Improve Quality of Life (IQoL) #1 - Free Speech

[Guest]

LOOK AT THIS: https://imgur.com/No3LtZD.png

"take arguments and disputes to PMs"

--I don't care about just any argument/dispute. However, rule 5 specifically says not in public chats.

"so something along the lines of nothing obscene, no racism, no sexism, etc."

--Rule 4 literally says no racism. Rule 5 says "excessive verbal harassment," and if you have common sense and decency this would include sexual harassment.

if you have any common sense/decency, then both of the rules you just said you supported are already rules in A1. it specifically says public chats, and it specifically says excessive harassment...which sexual harassment, racial harassment (happens to be its own rule), etc all are (again, if you have common sense/decency).

ephemeral came here and quit because in the game a troll wanted to go on about how cancer treatment is bullshit...that troll then came to these forums and REPEATED the point which lead ephemeral to post in the first place...he said hes leaving...but the troll still had to repeat the point...THAT is excessive harassment as well.

the rules in a1 are pretty clear to me. common sense..common decency...its not. that. hard.

https://imgur.com/9Mz56mH.png

https://imgur.com/i6IqDDj.png

https://imgur.com/rnlCrfW.png

[Lrim's Turtle]

LOOK AT THIS: https://imgur.com/No3LtZD.png

"take arguments and disputes to PMs"

--I don't care about just any argument/dispute. However, rule 5 specifically says not in public chats.

"so something along the lines of nothing obscene, no racism, no sexism, etc."

--Rule 4 literally says no racism. Rule 5 says "excessive verbal harassment," and if you have common sense and decency this would include sexual harassment.

if you have any common sense/decency, then both of the rules you just said you supported are already rules in A1. it specifically says public chats, and it specifically says excessive harassment...which sexual harassment, racial harassment (happens to be its own rule), etc all are (again, if you have common sense/decency).

ephemeral came here and quit because in the game a troll wanted to go on about how cancer treatment is bullshit...that troll then came to these forums and REPEATED the point which lead ephemeral to post in the first place...he said hes leaving...but the troll still had to repeat the point...THAT is excessive harassment as well.

the rules in a1 are pretty clear to me. common sense..common decency...its not. that. hard.

https://imgur.com/9Mz56mH.png

https://imgur.com/i6IqDDj.png

https://imgur.com/rnlCrfW.png

You need a therapist. Nobody should care about a game this much. I think you should take a break. Get some fresh air, enjoy what life has to offer.

[Guest]

"You need a therapist. Nobody should care about a game this much. I think you should take a break. Get some fresh air, enjoy what life has to offer."

staff, see that? there is the trolling line he is casting that he wants me to bite on...


common sense..common decency...its not. that. hard.

https://imgur.com/9Mz56mH.png

https://imgur.com/i6IqDDj.png

https://imgur.com/rnlCrfW.png

[Lrim's Turtle]

"You need a therapist. Nobody should care about a game this much. I think you should take a break. Get some fresh air, enjoy what life has to offer."

staff, see that? there is the trolling line he is casting that he wants me to bite on...


common sense..common decency...its not. that. hard.

https://imgur.com/9Mz56mH.png

https://imgur.com/i6IqDDj.png

https://imgur.com/rnlCrfW.png

[Falconeer]

LOOK AT THIS: https://imgur.com/No3LtZD.png

"take arguments and disputes to PMs"

--I don't care about just any argument/dispute. However, rule 5 specifically says not in public chats.

"so something along the lines of nothing obscene, no racism, no sexism, etc."

--Rule 4 literally says no racism. Rule 5 says "excessive verbal harassment," and if you have common sense and decency this would include sexual harassment.

if you have any common sense/decency, then both of the rules you just said you supported are already rules in A1. it specifically says public chats, and it specifically says excessive harassment...which sexual harassment, racial harassment (happens to be its own rule), etc all are (again, if you have common sense/decency).

Sigh, you don't understand what proper definitions are i think. The minute you say 'excessive' in any rule definition you end up having a big problem. This implies there is some middle ground that's acceptable, which means you need to define where that line is very clearly in the rules, having the vague word 'excessive' is not enough. That's why your rules have to deal with absolutes. Obscenity is absolutely not allowed... Verbal attacks are absolutely not allowed, not Excessive verbal harassment. So does excessive imply a certain action? like death threats? does excessive imply certain words? you suck is fine, but fuck you is not? Does excessive imply a certain duration? 30 seconds of a fight is fine, but 2 minutes + is becoming excessive? Do you see the problem here?

Furthermore harassment is an ambiguous word in itself. It's literally defined as aggressive pressure and intimidation. It's better to say not to verbally attack other players. You see how i suddenly took a definition on harassment and reworded it to leave no doubt or room to what the meaning might be? To me harassment is an on going assault on someone that they don't want. In other words, evading ignores is harassment and I think if it happens within a day of being ignored the player should be silenced. If they continue to message from another zone to evade the silence, it becomes net-bannable. Unless other zones are willing to co-operate and silence the offender. Basically if someone doesn't say to stop how can i be harassing them? They clearly enjoy having someone to versus, having an enemy can be fun for some people.

