PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

[owenator]

As long as I can make disparaging remarks about Canadians, with-out retribution, then ok. I mean like, hey have you ever heard the Dutch and the jokes they make about Belgium? Sort of like the Polish jokes I hear around Chicago.

Using humor should not bring punishment.

With that said, making fun of people's ethnic background shouldn't be punished. BUT, to use deragotory terms like N!@@er at someone who's Black to dehumanize him/her should not be tolerated.

First a warning, before any real punishment be handed to anyone. As Owenshooter knows, I do have Blacks in my family and I abhor BIGOTS.
My son is half Korean and he's been in fights, due to racist's comments. BUT, the last thing we need is ZERO TOLERANCE and the three strike rule. This would only hinder any type of discussion and humor that makes these forums entertaining.

So, let's not rush to some rash decision, where we all feel like we're walking on thin ice. Sort of like trying to discuss FLAME WARS and having the threads be locked up or worse.

I think you'll relate to reading this article GS: http://www.thestar.com/article/630369

[AndyDufresne]

I just got back from being away---I'll review the conversation, progress, etc, that has occurred since my last post. Stay tuned.


--Andy

[azezzo]

not that it matters, but i had no idea Owenshooter was a brother from another mother, seriously though from his avatar i thought he was that dude who played HYDE on "that 70's show".

[Woodruff]

No tolerance policy, the best policy. I mean, Hitler had the same policy, that worked out for the better, right?
f*ck no tolerance. There is always tolerance, or there is a fail business.

I actually agree with what I THINK Kotaro is saying. If his reference to a no-tolerance policy is in reference to "one strike and you're out", I would say that not only is that unfair but it is stupid business. However, I do think that repeated instances (say, the third strike) definitely deserve perma-banning.

I'm all in favor of giving people a short opportunity to reform. But that opportunity needs to be serious and it needs to be short (as in not too many "strikes".

(And bringing in Hitler ALWAYS wins an argument, right?)

[Woodruff]

"Owen's gay".

why would i expect anything less in a thread about the bigotry guidelines than to have two comments made against me that are against the guidelines. i love how people keep coming in here and proving my point. let me guess, we'll edit this, slap him on the wrist and act as if it never happened... absolutely ridiculous.-0
p.s.-yet another example of the continual bigoted baiting that i receive on a regular basis here on CC.. at least this time it wasn't an assault on my colour...

Um...xelabale and I are hardly friendly...but he's simply making a point by using an example. He wasn't in any way saying that you're gay, he was trying to provide an example where clearly the word can have multiple and very different meanings. He's contributing to the discussion here and does NOT deserve any action against him, in my opinion.

[AndyDufresne]

Noteworthy Posts, roughly in order of appearance, to add to the list of Dicussion on page 6 I think it is:

owenshooter post

off the top of my head, this was the first thing i thought of:

1. combined warning w/3 day vacation
2. one week vacation for second offense w/ final warning
3. perma-ban

however, since game chat and live chat will still be accessible to anyone that has been perma-banned due to bigotry. if they continue with the negative activity, they should go the way of a member that is guilty of point dumping or multi-creation. suspension from the site. i applaud andy for stepping up and taking this conversation seriously. he has already proven that lack made the correct choice in moving him into his current uber-banana Pn that has put years of work and huge amounts of money compiling the very guidelines we are looking for, especially as it's such a sensitive topic, as you have so clearly demonstrated.

xelable post

I 100% agree that all forms of bigotry are wrong - racism, sexism, etc. It's all categorically wrong.

But how does one police it? You can't just monitor for keywords, there is context. And where is the line? 0 tolerance is all very well but it isn't practical If I call someone an idiotic yank is that bigotry, am I to be banned for 1 week? How do you draw a line in such a quagmire?

One solution could be to find an organisation that we would expect to have a good policy and adopt theirs - the UN for example. They must have thought through this issue much more thoroughly than we ever would have the time for, and we would/should all agree that their policy would be balanced and fair.

