Stop being such bitches

[Facetious]

Originally posted by Richard Creager
And for Mayo, half of this game is down time and chatting, it's what everyone, minus domi, logged in.
This is not a coherent sentence.

This rule takes away from it. Yes it's a small amount , but if shit keeps going in this direction, there won't be many people playing, or they won't be playing as much.
Who do you think would play the game less just because people weren't allowed to be racist? If it never happened, people would just talk about different shit. I'd say 75% of the racism use in the zone is just people coming up with unimaginitive/stupid insults. Just call the guy a douchebag instead of a racist term and it's the same difference.

Just about the time it takes for the actual playing to get boring again.
There is no context for this sentence. It has nothing to do with the last sentence.

It might not get to that point, but who is there to stop it?
Stop what? People quitting because they aren't allowed to be racist? Who cares?

It's what I don't like about the rule, besides the fact people can ?ignore people who are racist and we do have auto ?obscene enabled in the zone.
What don't you like about the rule? What the fuck are you even trying to say?

Racist squadnames and player names are what this rule should be for though.
What's the difference?

Look, Dicky, you're cool and all, but you're wrong. I would never be spearheading a campaign to stop dumbasses from saying ******, don't get me wrong. To be honest, the racism doesn't really bother me that much, and I only think it's so prevelant because it's "illicit" or whatever. But this whole trend of fighting for your right to be racist makes absolutely no sense. If someone's decided to make it so you can't be racist, who gives a shit? Seriously?

[Melufa]

Agreed, Facetious

[Louis XV]

No, you're the bitch. Bitch.

Bring it.

[Richard Creager]

Originally posted by Troll King
Dude, when people start agreeing with someone arguing against you, it means that they think you're the one that's wrong. Of course, if they were agreeing with you, I'm sure you'd be telling them to stop humming your nuts. Or maybe you wouldn't. Who am I to know if you're into that.
No, he doesn't know what's going on, neither do you, he'll just agree to anything you say because you're his golden forum god.

Here's where your logic fails you. You claim that these restrictions on chat are going to ruin the game, but then you also downplay the significance of that chat as being a small part, small enough that these restrictions won't have any affect on people staying in the game or leaving. Which is it? The way you're equating it, it's like this enforcement against racism is as big a change as taking away the javelin.
It's small now, but the direction it goes is huge.
I'm equating the rule as taking away repels on levs, people who like levs hate it and if eventually they decide to take away levs in pubs those people would stop playing.

I say that the effect will be so small that the only people who will leave the zone because they aren't allowed to say racist things are the people who will be saying racist things. If that's the main loss, then I think that's the goal of these restrictions. Mission accomplished.
Again it's the loss now, what is next? Eventually, especially given the current staff and those they will recruit, you won't be able to say much. Unless "Staff is awesome for taking all personality away from the game wooooo"

And for Mayo, half of this game is down time and chatting, it's what everyone, minus domi, logged in.
This is not a coherent sentence.
Good point, very relevant too.

This rule takes away from it. Yes it's a small amount , but if shit keeps going in this direction, there won't be many people playing, or they won't be playing as much.
Who do you think would play the game less just because people weren't allowed to be racist? If it never happened, people would just talk about different shit. I'd say 75% of the racism use in the zone is just people coming up with unimaginitive/stupid insults. Just call the guy a douchebag instead of a racist term and it's the same difference.
And then staff would rule out that different shit because all the masses of new players coming in wouldn't like it. Racism is not the issue here. But since you just have no other goal but to make it that way, who cares if someone uses a racist term? The waves of politically correct people that staff sees as the majority of the world's population. Getting more people in the zone, regardless of how utterly dull and unoriginal they are gives staff a bigger ego boost

Just about the time it takes for the actual playing to get boring again.
There is no context for this sentence. It has nothing to do with the last sentence.
People would only play until flying around in a ship gets boring.

It might not get to that point, but who is there to stop it?
Stop what? People quitting because they aren't allowed to be racist? Who cares?
To stop the one sided staff from making zone personality killing rules in the future.

It's what I don't like about the rule, besides the fact people can ?ignore people who are racist and we do have auto ?obscene enabled in the zone.
What don't you like about the rule? What the fuck are you even trying to say?
I don't like how unnecessary it is. People can ?ignore people who use racist terms, not to mention the fact we have auto ?obscene enabled, those terms are no doubt in the list. So the wave of new players that staff is trying to please won't see it anyways.

