PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

[mpjh]

I didn't know that Mr. Benn's nick was christ.

[AndyDufresne]

Noteworthy Posts since page 12/13, in order of appearance:

barterer2002 post

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.

xelable post

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.

This is the whole point. Do we ban the word oriental because someone might find it distasteful? (Oriental is not offensive, it simply means of the east - orientalism is the patronising and stereotypical way the orient was viewed in the 19th and early 20th century and therefore has bad connotations). So where does this commonsense end - what's your commonsense may not be mine, and may not be bananman's.
It is not an attempt to derail the thread to point out the difficulty of policing, simply an addition to the argument. It is not an acceptable policy to say : "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" for these reasons:

• Offensive may not be bigoted
• What is a reasonable person? It is way to ambiguous and open to abuse as a definition
• As has been pointed out by others, sometimes people (especially the Brits!) insult their friends - context is key here

It's part of a bigger issue:
If you go to the bar with your friends do you swear, when you wouldn't at home? If you visit a kindergarten do you swear when you would at home? We need to decide whether cc is the bar or the creche, the university library or the university fresher's week, a stag weekend or a kids birthday party - or somewhere inbetween.

Can it be both? I think not, as one group of people will always be upset. This is a major decision and should not be taken lightly, but it must be taken and everyone using the site must know. Right now everyone is confused and that's why there seems to be a lot of conflict.

ronc8649 post

i read all 15 pages of this! i hope cc takes a stand to do nothing. also i hope they weed out people that are bad for the site quicker. if that includes me, then so be it.

but this is crazy.

this is a gaming site, where people get semi serious, and say things when they are pissed after they lose. racism isnt running rampant around here.

Artimis post

It's not pointless, Jim set out to get some intelligent debate, which he got, unfortunately this thread was also deluged with bucket loads of trolling and thread derailment from the usual suspects. I hope the admins take on board the serious contributions, such as sourcing more applicable and better laid out tried and tested guidelines from other organisations.

On the subject of the scale of punishment, leave it exactly where it is. I'd love to see trolling, and purposeful thread derailing punished more harshly, but it won't happen because the mods need to give mild cases the benefit of the doubt for fear of punishing an innocent mistake. The scale of punishment is fine, if it's not broken, don't fix it!

xelable post

So what is cc? Is it a place for revelry or a place for soberness - a bar or a creche - adult or child - wild west or conservative heartland?

cc needs to position itself clearly on a cline between 2 extremes and let everyone know where it stands, because everybody seems to have a different idea of what cc is. To a large extent i embrace that. It is wonderful that a site can be different things for different people, but it's at the edges where people clash, and clear definition is required. Ultimately - if the site owners have sense - it should be the users who decide that. I don't subscribe to a proscriptive methodology, prohibition NEVER works.

So as the users, we need to tell the owners where we want the site positioned. Of course they may have their own ideas about the direction it's headed. But as we are the customer base, we do have a voice, voices.

It would be nice if andy could set up some sort of questionnaire where people could express their points of view - in itself a difficult task to do. I work for a language school and if we didn't listen to our students we would soon lose all our customers. Questionnaires and 2 way communication are central policy and I don't see why the same model shouldn't be applied. Any feedback is good, and it would be even better if results were shared.

jiminski post

As i said before, I think that if stronger punitive action is to be encouraged in clear-cut cases, it should be largely based upon reports made by the abused party alone. That would preclude 3rd parties (3rd party users or mods doing random checks...* ) with no idea of intent, from misunderstanding a joke about a Fjord between two Norwegians.
That will also safeguard language which has no intended target; point in case, my example above. We must not have a situation where i could be banned for using an example to show the worst excesses of language or we could discuss nothing. .. it is common sense stuff really.

thegreekdog post

I have a couple of points for Andy:

(1) Perhaps CC should consider the use of certain words and/or terms to be a violation of community guidelines, no matter the context. For example, using the "n" word in any context is a violation. This would make it easier for the mods to police (i.e. X player used the "n" word in game chat, open and shut case). There would be no arguing over "Hey, I didn't mean it in a rascist context," or "But, I'm black," wouldn't hold any weight.

