Rule 7 got "looser" [non-biased version]

[izacque]

(I had to re-post this, because apparently the old poll was biased)

So Rule 7 got "loosened." We are now allowed to call ideas, concepts, places, things, anything but people "Gay" and "Faggot" and "Retard." But from what I've seen, that's not what's been troubling this community the most. We frequently call each other gay and faggot, meaning stupid. Those of us who aren't popular end up getting banned for it. That's what's been the problem.

In this poll, answer "yes" if you believe that we should be allowed to freely use the term "gay" and "faggot" as we have been. With their colloquial meanings of stupidity.

Answer "no" if you believe we shouldn't.

[Qwerty]

Fine, have a compromise. We make usage of derogatory terms the same as any other swear word unless the person objects to it or it isn't being used colloquially. That is, you can't use it excessively, 'excessively' being up to the mod in question. Obviously you can challenge it if you feel it wasn't excessive. Up to you to get Veers or Fox to agree to it, then it can be done. Happy?

Thanks for the poll change, by the way.

[izacque]

I agree with that compromise. Obviously, I don't support hate speech, and I believe your compromise banns hate speech without censoring reasonable free speech.

[Qwerty]

There's all sorts of limits on free speech in actuality (obscenity laws, etc), but I suppose there's not much reason to consider use (when specifically non-insulting, eg, as a joke) any worse than any other swear word. You'll have to get Fox or Veers to agree, of course, but this poll may do something on that front.

[speaker]

I believe it is fine the way it is.
There was a small misunderstanding today, but that was the only problem we've had with it.
The chat has been much more civil since the original was ratified.
As soon as we let ourselves, we'll start using it and keep challenging exactly where the line of "excessive use" lies.
Just my three cents (inflation.)

[D_M-01]

There's a limit to everything.

We should be allowed, but if someone complains then get a staff member to deal with it, or if a staff member feels the person is just flaming then they should be mature enough to deal with the matter themselves.

[Qwerty]

Should be, yeah, but everything we leave to the staff is another thing people complain about when someone is actually banned for it.

[Zrined]

Scenario:
Person 1: "Hah! That's so gay!
Person 2: Please don't say that.

What NOT to do:
Person 1: "Gay, gay, gay, gay!"
*BANNED*

What TO do:
Person 1: "Okay."

Fin

[Qwerty]

...Yep, that about summarizes it.

[Zrined]

Hah, I f**ked up the numbers, fixed it.

[FoxtrotZero]

As I've previously stated, I refuse to change my point of view. I don't think calling people by derogatory terms should be accepted by the rules. I honestly have a problem with the usage of the word at all, and I decided the end of the rope for me would be to let anything but people be called things like gay and retarded.

Look, I also don't normally thing zero-tolerance policies are a good idea. People shouldn't be banned left and right for the occasional usage of words like gay and retard. I have my reasons and not everyone is going to agree with them, but I was elected in as a forum administrator and this is my decision.

If you can get the rule change to be approved by the General, I'll accept that I've been outnumbered in the highest court of the realm and leave the subject alone - at least I'll be able to stop pursuing the matter, because I've come to my wit's end with trying to solve the problem of the words gay and faggot being slung left and right.

[Saza]

Jun 14, 2012 23:53:24 GMT Zrined said:

Scenario:
Person 1: "Hah! That's so gay!
Person 2: Please don't say that.

What NOT to do:
Person 1: "Gay, gay, gay, gay!"
*BANNED*

What TO do:
Person 1: "Okay."

Fin

yes, this, I can agree with this
or rather a variant of; it's totally cool if you use it as a derogatory term but if someone asks you to stop then you should stop, especially when the person asking the other to stop is someone like myself

[Qwerty]

So, agreement with my proposed modification then?

[monokr0me]

[Qwerty]

...Thank you, Mono, for providing us an example to reference... I think.

[Fringe Pioneer]

Jun 14, 2012 0:45:24 GMT Qwerty said:

Fine, have a compromise. We make usage of derogatory terms the same as any other swear word unless the person objects to it or it isn't being used colloquially. That is, you can't use it excessively, 'excessively' being up to the mod in question. Obviously you can challenge it if you feel it wasn't excessive. Up to you to get Veers or Fox to agree to it, then it can be done. Happy?

