/tg/Station 13

Quite recently,

I've seen an alarming amount of bans being enforced for a person's use of a slur towards a specific target or just in general.
Are we, TG, at this point and time policing slurs or are these recent bans focused on the repeated harassment of an individual instead?

If we are,
are we policing any slurs regardless of race/creed/denomination? That is to say, if we truly are language policing and some guy calls me a cracker ass snowflake honkey, and I call him a nigga/nigger, are we both receiving punishment for this? Similarly, if a person thinks something is completely stupid and blurts out a common slang for this nowadays, be it "That's gay" or "That's Retarded" are they getting their language policed as some random person got angry and called those words "Homophobic" and "Ableist"?

Not that I would ever want language policed, but if we are going that route, it would be fair to bring it into the light now, and blanket all or nothing.
I've had this fear of some sociopolitical agenda leaking into the game the exact moment the word filter was introduced, and I really felt the need to get this clarified once and for all.

>alarming amount
one

It seems pretty simple to me, If this is brought up because of the ban appeals Im thinking of the people in question were clearly being dicks. There's a pretty clear line between harassing someone and banter.

TheMythicGhost wrote: I've had this fear of some sociopolitical agenda leaking into the game the exact moment the word filter was introduced, and I really felt the need to get this clarified once and for all.

cringe

You can't stop it with this thread anyways. Just succumb. It's easier than resisting and will net you more sympathy than whatever autistic dust-up you're trying to kick up right now.

It's obvious emotions got involved on that permaban but it is what it is.

Rule 1 exists for a reason and if that guy was being a dick elsewhere then why bother with him? Waste of space.

That said, I'd have more pause if the ban reason was "transphobia" but I'm pretty sure it's actually because he was personally insulting an admin about an IRL front.

I think you'd get banned doing the same thing to a player in ooc chat whether it was related to race, sexuality, dead parents, religion, etc.


Edit:. I will say it's interesting given the rationale wubli discusses in this admin complaint

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 23&t=23438

I guess it begs the question on when something becomes "harassment"

Harassment is whatever is deemed not acceptable by the headmins and, should you not like that answer, the host. Personally I consider harassment going out of your way to mess with someone in an OOC context. IC harassment is fine unless it's a case of metagrudge.

Cobby wrote:Harassment is whatever is deemed not acceptable by the headmins and, should you not like that answer, the host. Personally I consider harassment going out of your way to mess with someone in an OOC context. IC harassment is fine unless it's a case of metagrudge.

The emboldened part is worrying.
If the highest level of administration is at risk of letting their emotions affect ruling without recusing themselves (though this is debatable as to when and where it happens), then what is actual harassment, and what is solely sensitivity coming into play? Does this dripfeed down the line into similar situations involving lesser rank admins (lesser rank than headmins), and do they also get the same decision power in deciding what is and isn't acceptable in terms of language?

Stop tearing OP down they literally just want a clearly worded rule written.

yeah and nobody likes a rules lawyer wesoda, just don't be a dick it's not that hard, and the concept of what a dick is evolves, so if you later find yourself being a dick with something that previously wasn't a dick move, suck it up, deal with it and stop saying whatever is making people think you're a dick.

i dont understand the point of this thread. targeted and repeated harassment will get you banned, its not rocket science. if you are specifically targeting a player/admin/whoever in an attempt to get a rise out of them, upset them or whatever its harassment.

i dont know how you stretched your massive iq from "wow this guy specifically targeted an admin and got banned for telling them that they are a tranny who mutilated their dick" to "Lol im going to get banned for shoving an assistant and calling them a nigger now??????!" but i dont see the connection.


"sociopolitical agenda"
give me a fucking break, this is the lowest quality policy discussion thread ive seen in a long time

No, not really. Alphonzo made it pretty clear in the the appeal that the issue wasn't the use of slurs themselves but rather harassing someone for being trans. You can disagree with the amount of harassment required for a admin to intervene but the point was never that a slur was used, rather the direction the whole exchange went. As it stands it's acceptable to use slurs in IC and OOC chatter, if somewhat distasteful we don't ban because you said the no-no word. Offhandedly calling someone a faggot isn't a big deal but if you decide to repeatedly call someone a faggot because you they are gay and it'll get under their skin then we enter the grounds of ooc harassment which isn't cool. The boarder-line between banter and harassment can sometimes blur so caution is advised but for the most part it's about context and how personally targeted the whole exchange becomes.