(2) Related to #1 above, I think that CC should refine its rules on rascism, bigotry, homophobia, and sexism to make clear what is and is not tolerated. I've found, in life, that the more clear the rules, the less likely one will attempt to break the rules. Compare "Rascism will not be tolerated" to "The phrase "Greek sheep-f*cker" will not be tolerated." It is easy to determine whether the second one is a violation versus the first one.

(3) Are the mods going to investigate whitestazn88 for anti-Semitism and homophobia? If not, should I do a report in C&A? He typed the "k" word and derogatorily referred to two players as gay. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it's a hypocrit, and I will report whitestanzn88 if required. Additionally, if we are assuming the "n" word is rascist in any context, I believe there have been numerous references to the word throughout this thread. They should probably be dealt with.

(4) Finally, and this has really been bothering me, attacking Muslims is not rascism or xenophobia. Islam is a religion, not a race or an ethnicity. I know religious intolerance is against the rules, but let's call it what it is please.

Mr Changsha post

Not a question of fault on behalf of the chap who announces to the world he is bi-sexual, but surely a measure of responsibility for the consequences of announcing it?

i.e if he hadn't announced to thousands of strangers (and would he announce it to a room full of people in that place we like to think of as the real world?) then no one would have made fun of him for it. Assuming that not one person in thousands would think bi-sexuality is gross, evil, greedy, strange or depraved, and assuming that such a person wouldn't then make a point of it in the forums is a bit dense.

As I said, keeping your private life to yourself - or at least anything in the least controversial - would normally be the best way to go if you were dealing with a room full of strangers. CC forums are, in effect, a room full of strangers too.

thelastpatriot post

I don't care if your straight, gay, white, black, indian, spanish, oriental, male, female, parrothead, deadhead, pothead, republican, democrat, communist, captialist, socialist, christian, jewish, satinist, or all the other religions or non religions out there. JUST TAKE YOUR DAMN TURN.....

New Issues Raised:

• Who gets offended when, cited by A.sub and woodruff on page 14.
• What is offensive, isn't always bigoted, cited by xelable on page 14---"Context" is still key.
• Keep your personal information private when possible, responsibility, cited by Mr Changsha on page 17/18.

Middle Grounds Proposed:

• Community consultation/questionaire (Need more info).
• Increased punishment for reports when the abused party reports, to keep misunderstandings to a minimum (jiminski).
• Clarify bigotry rules, what is allowed, what isn't, the context, when, etc, via community consultation (thegreekdog).

--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

Phewfta. Now, if you give me some time, I'll review the 3 summation eras I've posted and write up a main post for discussion---alright? But first, I need lunch.


--Andy

[mpjh]

Impressive.

[MrBenn]

Does/should the definition of bigotry be extended to include blasphemy?

christ no! i am not sure how it could. Could you give an example of how bigotry could be applicable to using blasphemous language?

Part of me is playing Devil's Advocate here.... but just because blasphemy may be considered socially acceptable to you, doesn't mean that all people will find it equally acceptable. Blasphemy could be construed as intolerance of a particular set of creeds of belief systems, and therefore fall under the bigotry umbrella.

And that's all I have to say about that.

No, it is all about civil rights.

I disagree: It's all about responsibility.
The moment somebody claims a right to something, it is usually in way of a direct condemnation/criticism and to effect a change in the behaviour/attitudes of others.
The moment somebody takes responsibility for something, it is usually an admission/desire to effect a personal change of behaviour/attitude.
The nuance is about taking personal responsibility for improvement, and to fall back on the religious metaphor of doing "unto others as you would have others do unto you."

[jiminski]

Does/should the definition of bigotry be extended to include blasphemy?

christ no! i am not sure how it could. Could you give an example of how bigotry could be applicable to using blasphemous language?

Part of me is playing Devil's Advocate here.... but just because blasphemy may be considered socially acceptable to you, doesn't mean that all people will find it equally acceptable. Blasphemy could be construed as intolerance of a particular set of creeds of belief systems, and therefore fall under the bigotry umbrella.