I have taken out the line that you seemed to find offensive. Note that I stand by the sentence I wrote, i just don't want to antagonise you owenshooter, simply make a reasonable point.

MrMoody post

For once I find I agree with owen. This word should never be used on CC. I for one am getting tired of reading this word weekly in the forums. CC needs to draw the line here. context does not make this word acceptable.

jbrettlip post

Since the mods are now throwing around the N word, since it is only offensive in context, I guess I will start posting pictures of naked kids. But only in the context that some might find them cute...not in a sexual way.

There is no double meaning for the n word. It is derogatory. There is a double meaning for other terms, so the filter would not work for them. I clean my kitchen with Spic and Span. Where did the day go? There is a chink in my armor.Calculate the slope of the line. I like saurkraut. But you can't use the n-word (not the adverb version which means to be frugal) in a sentence that is not derogatory.

Pull your heads out, Owen is right. You can't use racist terms. There should be stiff penalties. Trying to carry it to women, sexism,and even homophobia is just trying to diminish how horrible racism is. Eliminate the racism, then work on the other forms of bigotry.

Mr Benn post

There are too many instances of people using inappropriate language in all walks of life.

I think that the censorship of certain words should be extended (and am surprised that some people think that certain terms are acceptable in any context).

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, censorship will only solve half the problem (ie. disrespectful attitudes will be able to be shown regardless of the strength of language used). If 'extreme' bigotry is unacceptable, then how about 'mild' bigotry? If we rule that out, then what about "Hatred" or "Anger" or "Insulting Behaviour". Whatever my opinion on a matter, I will always be able to find somebody who sees things differently - where does the final line get drawn?

I have no answers, but would value this discussion a lot more if people from all sides were able to avoid feeling the need to barrage abuse (any form of baiting, flaming or trolling) at each other.

jiminski post

Cards on the table, I hate the idea of a word filter. And when i use the word 'fuck, for example, i make special effort to rid my eyes of the censorship. That may sound odd coming from me, with my Gamechat filter thread, but that was satire to illustrate a flaw and a fallacy... lost on most. The fallacy being that flamewars closure was merely a spiteful singling out of an easy target, and anything meaningful was never actually going to happen as it was too difficult.

I put that to one side as this is far more important.

Now what came from the Gamechat filter thread was the premise that censoring words is pointless, as ways are always found to circumvent word filters and mostly, genuinely nasty abuse is camouflaged completely from any automated system.

What also came from that thread was that a greater degree of monitoring/culpability in gamechat for the worst excesses of abuse, and for me that pretty much only extends to bigotry, should be more seriously dealt with in forums and in games.

This thread, with Andy's injection of authority and the distant promise of genuine change, does perhaps allow a hope of that.

Now i am almost completely laissez faires when it comes to expression, perhaps one day all words will be acceptable due to the mulching of our divergent histories; all denigrations jocular as they have a universal target. That day is far from here!

In my opinion, abuse and censor-able words/behaviours only really extend to bigotry. The rest is merely an affront to sensibility and too intangible to adjudicate. Even the most heinous of one term expletive is not really offensive unless you put your defenses up so high that it is impossible for them not to get hit.

That's subjective but i believe, that in a decent world community, there are universal concepts which, though seemingly subjective, are so absolute as to become objective - Bigotry.

The shades of bigotry become more subjective of course and that is where the mods earn their kudos.

But for overt and universally accepted examples of bigotry .. not the grey areas but the black and white ones i see that a much tougher punitive stance can be taken.
The example in the fists post : "cuntniggerjew", though very cleverly run into one word, is unavoidable in its intent. It is black and white to adjudicate upon, there can be no doubt what this is. It mixes ethnic terms with expletive to hammer them home and can not in any way be mixed up with a playful 'street' patois.