Now aside from the policy being discussed here I feel I should say it was already shitty to peanut post in a appeal over the implications of the ban, it's especially shitty to do so when the banning admin had already answered your question.

Except, as stated in that ban appeal, I had mentioned that I wasn't focusing on the ban in question (hence why I mentioned it was a peanut post) it was relevant to the use of slurs as a part of the reason why the man was banned.

The point of this discussion isn't focusing on any of the recent bans in specific, but a general case scenario of what determines actual harassment and what determines over sensitivity in terms of language, and if it is being enforced in one way or the other moving forward. Hence why I have posted the thread as instructed to by PkPenguin, in the proper zone. If that's too much of a thing to get a clear answer on, I have serious concerns regarding policy making.

TheMythicGhost wrote: The point of this discussion isn't focusing on any of the recent bans in specific, but a general case scenario of what determines actual harassment and what determines over sensitivity in terms of language, and if it is being enforced in one way or the other moving forward.

Generally if you are using abusive or uncomfortable language at one particular person repeatedly and they tell you to stop and you dont it crosses the line into harassment.

I could tell someone I love them every minute Im on the server, it could even be true, but me getting banned for harassment wouldnt suddenly be the admins policing love.

The content of a message and the act of saying something are two different issues.

Qbmax32 wrote:i dont understand the point of this thread. targeted and repeated harassment will get you banned, its not rocket science. if you are specifically targeting a player/admin/whoever in an attempt to get a rise out of them, upset them or whatever its harassment.

You're right. So given the context, why wasn't the admin in question permabanned for harassing the player with their dumb ass squeaky shoe meme? He was harassed by an admin and their metafriend to the point of fucking snapping, then banned when he actually did snap. Not with repeated harassment, but brief namecalling in the heat of the moment. Apparently this is permabannable due to the specific language he used.

>alarming amount
one

One is enough to set a precedent if it isn't immediately addressed and squashed.

SkeletalElite wrote:There's a pretty clear line between harassing someone and banter.

Please point this clearly objective and not at all subjective line out to me.

terranaut wrote:Please point this clearly objective and not at all subjective line out to me.

I mean, is that objective line even possible to be drawn in this thread? It's pretty established by this thread y'all don't trust the admin PoV on what harassment is.

deedubya wrote:

>alarming amount
one

One is enough to set a precedent if it isn't immediately addressed and squashed.

if somebody else is held to basic standards of decorum then one day I might be held to basic standards of decorum and we can't have that

IkeTG wrote:

terranaut wrote:Please point this clearly objective and not at all subjective line out to me.

I mean, is that objective line even possible to be drawn in this thread? It's pretty established by this thread y'all don't trust the admin PoV on what harassment is.

If it falls on PoV then it's not exactly objective

Allowing any single individual in a position of power to determine what is and what is not harassment/hatespeech to them is a slippery slope.

Is it a case of somebody finding something offensive and getting offended by it or is it a case where somebody revealed personal information online?

In any case if its true, is it really harassment rather than pointing out the obvious? Say I reveal that I am a homosexual african-american and people calling me the n-word + f-word combo?

it's pretty telling the only people worried about this are the /pol/posters of /tg/

I don't think anyone can legitimately harass someone by just posting shit in OOC over 1 round when we have tools like mute.

If someone is legitimately being harassed and an admin is online, that admin is failing at his job to mute the offending player.

Harassment, for realizies, starts when said offender starts doing it over multiple hours/days or over multiple media. So if I got muted in OOC because I called X player a big nosed very not nice person, then went on discord and called them that and got kicked there and started sending him messages, that would be a pretty clear case of harassment.

Honestly, this is one of those topics that admins would be better off consulting other admins before applying any sort of ban. Nevermind a permanent ban.

oranges wrote:it's pretty telling the only people worried about this are the /pol/posters of /tg/

Beaking news according to orange man: Being concerned about the possibility of word police becoming policy set by precedent in this community suddenly equates you to stormfront.

If you're going to post obvious bait, at least put some more effort into it.

SkeletalElite wrote:There's a pretty clear line between harassing someone and banter.

Please define the line. You need to be able to define this line so good that even those with a severely low self esteem AND someone with extremely thick skin can agree on.