Yeas Mr Benn, i got your vague point I am just not sure how the dynamics of it works. It is really stretching the definition to make it fit under the umbrella. kind of like cutting a tab off to get a piece of puzzle to fit. - We have specific rules about religion in threads, many of us think they are too protective, but to protect people from blasphemy under laws of bigotry is too far a leap for me and simply just not relevant.
If you think they are could you explain the specific logic please?

[Timminz]

A couple thoughts.

1) In regards to what jiminski has been suggesting about not following 3rd party reports. I agree that we want to avoid over-reaction based on misunderstandings of a 3rd party, but the person whom comments are directed towards is not necessarily the only one who could be rightfully offended. For example, if you were to call pimpdave the n-word, I'm pretty certain that he would not be offended, but there are other members who would be, and rightfully so. Similarly, referring to a particularly bad turn as having, "gay dice" could rightfully offend homosexual members of the community. The dice aren't gay. They are shitty, or not good, or less than ideal. To use "gay" as a synonym for any of those things, is an insult to gay people.

2) I have seen comments a few times, along the lines of, "amongst certain groups, certain things may be said without offense, where if those same things were said in other places, or situations, they are deemed offensive." I strongly believe that in situations like that, people should consider CC to be a public arena. If you wouldn't say something within earshot of 100 strangers in real life, it's most likely not acceptable to say here either.

[pimpdave]

For example, if you were to call pimpdave the n-word, I'm pretty certain that he would not be offended,

Well, actually, I'd be shocked and would bristle a bit. It would make me feel uncomfortable, but no, I wouldn't up and deck the person who said it to me. I'd probably verbally confront them, but would let it go if it wasn't worth the trouble and just move on with my life.

But hey, here's an idea, why don't you just talk about your own goddamn self and not continue with this make shit up about pimpdave trend going on in here.

[jiminski]

....But hey, here's an idea, why don't you just talk about your own goddamn self and not continue with this make shit up about pimpdave trend going on in here.

heheh that made me chuckle.

[AndyDufresne]

Hold post. Moved to next page to keep next to each other.


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

Okay, so I've listed the three discussion eras below---for easy reference to particular noteworthy posts, issues, middle grounds, etc.

Era One Discussion
Era Two Discussion
Era Three Discussion

=====================================================

Era One, Issues Summation:

• Bigotry is more prevalent in CC than thought---a large portion occurs in Game Chats and PM, though some also occurrs in the Forums (I'm assumingly mostly GD, Off Topics, and Usergroups).
• Bigotry is ineffectively or inconsistently dealt with. I.E. Team CC does this, and/or Conquer Club in general does not offer enough tools (like the Foe List, Reporting Posts) to add to a user's arsenal to combat such issues.
• Bigotry should be punished more severely than other "No-No's" from the Community Guidelines.
  
  
  As for the otherside:
• Bigotry is being used by individuals to troll/spam/cause general chaos for fun.
• Bigotry is dealt with when reported.

Era One, Middle Grounds Proposed:

• Possible addition of a "Report Link" in Active Games (hwhrhett).
• Increased punishment scale for Bigotry over other less community impacting No-No's (such as spamming) (many users contributed to this). A few scales proposed:
  • 1 Strike and Done (Bruceswar).
  • Small Initial Vacation, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation (owenator, whitestazn88, owenshooter).
  • Middle Initial Vacation, Permanent Vacation (xxtig12683xx, squishyg).
  • Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation (Andy Dufresne, General Stoneham).
  • Stick with the Current Scale of Punishment (barterer2002, Artimis)

=====================================================

Era Two, Issues Summation:

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

Era Two, Middle Grounds Proposed:

• 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.

======================================================

Era Three, Issues Summation:

• Who gets offended when, cited by A.sub and woodruff on page 14.
• What is offensive, isn't always bigoted, cited by xelable on page 14---"Context" is still key.
• Keep your personal information private when possible, responsibility, cited by Mr Changsha on page 17/18.

Middle Grounds Proposed:

• Community consultation/questionaire (Need more info).
• Increased punishment for reports when the abused party reports, to keep misunderstandings to a minimum (jiminski).
• Clarify bigotry rules, what is allowed, what isn't, the context, when, etc, via community consultation (thegreekdog).