Racist squadnames and player names are what this rule should be for though.
What's the difference?
You can't ?ignore or ?obscene those.

Look, Dicky, you're cool and all, but you're wrong. I would never be spearheading a campaign to stop dumbasses from saying ******, don't get me wrong. To be honest, the racism doesn't really bother me that much, and I only think it's so prevelant because it's "illicit" or whatever. But this whole trend of fighting for your right to be racist makes absolutely no sense. If someone's decided to make it so you can't be racist, who gives a shit? Seriously?
Appearently plenty of people care. Otherwise, why would mayo have made this thread?

[Edit: Mayo is not spelled make.]

[Ilya]

hoochie momma

BIG BOOTY HOE

[Facetious]

Why don't we just wait until staff does something that's actually egregious, and complain then? The point is, these specific racism rules don't affect anything, and I don't think that you can prove that they do.

(TK, aka My Golden Forum God, if this isn't what you would say, let me know and I'll change it. What do you think of my use of the word egregious? Eh?)

[Troll King]

I never realized I've gained divine status here.

Where to begin... Okay, how about the rep-less levis. It's been a while now since that change has been made. What has been the overall affect on TW's population? Nothing. If that's what you want to equate this to, then go right ahead. It doesn't support your point. There's been no snowball effect, in fact, many people will say things are much better.

Speaking of snowballing, where DO you see this going? Do you think they'll start banning people for doing something like making fun of Paladen (because, after all, everyone knows they're a staff squad) or do you think they'll just start silencing people from complaining about IceStorm being a staffer?

Exactly what "zone personality" issues do you think there are that they are going to target?

(On that note, if being able to use racist terms was a zone personality trait up until recently, then I believe staff's decisions are behind schedule)

If your idea of "dull and unoriginal" is someone who doesn't use racist terms, then I have to tell you, there's something wrong with your own moral compass. It doesn't take a brainwashing societal machine to tell me that.

What exactly are you fighting for? All of your theories of how this is going to lead to the downfall of the zone have been empty at worst, far-fetched at best. Maybe a good step for you would be to stop assuming that people arguing against you are doing so for reasons other than the fact that they think you are wrong.

[Troll King]

Here's another logical failing:

You have argued that staff's decision will cause people to leave the zone. At the same time, you have complained that staff is increasing zone population to give itself an ego boost.

Once again, which way is it? It sure can't be both.

[Jason]

Damn Rich, you're one stupid motherfucker. I know exactly what's going on. I read every post in this thread. Mayo's original statement was an open and shut case to begin with, and yet you thought you needed to enligthen us with your divine wisdom. Allow me to reiterate, you're one stupid motherfucker. I didn't agree with TK because I see him as my golden forum god. The man is smart. He presents logical arguments that are damn near air tight. I respect that. As for you... RESPECT MINUS MINUS! (Yes, I'm a computer science nerd. So fucking what?)

[Diakka]

Mayo nice post dude I agree 100%

YOU HEAR THAT RACISTS?!?! TAKE YOUR RACISM SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

[Mayo Inc.]

Originally posted by Troll King
Do you think they'll start banning people for doing something like making fun of Paladen (because, after all, everyone knows they're a staff squad)

Hehehehehe Annux got banned for spamming
:#Paladen:@@^&%#&^@%$^@*%#@$@@%$#%$@#@%@^#$%@#^!$# $%@!#%!@#!$$@*#%@#$&(*%^$^%$&^$

or something

[Live-Wire]

Live-Wire's canned response:

You guys are looking at this arguement in entirely the wrong way. Words and statements that are offensive to a particular group of racial or cultural background are simply not nice. They do not promote the ideal subspace community, in which people are viewed first and foremost as subspace players, and only later as belonging to any other group. The feeling of community in subspace is the first and foremost priority of the people "running the show." Their choice to prohibit certain things from being said is a direct manifestation of their desire to make you, the very person who is reading this post, no matter who you are, happy. Because it is inherently impossible to tailor the rules to you, the people creating the rules must make an educated guess, and assume that all players want precisely the same thing. Keeping in mind that rules must be created to cover all players equally, it then becomes a simple question of logistics. There is more of a dead weight loss to the community when a naive young player is offended, or their parents encounter said offensive material, than when a higher-educated wants to vent their anger and is prevented from doing so in this particular mode. That being said, because rules must be all-encompassing, it is best to have rules designed to prevent events that cause the most units of 'harm' to the community.