General Stoneham post

As long as I can make disparaging remarks about Canadians, with-out retribution, then ok. I mean like, hey have you ever heard the Dutch and the jokes they make about Belgium? Sort of like the Polish jokes I hear around Chicago.

Using humor should not bring punishment.

With that said, making fun of people's ethnic background shouldn't be punished. BUT, to use deragotory terms like N!@@er at someone who's Black to dehumanize him/her should not be tolerated.

First a warning, before any real punishment be handed to anyone. As Owenshooter knows, I do have Blacks in my family and I abhor BIGOTS.
My son is half Korean and he's been in fights, due to racist's comments. BUT, the last thing we need is ZERO TOLERANCE and the three strike rule. This would only hinder any type of discussion and humor that makes these forums entertaining.

So, let's not rush to some rash decision, where we all feel like we're walking on thin ice. Sort of like trying to discuss FLAME WARS and having the threads be locked up or worse.

Woodruff post

No tolerance policy, the best policy. I mean, Hitler had the same policy, that worked out for the better, right?
f*ck no tolerance. There is always tolerance, or there is a fail business.

I actually agree with what I THINK Kotaro is saying. If his reference to a no-tolerance policy is in reference to "one strike and you're out", I would say that not only is that unfair but it is stupid business. However, I do think that repeated instances (say, the third strike) definitely deserve perma-banning.

I'm all in favor of giving people a short opportunity to reform. But that opportunity needs to be serious and it needs to be short (as in not too many "strikes".

(And bringing in Hitler ALWAYS wins an argument, right?)

[/quote]

Original post of mine earlier, and also noteworthy posts from earlier in the topic:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 3&start=75


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

And please remember, we are not just discussing Racism, but Bigotry in general.

New Issues disccused since my last post:

• Context of "gray" areas, cited by xelabale on page 8.
• Humor's role in all of this, cited by General Stoneham on page 12.

Additional Solutions or Middle Ground:

• Stern warnings first, followed by increased punishment, perhaps similar to what Timminz outlined, may be a middle ground we can all agree on to help the issue of Context and Humor---allows the user to understand what is acceptable and isn't.
• Possible additional and more use of the forum's censor feature.

--Andy

[a.sub]

how about formal CC approved definitions of racism and bigotry

[AndyDufresne]

I've been off the clock for a while now, so this is all out of the kindness of my heart and bushel of bananas. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to check in this evening and this weekend, but I'll still find some time because I think we've made some gains today---over yesterday which seemed more like talking in circles. Lets focus on an end.

Edit P.S. --- If we can come to a middle ground and solve this issue, we'll surely be a model for other community's around the interweb that struggle with this issue. It's quite a big task we are undertaking, so lets make sure to focus our discussion, remain level headed, and above all, respect one another. We're all humans. Except for me, I'm a banana loving monkey, but don't tell anyone.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Trying to carry it to women, sexism,and even homophobia is just trying to diminish how horrible racism is. Eliminate the racism, then work on the other forms of bigotry.

No. Bigotry is bigotry and the only way one is any more horrible than another is in how they happen to be used at that time...in other words, case-by-case.

[jiminski]

how about formal CC approved definitions of racism and bigotry

hmmm i think that is dangerous. A level of mod jurisdiction and bespoke rulings allow for the luxury of humour and play between mates.
We all know what is undeniably bigoted. If harsher punishment is to be implemented then the blatant examples are the ones which should be come down on harder. With the grey areas, the mods would have to establish a pattern of repeated abuse, i imagine.

I reckon that reports on bigotry should almost exclusively only be scrutinised if the abuse is directed at the reporter of the abuse
i.e. not from a do-gooder third party or random mod checks... that will ensure that the abused is actually being abused and guard against two friends being misunderstood.
Though of course that is still not cut and dry and needs a degree of flexibility to plug the leeks in that general rule.

[a.sub]

Except for me, I'm a banana loving monkey, but don't tell anyone.

SO YOU ARE MADE OF MONEY!!!!!