--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

Alright, so I think my above post covers most everything that we have discussed. Forgive me if I've left something out--feel free to post about it.

So far, looking at the above post:

• Those who have responded would like to see Increased Severity of Punishment for Bigotry, due to it's sensitive nature on a user, group of users, and community as a whole. The exact scale is something open for discussion. See Era One.
• Context and humor is key to avoid misunderstandings. This I think is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the Punishment Scale.

Proposed Tool Additions:

• The addition a "Report Link" may be a worthwhile tool to have. Additional thoughts?
• More use of the Forum's Censor feature.
• Possible Community Consultation Questionaire. More details needed. Thoughts?
• Clarify Bigotry Rules via Community Consultation. Thoughts?

--Andy

[Timminz]

For example, if you were to call pimpdave the n-word, I'm pretty certain that he would not be offended,

Well, actually, I'd be shocked and would bristle a bit. It would make me feel uncomfortable, but no, I wouldn't up and deck the person who said it to me. I'd probably verbally confront them.

But hey, here's an idea, why don't you just talk about your own goddamn self and not continue with this make shit up about pimpdave trend going on in here.

Sorry Dave. That was not intended as a slight on you. I only used you as an example because you seem like someone who is not offended easily.

It's ironic that you now seem offended by it.

Regardless, the person in the example was not the point.

[Gozar]

Sorry Dave. That was not intended as a slight on you. I only used you as an example because you seem like someone who is not offended easily.

It's ironic that you now seem offended by it.

Regardless, the person in the example was not the point.

You can use my name Tim. I won't be offended.

And why do people use the term 'n-word', when we all know to which word they are referring. If a word is to be offensive, it still offensive no matter how disguised. Unless you are offended by the arrangement of letters, and not by the meaning behind it...

[AndyDufresne]

If I can, I'd like to steer the discussion towards the issues, middle grounds, and points posted above in my two posts. Lets keep working towards an end.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Andy, just a clarification on my particular two cents:

I think this point in particular is relevant:

Context and humor is key to avoid misunderstandings. This I think is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the Punishment Scale.

My point is that if we say, "You can't use/say ____" that should be the rule regardless of the context.

As Timminiz pointed out (I agree and am paraphrasing) - Think of CC as being a community of 1,000 people and that when you type something, those 1,000 people can "hear" it. As a crude example (and something that is not offensive to me) - Let's say another Greek person calls me a "sheep-effing boy-loving Spartan" all in good fun. If any of those terms are "banned" words, that person should be warned. It will keep "misunderstandings" to a minimum.

[lancehoch]

Andy, just a clarification on my particular two cents:

I think this point in particular is relevant:

Context and humor is key to avoid misunderstandings. This I think is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the Punishment Scale.

My point is that if we say, "You can't use/say ____" that should be the rule regardless of the context.

As Timminiz pointed out (I agree and am paraphrasing) - Think of CC as being a community of 1,000 people and that when you type something, those 1,000 people can "hear" it. As a crude example (and something that is not offensive to me) - Let's say another Greek person calls me a "sheep-effing boy-loving Spartan" all in good fun. If any of those terms are "banned" words, that person should be warned. It will keep "misunderstandings" to a minimum.

The only problem with this, is that people will avoid the words and use words with similar meanings, but different connotations or they will self censor and still imply the same thing. Should those people also receive warnings?

[thegreekdog]

The only problem with this, is that people will avoid the words and use words with similar meanings, but different connotations or they will self censor and still imply the same thing. Should those people also receive warnings?

I did not think of that, good point. I wish I had the wherewithall to figure out an alternative, but I can't.

[ronsizzle]

does tipper gore have any money in this site? is she the one leading this crusade?

if it aint broke! dont fix it!

why dont all of you in here realize that this is a GAMING SITE! if you start to enforce crazy rules with harsh punishments, you will see lost dividends.

let this go people.

and referring to the person that said "owenshooter didnt start this thread". he may as well have! i believe someone in his clan did. and the only reason for that was so people actually looked at it, rather than discarding it as another owen is crying AGAIN!

here is the solution. if you get offended at something as mild as nshooter, you should go hide in a cave somewhere and never come out.

this thread is made and supported by whiners, babies, and over sensitive freaks. i dont care if you call me white trash, or a cracker. i guess i am a bigger man, and more secure with myself than most.

