|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 10, 2012 2:12:15 GMT
Recently, some question has come up about the quality of this rule. Some argue that it is important to prevent people from being insulted (be they part of said social group or otherwise), and others argue that most members do not like the rule in its current form.
Note that the results of this poll will not be the be-all end-all of the issue. The results will be taken into account in the final decision, but they are not the final decision. That one is up to Veers, Fox, and myself.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jun 10, 2012 2:15:50 GMT
This is hardly enforced as it is. When it is actually enforced it's a ban-on-site.
Either be more enforced on the text or fix it entirely.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Jun 10, 2012 13:06:39 GMT
Note that the results of this poll will not be the be-all end-all of the issue. The results will be taken into account in the final decision, but they are not the final decision. That one is up to Veers, Fox, and myself. this means that the result will be enforcing the rule more strictly whatever the poll result is, we have really cool admins.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 10, 2012 17:59:13 GMT
Izac wanted a poll, so I made a poll, but we've all been at some point elected. Unless there's a very strong majority toward removing the rule, it's very unlikely that it will be removed.
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Jun 10, 2012 19:17:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FoxtrotZero on Jun 10, 2012 22:13:39 GMT
This needs to be much more strongly enforced. However, I think the rule needs to be modified as such:
Use of Social Groups as an Insult or derogatory term Risk: 20% warning for every 3 infractions Using any social group as an insult towards a person, whether jokingly or otherwise will be punished. That includes calling someone gay, retarded, or "black". Use of these words as insults or derogatory terms offends all members of said party. We are willing to be lenient in the use of such terms when not used to describe people as they are commonly used and it is a hard habit to get rid of, but using it multiple times regardless of warnings will result in disciplinary action. This applies on both the forums and chat. This DOES include words intended to dodge this rule with an obvious meaning, such as "fgt".
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 10, 2012 22:15:55 GMT
I actually do agree with those modifications. It does allow for a bit more leniency, and it lets us enforce it more easily. Shall I go modify the rules as needed?
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Jun 11, 2012 0:59:12 GMT
>"Modify the rule to be more lenient" wins >rule gets more enforced >i fucking called it lmao
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 11, 2012 1:09:47 GMT
The two aren't contradictory. It can be made more lenient AND be more enforced. You assume that they're mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jun 11, 2012 2:29:53 GMT
It seems by necessity that, if a rule is made more lenient, it becomes more enforceable...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 11, 2012 2:35:40 GMT
Veers, you really should vote in this.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on Jun 11, 2012 18:16:29 GMT
I didn't quite get the meaning of fox's modifications. Is he meaning that the use of "gay" as a synonym for "Stupid", and "faggot" as a synonym for "stupid person" is acceptable, whereas the sentence "I hate faggots; gay marriage should be abolished." is unacceptable (because "faggot" is used there as a derogatory term for gay people)? If so, I whole-heartedly agree with the modifications.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 11, 2012 22:20:20 GMT
I'm assuming those are the intended modifications, yes. We seem to accept them, so I'll adopt them and close this thread.
|
|