PERMABANS (though you did not know it!)

[mpjh]

Yes, if you can't handle the simple point I made -- well ignore it --- that certainly is your prerogative.

[a.sub]

My, my, this is really too much for you to handle.

a.sub, clearly mpjh is just trying to get the thread locked. This thread is too important to allow that to happen. Just ignore him. It's what he deserves.

your right woodruff
i shouldnt waste my time trying filling a well with water
i would put him on foe if it werent for two things

• i dont foe ppl
• he's a damn good society teacher

[mpjh]

Thank you.

[ronsizzle]

he has no logic behind the sentence in which he wrote. further explanations would prove that.

i like the bail out in which you left this. there is truly no meaning that could make up for your arrogance here.

you failed.

sorry.

[mpjh]

Sorry you can't see the simple point, but, with you, that is expected.

[ronsizzle]

Sorry you can't see the simple point, but, with you, that is expected.

i see a simple minded person not willing to share their "great" opinion. neither can anyone else. anyone. seriously. what you said made no sense. sorry.

failure.

[bjc23]

Sorry you can't see the simple point, but, with you, that is expected.

i see a simple minded person not willing to share their "great" opinion. neither can anyone else. anyone. seriously. what you said made no sense. sorry.

failure.

He's doing that purposefully. Just ignore him! You're giving him the very reaction he is looking for.

[mpjh]

Well I would rather you got the point, but I think you prove it with your reaction -- so that is just as good.

[Artimis]

First and foremost with regards to the user MPJH;
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL!





Instead I want to direct attention to this fine post by Jim:
Re: Bigotry on CC [Page 20 Summary] <==== (4th post from the bottom on page 25)

Contents of Jims post

ok,

well as i see it...

What we need is the transformation of breaking bigotry 'guidelines' into breaking rules on bigotry.

This means that instead of it being pretty much unsanctionable it falls under the remit of the Mods.

Now that needs to be very carefully handled as it could be a tool for mods to use to get rid of people who are a pain in their arse, rather than them truly warranting heavy action.
The mods are good but they are only human; with the ability to retaliate, become exasperated and take things personally. Sure they are of a type of character less likely to but they are not exempt from vindictive acts (We should remember the mod ACIceman deleting Spamallot as a good example of what can happen.)

So increased severity of punishment under the following circumstance:

- Bigotry of unquestionable intent* i.e. a target and a framework of intended hurt. That should protect me, for example, if i am merely using a phrase to lambaste the term itself.
- Large weighting of referral toward the intended target of bigotry - i.e. lenience or special consideration should be shown if the recipient of the abuse is not offended and took it as a joke.** This means 3rd parties can report but that they are secondary to those involved directly. Those involved should be quizzed as to intent and offence taken. Of course there will be cases with no direct target and in that case it is a straight judgement for the mods.
- Bigotry of the most excessive of forms. - this is common sense, i do not believe we need a list of words as they will be ever-changing bar a few timeless terms. If we focus upon specific words rather than their tone and intent we actually limit this to superficiality.
- Grey areas need a more careful assessment and perhaps repetition to determine a pattern of abuse. For bigotry to be harshly punished it should be heinous and obvious. Thereby assuaging the humourists who fly close to the sun. Again that does not mean the smart bigots .. (not too many around) can dance around the rules to inflict hurt, it just means they get the benefit of the doubt until it is obvious as to their intent.
- Perhaps the introduction of a members court of appeal: This could even be made up of 12 random 'jurors', drafted in to hear those who feel they were unfairly treated and banned. The court would be made up of normal members, not mods who may appear to have a vested interest. (though controversial i think it would get all people on-board and actually protect the position of individual members and mods alike)


anyway, there is more stuff but i need to bugger off now.