Racism, and offensive material in general, is a completely subjective thing, this much everyone agrees upon. Although it is completely subjective, it is again impossible to tailor each person's experience in subspace so they can shield themselves, or express themselves, in exactly the way they want. Therefore, somebody needs to choose, and that person is the one with the most authority, which in this case is Priitk. He is not being a tyrant, nor is he being democratic; he is doing what he personally thinks is best, because he legitimately cares about you.

-----

As a seperate arguement, I'd like to say something about the horrible way in which most of you are arguing your respective points, regardless of the validity of either side. First, to the people who question whether certain words are racist or not: Yes, calling someone a Jew is racist. No, calling someone a Christian is not racist. When you call someone a Jew, whether you mean it or not, you are implying that this person is a stereotype, and this subconsciously - whether you believe it or not - promotes discrimination. You call someone a Jew because you intend to insult them, implying that being a Jew is a bad thing. If you tell them to stop being so Jewish, substituting the word Jewish in for cheap, you are implying that all jews are cheap. You all understand this arguement, so I'll move on to why calling someone a christian is not racist.

There is a reason why minorities are called minorities; they are of a smaller size than the majority. Christians are the vast majority in subspace, like they are in western civilizations. You are not implying anything when you call someone a Christian: there is no stigma about the fiscal policies of that religion. There is no common history to christians in which they were persecuted in some universal way. And, most importantly, most christians do not chose to identify their most defining attribute as "christian", which is unlike minorities, who oft name their membership of the minority as their defining attribute.

Yes, the words Gay and Faggot are just as offensive as the words Jew or ******. However, preventing the use of these words is simply a logistical nightmare -- they've entrenched themselves so deeply in pop language. As such, silencing or banning people for the use of the word often would result in many, many people being unable to play the game.

But the words Gay or Faggot aren't as much in "common usage" as you claim. When I was in highschool, nearly every single person used these words in their everyday language -- we were young, ignorant to the connotations of what we were saying, and frankly didn't care. In a college of decent academic standing, I'm happy to inform you youngsters, these words are almost never used. Therefore, I'm absolutely content to chalk up the use of words like Gay and Faggot to ignorance, and hearing someone use those words helps me quickly picture what they're like in real life.

I do not understand the arguement for allowing racist language on principle. The logistical arguement, or rather that it provides an unnecessay strain on staffmembers who could use their efforts to pursue some more important purpose, is a far better one. Why do you consider your inability to use racist words as infringement on your freedom of expression, when you can as easily achieve the same expression with the use of words that are offensive only to a specific person, rather than a group? You are achieving the same purpose when you call someone an asshole as when you call them a ******. Sure, you get that little extra umpff by doing something naughty, but that wears off when you exit your teen years, so you really shouldn't get used to it.

------

As a side note, speaking without the use of racism makes you appear more intelligent, knowledgable, or mature than otherwise. Getting things that you want depends largely on your ability to carry a good arguement, convince people, and win their respect, in subspace and in life. The rules do not damper freedom of expression by dissallowing the use of particular words or phrases, then empower you to better express yourself. Its ironic that those people who will be able to understand this arguement and refute it with intelligent, convincing points, are the people who don't use racism in the first place. Infact, many people who use racism probably skipped this post because it was too long.

So it boils down to this: Why should players be unable to use racism in Trench Wars? Using the arguement "because we said so", or "because Priitk said so" is a cop-out. It is true, but you owe your players some explanation as to why "we said so". The answer is not dependant on who is in charge, who is more important to the community, whether players can adequately express themelves, whether enjoyment with the game is lowered if aggression can't be taken out, or whether people are being unfair.

You shouldn't be allowed to use racism because it simply isn't the right thing do, and all the fine print and explanations aside, you (the specific person reading this post) using racism is not a good thing for the subspace community, or society at large.

------

Ironically (given the nature of this post), I've decided to allow racism in Hockey Zone, but I've given moderators the power to use their judgement in enforcing another rule. It is against the rules to be an overwhelmingly huge jerk in Hockey Zone. This rule is completely ambiguous, completely open to abuse, and completely dependant on the situation at hand -- exactly how it should be. The people who end up getting in trouble are the ones who's actions are detrimental to the building of our community anyway, so the rule has proven itself effective.