[AndyDufresne]

Fixed. I've no idea what you are talking about, a.sub. But lets remain on topic, alright?


--Andy

[Woodruff]

not that it matters, but i had no idea Owenshooter was a brother from another mother, seriously though from his avatar i thought he was that dude who played HYDE on "that 70's show".

So I'm not the only one that thought that!

[a.sub]

Fixed. I've no idea what you are talking about, a.sub. But lets remain on topic, alright?


--Andy

ok lol

i still think we need to define bigotry on CC because there are differences

saying
A.Sub is indian
isnt racist, but saying
A.Sub is a towel head
or
A.Sub is a Curry Bro.
is or can at least be taken that way

for example, i have a good friend of mine that is muslim, i joke around and say
"Shouldnt you be blowing up an airport or something?"
to which eh responds something to the effect of
"Go back to ur 7/11 fool"
and we laugh and walk away.

this means two things, one some racism is ok if its all in shits and giggles
OR
racism can only be laughed off as shits and giggles if you are good friends with the person in real life

the former means that we need a definition to allow us to define when something is harmfully racist or not, and the latter requires us to define to what extent something could be called racist

another example:
in my current school, white kids have called black kids niggers and one of two things happen
a) a high five and the two walk off laughing about something else as if "nigger" means nothing
b) a fight breaks out and the two end up bloodied up and the school is a bit more uncomfortable

this also creates a situation for CC in relation to terms that are used to be hateful
that the words nigger/jewboy/cracker and whatnot can be desensitized if no one gave a flying f*ck about them. i knwo these words can hurt but if we chose to simply redefine it the word would lose all its violent enery
the phrase
"Hey <derogatory term> shouldnt you <stereotype>"
can be redefined as
"Im not mature enough to realize that ur race means nothing"
giving you the ability to laugh at them for simply making them selves look stupid
HOWEVER
this, at the same time, cannot be the attitude CC has towards these things. As in, it should encourage this action, but not rely on the victim to adjust because of someone else's hate and anger.
i say this because ignoring certain words is not an easy task, as i will show

nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese cheese

examine your personal response two those last two paragraphs;
case and point

[AndyDufresne]

Slightly on a sidenote, but still interesting food for thought, since I've read some of Steven Pinker, psychologist and cognitive scientist. An excerpt from an article about some of his studies and books:

Spoiler

Swear words are meant to create such feelings of unpleasantness. And they are so effective at producing an emotional charge, that people sometimes use them not to evoke images or thoughts of their scatological or sexual meaning (for example) but simply to “ping people’s emotion buttons” and “arouse the listener’s attention.

Some evidence of this effectiveness can be found not only in how many of us feel upon hearing them, but also in brain scans, which show that when people hear a taboo word, there is an increase in metabolic activity within the amygdala, (p. 332), which – as a set of earlier posts on this blog have noted– is associated with the generation of anxiety, anger, and other emotions.

The effectiveness of swear words is due not only to their emotional power, but to another, more general feature of the way our brain processes language, which is that “understanding the meaning of a word is automatic.” (p. 332) If you’re a “literate adult,” once you’ve become familiar with the meaning of a word, “you can’t will the process ‘off’ even when you’re trying to ignore” words’ meanings in order to pay attention to some characteristic, like the color of the ink they’re written in. (p. 333) For “taboo words,” the effect can be even stronger, because the emotional impact they have is especially hard for a hearer to ignore. “Thanks to the automatic nature of speech perception,” then, “a taboo word kidnaps our attention and forces us to consider its unpleasant connotations. That makes all of us vulnerable to a mental assault whenever we are in earshot of other speakers, as if we are strapped to a chair and could be given a punch or shock at any time.”

Now this description of swearing’s effect on our mental processes might seem – at first glance – like it’s tailor-made for a policy aimed at cleansing this sort of language from the airwaves. After all, the TV shows we watch are supposed to inform and entertain us, not to stretch out electronic tentacles and “kidnap” us or “strap” us to a metaphorical “chair” to inflict very real emotional pain. (TV shows are supposed do such terrible things only in horror and sci-fi stories)...