If you can't do that then there will never be a way to tell if someone saying "Fuck off, you retard" is banter or harassment unless you take the smart ass approach of "context please." That approach still wouldn't define the line though.

edit: a friend said that if you block someone and that someone gets past the block to keep messaging then it can be considered harassment. I can accept that as truth however I don't think that's gonna work for admins. The answer of "grow thicker skin" can't work forever. Even if you had the most thickest skin possible, it would probably still seem like a good idea to punish a guy who seems to do nothing but be a complete asshole with no redeeming qualities.

Also, to this point:

oranges wrote:yeah and nobody likes a rules lawyer wesoda

It's not unreasonable for players to ask for clear cut examples, so that they get a general idea of what's considered acceptable and what isn't. As it stands, you're playing ahelp roulette, and anyone with a grudge or agenda could potentially use any minor incident(for example, 5-6 minor lines of text "triggering" someone) to bring down whatever judgement they want with the justification of "it's subjective, dwi". I know you're smart enough to know why wildly subjective policy enforcement is a piss poor fucking idea, so why argue in favor of it?

deedubya wrote:Also, to this point:

oranges wrote:yeah and nobody likes a rules lawyer wesoda

It's not unreasonable for players to ask for clear cut examples, so that they get a general idea of what's considered acceptable and what isn't. As it stands, you're playing ahelp roulette, and anyone with a grudge or agenda could potentially use any minor incident(for example, 5-6 minor lines of text "triggering" someone) to bring down whatever judgement they want with the justification of "it's subjective, dwi". I know you're smart enough to know why wildly subjective policy enforcement is a piss poor fucking idea, so why argue in favor of it?

come on man you know if anyone draws a hard line for what is and is not harassment these motherfuckers will skate that line like it's the winter olympics

if you're that worried about ahelp roulette then maybe step away from the tables, it's not hard to figure out that openly calling someone a slur that refers explicitly to them directly to their face is a big fuckin' bet on red

Screemonster wrote:openly calling someone a slur that refers explicitly to them directly to their face is a big fuckin' bet on red

I think he means that someone will find logs of you saying something like "all fucking righteous fuckING N-" then use it as a way to get you banned.

Ayy Lemoh wrote:

Screemonster wrote:openly calling someone a slur that refers explicitly to them directly to their face is a big fuckin' bet on red

I think he means that someone will find logs of you saying something like "all fucking righteous fuckING N-" then use it as a way to get you banned.

saying the word and calling someone the word are two different things, y'all motherfuckers forget context is a thing

deedubya wrote:

oranges wrote:it's pretty telling the only people worried about this are the /pol/posters of /tg/

Beaking news according to orange man: Being concerned about the possibility of word police becoming policy set by precedent in this community suddenly equates you to stormfront.

If you're going to post obvious bait, at least put some more effort into it.

when someone worth respecting decides to post in this thread, maybe I will

Screemonster wrote:

Ayy Lemoh wrote:

Screemonster wrote:openly calling someone a slur that refers explicitly to them directly to their face is a big fuckin' bet on red

I think he means that someone will find logs of you saying something like "all fucking righteous fuckING N-" then use it as a way to get you banned.

saying the word and calling someone the word are two different things, y'all motherfuckers forget context is a thing

Generally people who regularly use that kind of language casually think context is some kind of liberal conspiracy.

peanut, policy, appeal, all alphonzo needs now is for someone to post salt in his feedback and he gets the awsome quadruple threat combo

EDIT: also someone needs to make a complaint, if you say stuff like "i put it to YOU" and wear a tie while you post it, it might disguise the fact that you're clearly seething

TheMythicGhost wrote:Quite recently,

I've seen an alarming amount of bans being enforced for a person's use of a slur towards a specific target or just in general.
Are we, TG, at this point and time policing slurs or are these recent bans focused on the repeated harassment of an individual instead?

If you say "damn trannies", that's a slur and (iirc) doesn't get you banned since we're not Goon or digg
If you go out of your way to repeatedly call a trans community member this word, it's pretty much the textbook definition of targeted harassment.

Denton wrote:

TheMythicGhost wrote:Quite recently,

I've seen an alarming amount of bans being enforced for a person's use of a slur towards a specific target or just in general.
Are we, TG, at this point and time policing slurs or are these recent bans focused on the repeated harassment of an individual instead?

If you say "damn trannies", that's a slur and (iirc) doesn't get you banned since we're not Goon or digg
If you go out of your way to repeatedly call a trans community member this word, it's pretty much the textbook definition of targeted harassment.

The question regarding that instance is, does that sort of protection (?) apply to all groups of people then?