*Azezzo's seemingly unnecessary use of 'nigger' above, may also be a good example of manipulating the system that we should consider. If he can explain the point of the use then maybe it is useful to the discussion, perhaps it was intended to be an example of irony which would test the absolute nature of bigotry? That in itself can be another useful example of context but at present i don't really see that being at its core.
Edit: Az explained above as i was writing this

**it will be bloody obvious if two mates are taking the piss out of the system rather than out of themselves.

I agree 100% with both the assessment of the current situation and the suggestions made in this post. Reaching a compromise will be difficult to say the least because of how highly polarised this issue is, in fact it may not be possible to reach a compromise that is satisfactory to all. I still think the guidelines do a good enough job as they stand, but I'm willing to accept some adjustments if it will benefit the community overall.

[xelabale]

The length of this thread and speed it has grown suggests that something does need to be done. I agree with jiminski's points. Clarity and enforcement of rules are required. As it stands we have a zero-tolerance, erratically enforced policy which leads to problems. There are several good practical ideas in this thread. Maybe it's time to take stock and assess what we've got so far. Damn this good weather, get back here this second Andy!

[AndyDufresne]

I'll do an Era review this evening if I can find time in between nice weather, banana picking, and such. Until then, keep discussion focused on Middle Grounds Proposed and work towards an end.


--Andy

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Andy, I think the length of this thread, with it's many questions, answers, remarks, trolling and other tid bits, has reached the end.

Rehashing all the posts is adding a little contentious behavior with some of us.

BUT, here goes. Let's not go overboard with "restrictions" of free expression. If, someone crosses the line of good taste, I'm sure many of us will report any REAL RACISM to the Moderators.

Besides, just the phrase FLAME WARS, will bring a lightning strike from the Moderators here at C.C. Land.

So, I recommend that we keep the rules as is. Most of the posters here, either want capital punishment issued out immediately or a "live let live" policy.

This thread has though, brought up many sides to the argument of what constitutes bigotry and/or racism. Andy, you have done a wonderful job of trying to keep this thread on track for so long, which in my opinion is nearly impossible with the characters involved with this discussion....and yes, that includes yours truly, ME.

Well, I gotta go and take care of my garden. What a beautiful day it is today in Chicagoland!

[AndyDufresne]

I think I am in agreement with General Stoneham that this topic may have finally reached it's limit/end/middleground. Who would've thought I would actually be agreeing with General Stoneham?

First off, before I do an Era update---and go into Final Analysis, I'd just like to say I myself have learned a few things from this topic. If I may, I'd like to share them with all those involved:

• Everyone is human. Sometimes I forget that---when you only see people posting as their username and avatar. Sometimes forgetting that everyone is human clouds one's mind when dealing with certain individuals that just seem to go against your grain. But once you remember that everyone is human, and there is a real person behind that avatar and username, you can free yourself from getting stuck up in dehumanizing people. And sometimes we forget what this site is all about---games. That's the reason I invited so many contributors to this topic to a few games. It's a universal language and identify that we all speak and can enjoy.
• I've also learned a good method for guiding a topic I think. We've come up with some great issues and points---when I firsted started this, I really had no idea how this topic was going to end, and how it was going to be conducted. It was really a complete experiment and mixture of a number of techniques I've employed over my years as a moderator at Conquer Club. So if this seems to have worked well, perhaps it will come up again!
• Lastly, similar to my first post, I've learned you all aren't a crazy bunch of bananas! I had my doubts for quite some time, but you've all proven me wrong. Mostly.

In the end, I hope it's clear how much I, and Team CC, really do care about Conquer Club.


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

And as always, please take note of the Page 20 Summary of the earlier Eras.

Okay, so Era Four Review

Noteworthy posts:

xelable post

I'm extremely happy about this thread. Despite some detours into trolling for which I and others are guilty, some real progress has been made, due in no small part to monkeyboy. Thank you andy for keeping this a genuine conversation.

It seems that we all agree bigotry is wrong.
It seems most agree there is too much on CC (though not all)
The discussion now seems to be:
a) What constitutes bigotry
b) What to do about it

I argue that you can't simply censor words. Watch: f*ck - f'uck
see, didn't work.

You can't ban bigotry using filters or fixed parameters -"You're an idiotic cotton picker" is the same as "You're a stupid n%%%er" in intent, but the "bad" words aren't used. Bigotry is a state of mind, an attitude.