The problem is that the First Amendment and policy implications are not so simple.

First, while some people may wish for a world where they are free from having negative thoughts or emotions inflicted on them by others’ use of language, that’s not the word we live in, especially not in a society that values free expression. And although the home is a sanctuary of sorts where we can find refuge from the offensive speech of peers and strangers, that doesn’t necessarily mean we can use this as an excuse for cleansing all things unpalatable to us from the public airwaves that we share with other TV viewers and radio listeners.

Moreover, as Pinker points out, swearing – and the emotional power it provides – has a positive side. Writers as he notes, “must sometimes let their characters swear in order to render human passion compellingly.” (p. 370). And he offers numerous examples from novels, poetry, and political speech. Thus, it’s difficult to see why the Supreme Court minimized the value of this component of our expressive power in the 1978 case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation when it allowed FCC to penalize a radio station for airing comedian George Carlin’s famous “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” routine. Swear words, it declared in that case, “surely lie at the periphery of First Amendment concern.” (438 U.S. 726, 743). As Pinker makes clear, this characterization of swearing is mistaken: Swearing is anything but peripheral to the value of communication and other expression. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself made a similar point in the 1971 case of Cohen v. California. The State,” it said, “has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us” and it emphasized (as Justice Ginsberg noted in in the fleeting expletives case a couple days ago) that “words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force.” (403 U.S. 15, 25-26).

Second, use of expletives – fleeting or sustained – is hardly the only means we are given by our language and other expressive powers to trigger negative emotions in an audience. So, while the law may sometimes be justified in protecting us from the psychological impact of certain words (for example, those in a credible threat of violence), the negative emotions associated with hearing swear words hardly seem to be all that is needed to provide such a warrant for speech restriction. Still less do they justify giving swear words a different status under the First Amendment than the multitude of other verbal expressions, images, and other stimuli that might also “light up” our amygdalas or otherwise ignite our “emotional brains” against our will.

And for those really interested, I strongly suggest: http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-8637 --- Steven Pinker talks about language in general. I'm a nut for this kind of stuff---and bananas. Also, if you watch it, you won't just be thinking deeply, but rolling on the floor laughing---he's got the gift of a comedic delivery as well. Check it out, really.


--Andy

[Snorri1234]

Wow holy shit this thread got big!

Let's see if I can be all racist here without getting banned.

[whitestazn88]

i got a warning for calling a moderator something mean in this thread.

anyways, back on subject, i still think a ban on the first offense could work, especially a short one, maybe 1 day?

[Snorri1234]

i got a warning for calling a moderator something mean in this thread.

anyways, back on subject, i still think a ban on the first offense could work, especially a short one, maybe 1 day?

Dunno, clapper once edited my posts because they were "racist" so I actually doubt whether the mods are smart enough to know what racism is.


The thing is, blatant racism will get called on anyway. People who spout such nonsense will get shouted at and ignored. This thread ignores the key in any online-forum environment which is that when people agree on a certain principle they will enforce their own guidelines. I'd really rather have the mods come in later or after enough complaints to deal with an issue, not jump the gun and make mistakes.

[AndyDufresne]

Thanks for your post, Snorri, your issue about Mods becoming Johnny/Jenny-Come-Latelies is noted!

Edit: Okay, I've really got to leave now. I'll be back tomorrow hopefully. Remember, be courteous or I'll thump your skulls for you.


--Andy

[squishyg]

not that it matters, but i had no idea Owenshooter was a brother from another mother, seriously though from his avatar i thought he was that dude who played HYDE on "that 70's show".

It doesn't matter. Why is his race relevant? Any why assume he's whatever race you assumed he was? Why is the assumption that cc players are young, male, and Caucasian?

Using humor should not bring punishment.