After some consideration, I think that this might not be so bad of a compromise, although I do share some of FoxtrotZero's and Modnaryltnelis' concerns with desensitization and so on. Should the term be used excessively, or should it be the case that it's used again to label someone after that someone asks for the labeling to stop, punishment will be handed on a silver platter. Naturally, if you do stop when someone asks you to stop, then I'll see no need to take action. If inanimate things are being labeled and no one in the chat is complaining, then I'll accept that no action need be taken until someone does complain.

Now, for some hypothetical situations. Note that the hypothetical situations are not exhaustive...

SPOILER: Click to show

user00: Isn't that video gay?
user01: ha ha yes
user02: very gay lol

General Veers rates this as: tolerable.

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
user02: hey i dont like being called gay pls stop
user00: k, sorry
user01: yeah well stop
user02: kthnx

General Veers rates this as: tolerable.

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
user02: hey i dont like being called gay pls stop
user00: k, sorry
user01: yeah well stop
user02: kthnx
user00: thats so gay that we have to stop

General Veers rates this as: tolerable.
Here, it seems apparent to General Veers that it is the rule, not the user, being referred to as "gay."

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
user02: hey i dont like being called gay pls stop
user00: hes so gay
user02: yeah hes butthurt grow up baby

General Veers rates this as: unacceptable.
Both user00 and user01 will be punished.

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
*user02 tells a staff member to tell them to stop or to punish them.*
*user02 has never told them in the past to stop, either.
user00: i bet hes getting gv to ban us
user01: yeah so gay

General Veers rates this as: tolerable.
The user should have told them directly to stop.

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
*user02 tells a staff member to tell them to stop or to punish them.*
*user02 has told them once before to stop.
user00: i bet hes getting gv to ban us
user01: yeah so gay

General Veers rates this as: unacceptable.
Both users will be punished for continuing to call user02 "gay."

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he upholds the rules too strictly
user00: yeah yeah
user02: helb ban them their calling me gay
user00: youre so gay
user01: yeah so gay

General Veers rates this as: borderline.
The user should have asked them directly to stop.
Both user00 and user01 might possibly be banned for excessive use anyways.

user00: Isn't user2 gay?
user01: yes he doesnt follow the rules
user00: yeah yeah
user02: no im not but you 2 are
user00: lol hes so gay
user02: no your gay
user00: no you're gay
user02: gay
user01: gay
user02: gay

General Veers rates this as: unacceptable.
All three users will be punished.

user00: I find this user, henceforth referred to as "user02," to be quite annoying.
user01: Quite: to the extent of my knowledge, he is wanting of obedience of the rules as posted in the so-called Dan-Ball Forum.
user00: Do you think that, perchance, he is a member of the Community, where by "Community" I mean the term as coined by the former member known to many in our forum as "Sandmaster"?
user01: I dare not postulate, but I will admit that I would not be quite so surprised in the event that he originates from that dreaded society.
user00: Indeed. I share your fear, my dear comrade.
user01: Perhaps, on account of his association with them, one might refer to him as, if I dare say so, "gay."
user02: Did you two dare to associate me with those of a sexual orientation that is wanting of evolutionary benefit?
user01: Of course not: if it we did, you would have been able to read the accusation and query us with a question pertaining to it.
user02: Your sarcasm is quite keen, if I do say so myself - gladosian, even. No matter, I request that you cease your libel post-haste.
user00: I can GLaDly say that I had nothing to do with the libel, but I will nevertheless refrain from it in the foreseeable future.
user01: Well, despite my thoughts about you, I do apologize for labeling you as "gay." I will do what is in my power to refrain from continuing.
user02: I thank you dearly for your cooperation, comrades.
user00: Now that we have that out of the way, shall we resume our pending activities?
user01: Yes, let's.
user02: Might I inquire if I may join you in your festivities?
user00: I do apologize, but we were not planning on including others than ourselves.
user02: Oh, very well. I thank you anyways. Enjoy yourselves.
user00: You too, my dear sir.

General Veers rates this as: acceptable.

[Qwerty]

I feel kinda bad you had to type out so many messages in that language. Anyway, that is covered under the compromise, yes. It says that if the person objects they have to stop post-haste.

[Skribbblie]

It is faggot that the DBF has died. Who is the gay to blame for this?