So, my solution is to give mods the power to decide. However, this is an unfair task for the mods on their own. Even if they put in a superhuman effort (which I'm sure they do ) they would make mistakes. They need help. This can come in several ways:

• A comprehensive set of guidelines perhaps made by us/lack/andy/a reputable organisation that has already gone through this process
• Reporting devices as mentioned in andy's post above to highlight potential problems
• A clear procedure and punishment scale (as discussed and not yet resolved)
• The support of the community

As long as the policy is clear, strong, and enforced, it will work, even if not everyone agrees with it. The problems come with ambiguity and lack of consistent enforcement of stated rules.

Woodruff post

[*]Bigotry should be punished more severely than other "No-No's" from the Community Guidelines.

When it is plainly clear with no real "decision" having to come into it, yes. If there's room for a benefit of the doubt, then it should revert to the normal policy, in my opinion. For me, it's two different sets of circumstances necessary for fairness to everyone involved.

General Stoneham and Woodruff posts

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.

Well, both would be considered vulgar, but the first wouldn't be considered abusive toward anyone. For me, that's the real key.

As well, I am also against banning words, though for slightly different reasons. Jiminski and I have discussed this at length in another thread...banning words doesn't do ANY good and I would go so far as to say that it causes harm. Allow me to explain...if someone calls someone else the N word, then that's a clear-cut violation of the policy against bigotry...there is no grey area. Easy to moderate. But if a word-filter is in place, the individual will know this and they will simply word things to work around the word-filter, quite likely making it worded in such a way that now there IS some grey area to the offensive statement, resulting in a more difficult moderatory decision and likely a less harsh punishment.

bjc23 post

Well jeez, ronc8649, congratulations (but if you still have the desire to help out the site that you love, I won't protest your payment for premium membership for me)...

I apologize for my long post a few pages ago. I just had a lot to say. Many people have been giving great ideas, but it's time to work toward proper discipline. AndyDufresne seems to be asking primarily for a middle ground, for the punishment and repercussions of using bigoted attacks on people.

MY IDEA: The first offense should receive a warning, the same, apparently, as all offenses at the moment. But this warning should include something along the lines of: "Unlike other offenses such as (place "no-no's" here), bigotry infractions have stiffer penalties for future offenses. If you decide to break our rules set for bigotry misbehavior again, your next castigation will be an extended ban, and if you choose to affront the rules we have set up yet again, you will be permanently banned" or something along those lines.

jiminski post

ok,

well as i see it...

What we need is the transformation of breaking bigotry 'guidelines' into breaking rules on bigotry.

This means that instead of it being pretty much unsanctionable it falls under the remit of the Mods.

Now that needs to be very carefully handled as it could be a tool for mods to use to get rid of people who are a pain in their arse, rather than them truly warranting heavy action.
The mods are good but they are only human; with the ability to retaliate, become exasperated and take things personally. Sure they are of a type of character less likely to but they are not exempt from vindictive acts (We should remember the mod ACIceman deleting Spamallot as a good example of what can happen.)

So increased severity of punishment under the following circumstance:

- Bigotry of unquestionable intent* i.e. a target and a framework of intended hurt. That should protect me, for example, if i am merely using a phrase to lambaste the term itself.
- Large weighting of referral toward the intended target of bigotry - i.e. lenience or special consideration should be shown if the recipient of the abuse is not offended and took it as a joke.** This means 3rd parties can report but that they are secondary to those involved directly. Those involved should be quizzed as to intent and offence taken. Of course there will be cases with no direct target and in that case it is a straight judgement for the mods.
- Bigotry of the most excessive of forms. - this is common sense, i do not believe we need a list of words as they will be ever-changing bar a few timeless terms. If we focus upon specific words rather than their tone and intent we actually limit this to superficiality.
- Grey areas need a more careful assessment and perhaps repetition to determine a pattern of abuse. For bigotry to be harshly punished it should be heinous and obvious. Thereby assuaging the humourists who fly close to the sun. Again that does not mean the smart bigots .. (not too many around) can dance around the rules to inflict hurt, it just means they get the benefit of the doubt until it is obvious as to their intent.
- Perhaps the introduction of a members court of appeal: This could even be made up of 12 random 'jurors', drafted in to hear those who feel they were unfairly treated and banned. The court would be made up of normal members, not mods who may appear to have a vested interest. (though controversial i think it would get all people on-board and actually protect the position of individual members and mods alike)


anyway, there is more stuff but i need to bugger off now.