GROW UP PEOPLE. let the mods do their jobs. and quit bashing them. they are mostly volunteers. but yet in every thread i see, i see this, "the mods do this, the mods do that, they dont do this, they dont do that". they do the best job they can. i stand by whatever they do here.

i think the right decision, is no decision.

[owenator]

In all seriousness, let's be honest, white people using the "N" word are called racists. But no one uses the "N" word more than "African Americans" themselves!

And pray tell, where would you find this information to be actually true?

I live near New Orleans. I have been many other places and nowhere is that word used more by their own race than here. If you think that I would say this just to make a racial statement, you couldn't be more wrong. If you think this isn't true, come see for yourself.

So, let me get this straight...out of 6 billion people in the world using New Orleans as your statistical figure, your so-called fact that the "N" word is more oft used by black people than anyone else? Ummm...yeah. I don't think so. That's just being ignorant Suzy.

[ronsizzle]

and btw, LET THE POLL DO THE WORK FOR YOU!

51 percent of the people say, LET IT GO!

[owenator]

If I can, I'd like to steer the discussion towards the issues, middle grounds, and points posted above in my two posts. Lets keep working towards an end.


--Andy

Andy, I think it was a very well put basis for providing a compromise towards an ugly situation. Thanks again for your never ceasing hard work. It certainly doesn't go unnoticed.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Andy, just a clarification on my particular two cents:

I think this point in particular is relevant:

Context and humor is key to avoid misunderstandings. This I think is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the Punishment Scale.

My point is that if we say, "You can't use/say ____" that should be the rule regardless of the context.

As Timminiz pointed out (I agree and am paraphrasing) - Think of CC as being a community of 1,000 people and that when you type something, those 1,000 people can "hear" it. As a crude example (and something that is not offensive to me) - Let's say another Greek person calls me a "sheep-effing boy-loving Spartan" all in good fun. If any of those terms are "banned" words, that person should be warned. It will keep "misunderstandings" to a minimum.

Banned words?!?! Get real!

Saying and using a word, depending on the situation is what makes particular words bad.

Example:
1. Boy, it sure is fucking hot!

2. You're a fucking idiot!

First example, is not to be considered vulgar. Second example is vulgar.

Are we going to start banning words, because you're overly sensitive to certain words.

Perhaps, some of us feel that your avatar is politically incorrect and should be banned. Some might feel that mine is pornographic and should be tossed.

We all need to stop and think, before we start throwing posters out of the forum. C.C. needs to allow a diversity of opinion, not less of it.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will ....

[AndyDufresne]

I must depart soon, I've many things in real life I should during my days off. I hope to see focused discussion on my above two posts. If I came back and it was all solved, that would be lovely. But if not, I'll continue to work with you all.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Banned words?!?! Get real!

Saying and using a word, depending on the situation is what makes particular words bad.

Example:
1. Boy, it sure is fucking hot!

2. You're a fucking idiot!

First example, is not to be considered vulgar. Second example is vulgar.

Are we going to start banning words, because you're overly sensitive to certain words.

Perhaps, some of us feel that your avatar is politically incorrect and should be banned. Some might feel that mine is pornographic and should be tossed.

We all need to stop and think, before we start throwing posters out of the forum. C.C. needs to allow a diversity of opinion, not less of it.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will ....

Why yes Stoneham, you're absolutely correct. I agree with all of your points. I don't think any words should be banned, at all, in any context, including here on CC. I was simply offering my "solution" to the problem of rascism, bigory, et. al. on this site. If people don't want it, ban the words. It will work. The problem, as I see it, is that certain people don't think enough is being done to combat the rampant rascim (and other bigotry) on this site. I just don't see it, but, then I'm not a member of an accepted racial minority. However, if we want the rascism to stop, we must ban all words that could be considered rascist in any context. Including the "n" word and the "k" word and the whatever other word anyone can think of.

Otherwise, I guess we just stick with the status quo until anyone who is offended enough leaves CC.