Racism Remodeled

[SpaceHiker]

Racism Policy Changes

[Dwopple]

take silly words like 'cracker' off the list. Only enforce something silly like this if someone ACTUALLY takes offense to it. lets face it, little kids wont know what 'cracker' is, except the nice salty piece of squareness that tastes good when you're sick.


keep the REAL racist words. you know the main ones.

[Pressure Drop]

Racism policy shouldn't be up for consideration <_<

it saddens me that it is

if your a moron that thinks it's cool to use racism in public chat you're no loss if you get banned

[HateTheFake]

Idk i think ?obscene should filter out racism however there needs to be an idiot rule, where if someone says the n word 5 times in a row in less then a min they prolly need a ban for excessive use

[Troll King]

So if someone says it only 3 times in a minute that's not excessive? How do you determine the right frequency?

Setting numbers like that ignores the context of the incident and what racism even means. Plus what will happen is some idiot would just say it four times, wait a minute then do it again just to take advantage of that. Some people may not find that a likely scenario but I think we've all seen plenty of examples of people pushing the rules like that.

Racism has to be taken in context. The "crime" isn't that someone said a word, it's how the word is used. If someone says the N word a couple of times, quoting a rap song they like, that's no where close to someone using it in an obviously derogatory manner directed to another person, and definitely nowhere close to someone who doesn't use the N word but says that black people should be lynched.

What's been happening is that people have only been focusing on the words and not how they're used. Without context there is no racism.

Whatever people decide about racism rule changes, one thing I hope they do is take into account people who try to take advantage of the rule while claiming not to actually be racist. I never understood that argument that people are only racist because there's a rule against it. That's bull, and it does not justify their actions. Again, context has to be considered.


And let's get rid of that stupid "warning" concept. This doesn't just apply to racism but to all rules. If someone is very well aware of the rules and are blatantly breaking it, why the hell are they entitled to a warning? If there are enough witnesses, if the incident is blatant and obvious enough why do they deserve to hear: "you get a warning this time, but if you do it again..."?

Warnings are supposed to protect against accidents and abuse, and even for people who don't know what they're doing is against the rules. But if someone is fully aware of what they're doing and are intentionally breaking zone rules, they don't deserve a warning. A prime example is a repeat offender. They've done something before and were banned for it. If they do it again after they come back, there's no way they can claim they didn't know. Make it clear in the rules that warnings may be issued at staff's discretion (again, context is important) and are not a guaranteed "free shot".