It doesn’t have to do with slurs. It has to do with purposely making fun of someone over a topic they are sensitive about in this case being trans. If I told someone I was suicidal and they went apeshit spamming me and telling me to kill myself, it would be treated the exact same.

And shit trying to find what groups are protected is stupid. As funny as it sounds if I was deathly afraid of amphibians and you started spamming me with pictures of frogs or someshit it could be treated the same way. Its not pandering to sociopolitical or whatever term you used, its protecting basic human rights.

Yes, it applies to all groups of people. The key here isn't the slur being said to someone in a vulnerable group; rather it's about finding a vulnerability and then going at it in a pretty personal way that goes beyond mere 'banter'. This isn't even a hard concept to grasp.

So if I claim to be a quarter african-american quarter asian quarter jewish and quarter white as well as being a bi-sexual non-bianry and transexual with a disability and suicidial tendencies, then people cannot say anything around me, because that would trigger me and thus be considered harrasment solely based on my claims?

Every group has their rights to be how they want to be, but if a player chooses to reveal sensitive personal information, then its kinda on them, ain't it?

Istoprocent1 wrote:So if I claim to be a quarter african-american quarter asian quarter jewish and quarter white as well as being a bi-sexual non-bianry and transexual with a disability and suicidial tendencies, then people cannot say anything around me, because that would trigger me and thus be considered harrasment solely based on my claims?

Every group has their rights to be how they want to be, but if a player chooses to reveal sensitive personal information, then its kinda on them, ain't it?

You wanna play this game? Fine.
Let's play this game.

Can you name any ban at any point in our servers history where someone was banned SOLELY for the use of slurs?
Not for spamming the slur, not for targeted harassment with the slur, just simply saying a slur.
No, you can't name a ban like that, because it doesn't fucking exist.
I'm tired of you fucking pearl clutchers creating this non-existent narrative of banning for slurs.

Go ahead, hop on the server right now and say nigger, faggot, kike, whatever.
What's going to happen to your account?
Fucking nothing.

If you spam it, you just get banned for spamming, not for "slur use."

If someone is repeatedly SPECIFICALLY referring to you with a slur SPECIFICALLY in reference to your background, whether it relate to ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise, is this harassment, yes or no?

This is a simple, straight forward concept and even the most braindead fucking gorilla should be able to understand this.

bro what does pearl clutching even mean

TheMythicGhost wrote:

Denton wrote:

TheMythicGhost wrote:Quite recently,

I've seen an alarming amount of bans being enforced for a person's use of a slur towards a specific target or just in general.
Are we, TG, at this point and time policing slurs or are these recent bans focused on the repeated harassment of an individual instead?

If you say "damn trannies", that's a slur and (iirc) doesn't get you banned since we're not Goon or digg
If you go out of your way to repeatedly call a trans community member this word, it's pretty much the textbook definition of targeted harassment.

The question regarding that instance is, does that sort of protection (?) apply to all groups of people then?

No Respii, people are STILL going to call you a faggot and there's NOTHING you can do.

MrAlphonzo wrote:

Istoprocent1 wrote:So if I claim to be a quarter african-american quarter asian quarter jewish and quarter white as well as being a bi-sexual non-bianry and transexual with a disability and suicidial tendencies, then people cannot say anything around me, because that would trigger me and thus be considered harrasment solely based on my claims?

Every group has their rights to be how they want to be, but if a player chooses to reveal sensitive personal information, then its kinda on them, ain't it?

You wanna play this game? Fine.
Let's play this game.

Can you name any ban at any point in our servers history where someone was banned SOLELY for the use of slurs?
Not for spamming the slur, not for targeted harassment with the slur, just simply saying a slur.
No, you can't name a ban like that, because it doesn't fucking exist.
I'm tired of you fucking pearl clutchers creating this non-existent narrative of banning for slurs.

Go ahead, hop on the server right now and say nigger, faggot, kike, whatever.
What's going to happen to your account?
Fucking nothing.

If you spam it, you just get banned for spamming, not for "slur use."

If someone is repeatedly SPECIFICALLY referring to you with a slur SPECIFICALLY in reference to your background, whether it relate to ethnicity, sexual orientation or otherwise, is this harassment, yes or no?

This is a simple, straight forward concept and even the most braindead fucking gorilla should be able to understand this.