------

To add on my thoughts, in the section in which I call it a cop-out to tell players "because we said so", I want to defend the staff a little bit. The idea of "this is just a game, leave us alone to play it" is as silly as the idea of "this is my life, I want the government to leave me alone to live it." If the government left all the happy people alone, all the really unhappy people would rise up, kill the happy people, and make themselves happier.

Likewise, players gain tremendously from staff contributions to the game of subspace, and this place would be dead and gone without these contributions. As a result, staffers get to walk around with their noses up in the air, maybe abuse a player here or there, have a couple noses in their butts, and probably get listened to more, but thats what they get for their contributions. It may be an unspoken payment, but thats how the world works: people do services because they see some percieved form of payment. The community's overall wellness is higher with this transaction taking place -- for anyone studying economics, this is simply a manifestation of the idea of free trade.

[Jason]

LW, when are you going to learn that TW'ers don't like novels? =p

[Richard Creager]

Where to begin... Okay, how about the rep-less levis. It's been a while now since that change has been made. What has been the overall affect on TW's population? Nothing. If that's what you want to equate this to, then go right ahead. It doesn't support your point. There's been no snowball effect, in fact, many people will say things are much better.

It's called a hypothetical analogy.

Speaking of snowballing, where DO you see this going? Do you think they'll start banning people for doing something like making fun of Paladen (because, after all, everyone knows they're a staff squad) or do you think they'll just start silencing people from complaining about IceStorm being a staffer?

EXACTLY?

Exactly what "zone personality" issues do you think there are that they are going to target?

The ones that don't agree with staff and their whatever pleases the incoming masses policy.

(On that note, if being able to use racist terms was a zone personality trait up until recently, then I believe staff's decisions are behind schedule)
If your idea of "dull and unoriginal" is someone who doesn't use racist terms, then I have to tell you, there's something wrong with your own moral compass. It doesn't take a brainwashing societal machine to tell me that.

Not really, this is all about the direction, remember?

What exactly are you fighting for? All of your theories of how this is going to lead to the downfall of the zone have been empty at worst, far-fetched at best. Maybe a good step for you would be to stop assuming that people arguing against you are doing so for reasons other than the fact that they think you are wrong.

Empty is your opinion.
Not arguing because they think I'm wrong? Oh really, then why?

Jason, oh shit, I'm just so punk'd I have no idea what to say. Mind if I borrow your avatar to represent my newfound incredible depression?

Now It's time to translate live-wire's staff rationalizing.

he is doing what he personally thinks is best, because he legitimately cares about getting as many people to play the zone as possible

Yes, the words Gay and Faggot are just as offensive as the words Jew or ******. However, preventing the use of these words is simply a logistical nightmare -- they've entrenched themselves so deeply in pop language. As such, silencing or banning people for the use of the word often would result in many, many people being unable to play the game.

And Priitk needs as much ego boost as possible.

But the words Gay or Faggot aren't as much in "common usage" as you claim. When I was in highschool, nearly every single person used these words in their everyday language -- we were young, ignorant to the connotations of what we were saying, and frankly didn't care. In a college of decent academic standing, I'm happy to inform you youngsters, these words are almost never used. Therefore, I'm absolutely content to chalk up the use of words like Gay and Faggot to ignorance, and hearing someone use those words helps me quickly picture what they're like in real life.

We don't have to get rid of words that are derogatory to homosexuals, because college kids are too smart/important/awesome to play this game.

I do not understand the arguement for allowing racist language on principle. The logistical arguement, or rather that it provides an unnecessay strain on staffmembers who could use their efforts to pursue some more important purpose, is a far better one. Why do you consider your inability to use racist words as infringement on your freedom of expression, when you can as easily achieve the same expression with the use of words that are offensive only to a specific person, rather than a group? You are achieving the same purpose when you call someone an asshole as when you call them a ******. Sure, you get that little extra umpff by doing something naughty, but that wears off when you exit your teen years, so you really shouldn't get used to it.

Racist terms are already gone bro, be sure to use asshole as much as you can before enough mothers compain and we take it away too.

As a side note, speaking without the use of racism makes you appear more intelligent, knowledgable, or mature than otherwise. Getting things that you want depends largely on your ability to carry a good arguement, convince people, and win their respect, in subspace and in life. The rules do not damper freedom of expression by dissallowing the use of particular words or phrases, then empower you to better express yourself. Its ironic that those people who will be able to understand this arguement and refute it with intelligent, convincing points, are the people who don't use racism in the first place. Infact, many people who use racism probably skipped this post because it was too long.