With that said, making fun of people's ethnic background shouldn't be punished. BUT, to use deragotory terms like N!@@er at someone who's Black to dehumanize him/her should not be tolerated.

The thing is, what's funny to one person isn't funny to someone else. Just because you have a buddy who thinks it's hilarious when you call him a derogatory name doesn't mean the other players in your game or participating on the forums find that funny. While there are some black people who are comfortable using the n-word, there are other black people (and a heck of lot of other kinds of people) who find any use of it unacceptable. I think the greater issue is us creating a community where people feel welcome.

[barterer2002]

There are certain words that are always used to be derogatory. They are not ever used in polite conversation. Certainly N is one of them but there are similar words for gays (both male and female), Jewish, Chinese (sometimes applied to all orientals) and Vietnamese. I'm sure there are some that I'm leaving out but these words are used solely for the reason of denigration of another. They have no place in society. For me, use of these terms would warrant an immediate 24 hour ban-especially since I've seen 24 hour bans given for much much more innocuous issues. A second offense would be a longer and, from my perspective, the third strike would remove such a person from the site.

There are other words and phrases that come up that are also designed to be offensive and need to be looked at. Many people have attempted to derail the conversation by trying to show that a line cannot be well drawn but I would say that these need to be looked at with a standard that says "if a reasonable person would have found offense with these comments (assume a background for reasonable person that is in line with the complaining person) then they should go up the ladder" with the ladder in these cases being 1) warning, 2) 1 week ban 3) 1 month ban 4) permaban.

[squishyg]

There are certain words that are always used to be derogatory. They are not ever used in polite conversation. Certainly N is one of them but there are similar words for gays (both male and female), Jewish, Chinese (sometimes applied to all orientals) and Vietnamese. I'm sure there are some that I'm leaving out but these words are used solely for the reason of denigration of another. They have no place in society. For me, use of these terms would warrant an immediate 24 hour ban-especially since I've seen 24 hour bans given for much much more innocuous issues. A second offense would be a longer and, from my perspective, the third strike would remove such a person from the site.

There are other words and phrases that come up that are also designed to be offensive and need to be looked at. Many people have attempted to derail the conversation by trying to show that a line cannot be well drawn but I would say that these need to be looked at with a standard that says "if a reasonable person would have found offense with these comments (assume a background for reasonable person that is in line with the complaining person) then they should go up the ladder" with the ladder in these cases being 1) warning, 2) 1 week ban 3) 1 month ban 4) permaban.

I agree with your point, I think it's pretty commonsense what words are unacceptable, whether they be in jest or not. I would be remiss however, not to point out that "orientals" is such a word. Just thought you would want to know.

[pimpdave]

There is no way I'm going to read all 14 pages of this. I barely got through 2.

Look, everyone. This is a completely needless drama storm, and my oh my, did I have no idea it was going to start.

I wanted to try and deal with this privately but since it's become such a big hoopla, I should write a few lines here.

There was nothing offensive intended in my mangling of Owen's screenname. I often do that as a joke in off topics, breaking people's screenname in a silly place and adding Mr. or Mrs. in front of the name. Go look for yourselves, any of the regulars can attest to that little joke. I started doing it in the "share your views" threads, which I think people mostly found entertaining, or at worst, innocuous.

That's what I was going for here. I honestly thought Owen was kidding at first, when he got upset, but I guess he was really serious. I'm still somewhat flabbergasted as to how anyone could take my breaking up of his screenname that way as racist, but in hindsight, I should have gone with Mr. hooter, as that was the other silly name I was considering.

So please, everyone, drop it. It's not worth the elevated blood pressure, because everyone here who knows me knows full well that I'm not a racist, at all.

[mpjh]

First, you can't kid owenshooter, and you know it. He rightfully has a sensitive skin on this issue. So feigning the "I was kidding" attitude doesn't hold water.

Second, we are all racist because we live in this society; eliminating racism is a goal not an achievement.

If you want to apologize and promise not to do it again, please do.