters at best tangentially related to game itself and their caprice is prolly not best idea might qualify though.
Doubly so when said admin team has good chunk of people who consider it to be fangless tool, giant red flag as far as my personal opinion goes.

>Says the guy who willingly joined a community who's rules LITERALLY say the admins can do whatever the fuck they want

Your argument makes no sense, try another tack though.

oranges wrote:LITERALLY say the admins can do whatever the fuck they want.

God bless rule 0, only people I gotta worry about there is convincing the headmins or MSO.

We're not going to just remove rule 11. It was given to us from MSO, not handed down to the headmins to consider.
Directly from the host himself. It's what we have to operate with, get used to it.

oranges wrote:>Says the guy who willingly joined a community who's rules LITERALLY say the admins can do whatever the fuck they want

Your argument makes no sense, try another tack though.

I mean, I am all for it if that's the case, just it doesn't strike me as very efficient system, the way you guys do it. Like, what are these dozens of people doing/pretending to be doing admin business, volumes upon volumes of contrived rules, precedents, interpretations, escalation shit and whatnot, Library of Alexandria-esque rules, appeals, complaints, feedback forums, all this organisation and hierarchy among other things if in the end it apparently boils down to "we can do whatever we want, scrub"?
Like, man, if that's the case you could get rid of all of that, get one passionate guy to handle it all on all servers with just rule 0. I dare to wager someone like Sticky would happily fit the bill. Or just one averagely passionate (or power hungry) guy/server.

Hear me out man, in the end it would be both more efficient for the most part and clear to the players. The only downside would be losing out on some shit flinging drama which is enjoyable to watch from afar once in a while.

Omni wrote:Like, what are these dozens of people doing/pretending to be doing admin business, volumes upon volumes of contrived rules, precedents, interpretations, escalation shit and whatnot, Library of Alexandria-esque rules, appeals, complaints, feedback forums, all this organisation and hierarchy among other things if in the end it apparently boils down to "we can do whatever we want, scrub"?

The rules are codifying for admins and players alike the desired server experience and what constitutes doing right from wrong so that we get a consistency of administration to as great a degree as you'll ever get from 60-odd assholes who all vigorously disagree on every single aspect of policy, server culture, desired experience, and roleplay with each other.

Qustinnus wrote:
don't you get banned for being in discords like that with other /tg/ players nowadays?

It would be an uphill battle if your banter was taken and posted here but im imagining it’s easier to keep your discord on the DL moreso than your knack on bantering with race/sexuality/etc. being the focus point.

The answer is no though, just don’t bring attention to that discord.

speaking not as an headmin but as an admin / player Rule 11 sucks, it sucks really fucking bad. its a bad middle ground that pleases nobody and that middle ground will be changed every time a new headmin term is elected. it doesnt get rid of the slurs some people want to be not said and makes it so people who think its fine to say them have to check admin who everytime they wanna say something. Enforcement is also wacky. Admins treat each word with their own personal biases meaning it dont matter how bad you think a word is or isnt because that admin might really dislike what you said and think its bigoted while another might not care. Having someone literally ask me is *potato* a slur against Irish people should show you what the teams working with here.

You cant also do the thing alot of people do in real life like allow someone of that type of person say that word, like letting a gay guy say faggot. Cos its the internet how the fuck do you tell if someones actually gay or just wanting to call everyone fags. So you basically have to treat it like a no one can say this thing. Which isnt great then you start banning people of that type because they want to reclaim a word.

This line in the rule "Enforcement will be less PC based and more common sense based" is also a ??? because what I think is PC and common sense is completely different than someone on the other side of the world. Rule 11s case is basically only a harassment stopper which is already done with the other rules. Putting it down just means admins will start trying to stop people saying certain words which in the same rule says "It is not our goal to create or enforce a list of banned words and instead our goal to eject bigotry from the community."

Rule 11 is effectively a nothing burger than brings alot of scrutiny when an admin tries to enforce it because what people agree is bigoted and what isnt bigoted will rarely line up. Its better covered by rules we already have. If we want to keep it and actually start enforcing it, it would have to be changed to allow a list of bigoted language with all slurs treated them same. Which isnt exactly great because then you have to start banning stupid things like potato. Cos its not fair to protect one type of people from a word and not another. If someones literally a nazi calling for the death of people thats already covered by other rules rule 11 just muddies the water by allowing stupid shit into the system too.

the racist headadmin everyone