I know there is no racism rule, it's good, it should be enforced. There should be a no stereotyping rule if you want to cover more text that i know you wouldn't like. There should be a no obscenity rule too, because in most cases it's not harassment directed at a player that's going on, but someone monologueing obscenities and stereotypes. Which I guess you can say people get offended, but they aren't directly being attacked by the player, the player is not addressing anyone. And then getting into rules about 'don't offend anyone' is way too broad too because literally anything can be made offensive. It's better to just directly have a rule that says not to verbally attack people, with few exceptions, and list the nature of the exceptions... imo.

If you write good rules, then you cover your asses as not being dictators, and you show your moral argument really well. You want a moral and fun zone, which is good, just show that you are moral though by writing the rules properly.

The reason is for example if we go with the excessive harassment rule. I can be telling off Pinky for example in the zone. A mod comes and now it's the mods discretion what is excessive right? That means this mod will silence me. Now I will feel attacked personally by the mod, because to me what I said was not excessive. The next day I might be doing the same thing and a different mod is online, it's again the mods discretion but he does nothing because he decides it's not excessive. Now I see there are discrepancies in how the mods do things and I start feeling more personally attacked by the previous mod. You open the door for dictatorial type moderation when you have these grey areas decided by individual mods. KEEP IN MIND we didn't even talk about the "harassment" part of this, which was that Pinky is a troll, his threshold for being offended by my words is going to be very very high. In other words he didn't actually tell me to stop, he never reported me so how is it harassment if the person doesn't even say 'no' or 'stop' to me? You see all the issues here? So now I feel like moderators are just not even understanding their own rule system. And then if it's about nobody wants to hear you fight with another troll, OKAY MAKE A RULE SAYING TO TAKE FIGHTS TO PMS. DONE.

[Dierienow]

Excessive verbal harassment is an oxymoron imo. Harassment implies the encounter has persisted beyond the acceptable limit which, while different for everyone, I believe most could agree upon in 95% of cases.

You seem obsessed with the exact words people are using without taking into consideration the spirit of what they're saying. Not everyone is a troll god definition philosopher but does that mean the essence of what they're saying is necessarily false? This is why courts exist because at the end of the day someone has to say, "this constitutes excessive." It's a matter of practicality. If there is nobody here qualified or trusted to do this, then I think you're correct that a laissez-faire approach is best. But that approach has its drawbacks as well and maybe we should consider the circumstances that led to this predicament (not having trusted, qualified people to moderate the game fairly) before moving further.

This isn't a legal environment where real rights and people's lives are being decided. It's a 2d spaceship game CHAT. Like you say we should be handing out silences because they match the offense. So really, if we agree we shouldn't ban in all but the most severe cases (and even then without community review), do we really need such stringent definitions? Look at the context: it's a game chat, not the Supreme Court.

My $3.47

[Falconeer]

Excessive verbal harassment is an oxymoron imo. Harassment implies the encounter has persisted beyond the acceptable limit which, while different for everyone, I believe most could agree upon in 95% of cases.

You seem obsessed with the exact words people are using without taking into consideration the spirit of what they're saying. Not everyone is a troll god definition philosopher but does that mean the essence of what they're saying is necessarily false? This is why courts exist because at the end of the day someone has to say, "this constitutes excessive." It's a matter of practicality. If there is nobody here qualified or trusted to do this, then I think you're correct that a laissez-faire approach is best. But that approach has its drawbacks as well and maybe we should consider the circumstances that led to this predicament (not having trusted, qualified people to moderate the game fairly) before moving further.

My $3.47

I understand the common sense argument, and the meaning behind the text. But in the spirit of fairness it would be good to write clear rules and definitions. I'm not saying lets make a law book for subspace, or have courts. But I'm pretty sure 10 of us could put our heads together and write very clear rules that only take up 1 page, and there is no room for misunderstanding, and nothing is left to the mods discretion because it's plain as day given the wording.

This way there is less of a chance of retaliation from people who feel abused or targeted by mods and there is less of a chance of things getting personal both for trolls/mods. I want to eliminate the versus mentality. I don't see people disagreeing with rules often, i see people disagreeing with mod decisions. The end of the day i would also change policies on how mods handle situations. For example my idea with having conversation starters in pub who re-direct conversations away from bad topics. As well as mods who PM a trouble maker and pretend they are asking for help or something else to divert their attention away from what they are doing.

This is less of a punishment system and more of a "i know you're human even if you're not acting that way right now"... i would also have mods paste the exact rule being broken to the player, with a link to the website, and i would rephrase WARNINGS to sound less like threats, and less like someone with power who is bent on eradicating you from their community.. Moderators are supposed to be there for everyone, even the bad players. Some people won't listen and will have to be warned, and have actions taken on them, but in the 2-5 minutes leading up to that, lots of better things could have been attempted imo.