Subspace is life, side with staff and you win!

So it boils down to this: Why should players be unable to use racism in Trench Wars? Using the arguement "because we said so", or "because Priitk said so" is a cop-out. It is true, but you owe your players some explanation as to why "we said so". The answer is not dependant on who is in charge, who is more important to the community, whether players can adequately express themelves, whether enjoyment with the game is lowered if aggression can't be taken out, or whether people are being unfair.

I am blatantly lying!

You shouldn't be allowed to use racism because it simply isn't the right thing do, and all the fine print and explanations aside, you (the specific person reading this post) using racism is not a good thing for the subspace community, or society at large.

"Right Thing To Do" Copyright PriitK and the United Mothers of Spaceshipgame Players (PK&UMSP) 2003. All rights reserved.

Ironically (given the nature of this post), I've decided to allow racism in Hockey Zone, but I've given moderators the power to use their judgement in enforcing another rule. It is against the rules to be an overwhelmingly huge jerk in Hockey Zone. This rule is completely ambiguous, completely open to abuse, and completely dependant on the situation at hand -- exactly how it should be. The people who end up getting in trouble are the ones who's actions are detrimental to the building of our community anyway, so the rule has proven itself effective.

It's illegal to be a huge jerk in HZ unless you're one of the few condescending people who actually play in it, they help us keep you tw n00bz out by the sole power to be a huge jerk to you.

To add on my thoughts, in the section in which I call it a cop-out to tell players "because we said so", I want to defend the staff a little bit. The idea of "this is just a game, leave us alone to play it" is as silly as the idea of "this is my life, I want the government to leave me alone to live it." If the government left all the happy people alone, all the really unhappy people would rise up, kill the happy people, and make themselves happier.

As if I haven't been defending staff this whole time, again, ss is life, gg nt newb.

Likewise, players gain tremendously from staff contributions to the game of subspace, and this place would be dead and gone without these contributions. As a result, staffers get to walk around with their noses up in the air, maybe abuse a player here or there, have a couple noses in their butts, and probably get listened to more, but thats what they get for their contributions. It may be an unspoken payment, but thats how the world works: people do services because they see some percieved form of payment. The community's overall wellness is higher with this transaction taking place -- for anyone studying economics, this is simply a manifestation of the idea of free trade.

We only care about getting masses of newbs to play, and you cna't do anything about it, so learn to kiss ass now.

[Troll King]

Oh good, I was afraid I'd have to wait until Monday for you to post again.

Let's do this in order again:

Firstly, if you use a hypothetical analogy, then please use one that FITS WITH THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE. What you did here was use an analogy, and when it is found to be one that doesn't help your point, you dismiss it as hypothetical. Where is the logic in that?

"EXACTLY" what? If you actually believe that those examples are a logical evolutionary step to the stand against racism then kindly refer to my comment on "empty" and "far-fetched", and while you're at it, add "unfounded" to the list.

Next up is "zone personality" and "direction". You're making the point that the stand against racism is the first step in a certain direction. Your dismissal of the issue of race here in favour of direction is another example of the same empty and unfounded leap of logic I mentioned. You yourself can't even make the connection, choosing instead to dismiss the issue. How can you do that while it is still the foundation of your argument? From what you have been saying so far, you fear that the zone is moving away from a certain state of being, but your examples so far of the state of being you want to maintain have been, to be blunt, unattractive. Once again I ask you, what are you fighting for? Because the way you describe it, the Trench Wars you want to maintain is one that should be left behind in the distant past.


Finally to the buzzword "empty". When I say empty, I mean that you form arguments that have no logical weight behind them. You make a statement, and when others dispute it with logical reasoning, you offer nothing to support your side. That is called an empty argument. If you prefer, I can call it hollow or meatless. Until you have something to say other than just stating "I think you're wrong" and not having anything to support that, your arguments will be nothing but empty.

I'll leave Live-Wire and J to respond to what you said about their comments. I forbid them from using the word "empty" to describe what you wrote, because I have monopolized the word, though they may go ahead and use hollow and meatless.



After so many posts in this discussion, I can't help but feel like King Arthur fighting the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I just keep chopping your limbs off and you still continue trying to bite my legs.

The only difference however, is that when the Black Knight started off, he actually had something to stand on.