Alright. I'll keep in mind that next time someone calls me a "canuck" 4 times in succession - knowing full well that I'm a canadian - that I can get them permabanned from the server. Even if I never ask them to stop. Even if they aren't warned about it. Good talk!

deedubya wrote: Alright. I'll keep in mind that next time someone calls me a "canuck" 4 times in succession - knowing full well that I'm a canadian - that I can get them permabanned from the server. Even if I never ask them to stop. Even if they aren't warned about it. Good talk!

Except Cynic did ask them to stop. Have you tried reading?

Think before you speak. It isn't hard.

deedubya wrote:I'll keep in mind that next time someone calls me a "canuck" 4 times in succession - knowing full well that I'm a canadian - that I can get them permabanned from the server. Even if I never ask them to stop. Even if they aren't warned about it. Good talk!

Maple nigger

MrAlphonzo wrote:

deedubya wrote: Alright. I'll keep in mind that next time someone calls me a "canuck" 4 times in succession - knowing full well that I'm a canadian - that I can get them permabanned from the server. Even if I never ask them to stop. Even if they aren't warned about it. Good talk!

Except Cynic did ask them to stop. Have you tried reading?

Think before you speak. It isn't hard.

Did you read the same logs I did? The only even mild hint of that was akin to "hey man you can't call someone that over meme shoes". Didn't ask them to stop. Neither you or Cynic issued a warning. Straight to the nuclear option. Appalling behavior.

Also noted: If I say "hey you can't call someone a canuck because you're assmad" that makes my permaban request 100% valid.

Want to keep this trash heap on-topic about policy or is this basically just another peanut post thread now shitting up Policy Discussion. Someone calling you canuck offhandedly is fucking nothing. If you made it pretty clear you are deeply offended by the term and someone went out of their way to keep hassling you about it knowing this, then yes. That would be at harassment. Not sure all this bad faith what-about bullshit is going to really help much as it's kind of clear you care more about the principal and making a stand then someone actually getting under your skin with the term, but theoretically someone getting in your face about your nationality and shit talking you about it as though you aren't really a person could easily fall under rule 1. How much of this should be tolerated and when should a admin intervene? These are things we should consider but the very act of taking something personal like this, seizing the chance to deny who someone is to seriously upset them is a shitty thing to do and the whole point of rule 1 is to try and keep the level of OOC malice down to a minimum and have fun together in this game about spacemen.

Frankly the sooner this thread gets nuked the better.

So... I get their point. Its the principle of it. The concern about that line. One could see that as a legitimate threat. However I think alphonso is in the right. Given the context and evidence what was said to cynic was very direct and intended to get to them. /tg/ will never truly language police from what I can tell. But finding a button and pushing it until it breaks is a dick move regardless of whatever sociopolitical bullshit going on in current year.

I'd say don't be a dick. But yea clutch those lovely pearls of assholery long past tight to your chest.

Edit: also pearl clutching is basically the idea of sticking to an old idea or acceptable thing that's no longer acceptable. Or vice versa.

I'll borrow from Merriam Webster's second definition of harass:

"To create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct "

/tg/ has always been about free speech, allowing people to say whatever stupid slur their heart desires, and no one is really bent out of shape about that. The issue arises when slurs become targeted, specifically used with intent to hurt anothers feelings in a very personal way. If you are not part of a minority group yourself, it can be genuinely difficult to understand what it's like to be treated differently than other people just for existing as someone of another skin color, gender identity, or sexuality. We have never and will never allow people to harass others freely on the server. Insults are fine, strong language is fine, but when you go beyond surface level trash talking and venture into very personal territory with the intent of singling out specific people, that's when it becomes an issue.

If you spammed the N word in chat repeatedly, that's one thing. If you discovered one of our players was black, then specifically referred to them as the N word from that point onwards, that's another issue entirely. This thread has been made in response to one specific instance regarding another player that is not entirely resolved as of the time of typing. This is not about some strange trend people are noticing, this appears on a surface level to be people afraid of losing their ability to be genuinely hurtful to other human beings just because you don't have to see them face to face.

We are not policing language, we are not making changes to police language, we are not adding policy that enforces the policing of language. We are policing the community and those who are in it who only have an interest in making other peoples experiences lesser. This is a 2d spaceman game, we're here to have fun and make people go horizontal, not remind each other that the world is a shitty place to live in and our fellow humans have the capacity to make it worse.

If you yourself are being personally harassed, message me or another head admin on the forums or discord so we can talk about resolving it. Sometimes we aren't aware that something is going on, but as soon as we are we will act on it to the best of our ability.

Stay safe out there spessmen.