*Azezzo's seemingly unnecessary use of 'nigger' above, may also be a good example of manipulating the system that we should consider. If he can explain the point of the use then maybe it is useful to the discussion, perhaps it was intended to be an example of irony which would test the absolute nature of bigotry? That in itself can be another useful example of context but at present i don't really see that being at its core.
Edit: Az explained above as i was writing this

**it will be bloody obvious if two mates are taking the piss out of the system rather than out of themselves.

Era Four, Issues Summation:

• There is a difference between "being vulgar in general" and being "vulgar towards someone" (I.E. Abusive towards someone). The latter is the one we are focusing on (General Stoneham and Woodruff).
• There are gray areas to take into account.

Era Four, Middle Grounds Proposed:

• For some gray areas, give the benefit of the doubt, revert to normal guidelines (page 21, 22, and Woodruff's post above).
• Warning first, with mention that Bigotry is a no-no that has stricter and stiffer penalties for future offenses. Similar to the earlier "Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation" Middle Ground proposed (bjc23 post above).

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

Final Summation and Proposed Middle Grounds:

• Due to the possiblity of some gray areas, as pointed out throughout this topic, use the following altered Guidelines: Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for misunderstandings and context to be understood, and to be handled as they should be.
• For clear cut examples of Bigotry, use the altered proposed Guidelines: Small Vacation, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for stricter and stiffer punishment to those who know what they are doing, and gets the point across the Bigotry will not be tolerated.

For Tools:

• Additionally, look into the possibility of "Report a Game" links. This of course is something on Lack's end, so I can't promise anything.
• There seemed to be no consensus about increased use of the forum's censor feature. So I propose that we perhaps institue the above altered guidelines, and go from there. If further forum censoring is needed, we can look at that at a later date (hopefully in a shorter topic ).

--Andy

[Woodruff]

Final Summation and Proposed Middle Grounds:

* Due to the possiblity of some gray areas, as pointed out throughout this topic, use the following altered Guidelines: Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for misunderstandings and context to be understood, and to be handled as they should be.

* For clear cut examples of Bigotry, use the altered proposed Guidelines: Small Vacation, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for stricter and stiffer punishment to those who know what they are doing, and gets the point across the Bigotry will not be tolerated.


For Tools:

* Additionally, look into the possibility of "Report a Game" links. This of course is something on Lack's end, so I can't promise anything.

Well done, Andy. This looks pretty reasonable to me.

[clapper011]

[InsomniaRed]

I agree with clapper, though I think a simple will suffice without hurting my eyes too much

I think Andy said it all, and I think TeamCC will do their jobs just fine in handling with this, so the community can sleep soundly now!!

[the.killing.44]

Final Summation and Proposed Middle Grounds:

* Due to the possiblity of some gray areas, as pointed out throughout this topic, use the following altered Guidelines: Warning, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for misunderstandings and context to be understood, and to be handled as they should be.

* For clear cut examples of Bigotry, use the altered proposed Guidelines: Small Vacation, Increased Vacation, Permanent Vacation. This allows for stricter and stiffer punishment to those who know what they are doing, and gets the point across the Bigotry will not be tolerated.


For Tools:

* Additionally, look into the possibility of "Report a Game" links. This of course is something on Lack's end, so I can't promise anything.

Well done, Andy. This looks pretty reasonable to me.

[Scott-Land]

ron, what in the hell are you talking about? i didn't start this thread, and this thread isn't solely about racism, it is about bigotry. obviously you have not read the thread, as there are many examples by many members of various types of bigotry they have dealt with here on CC. your continual posting of the N word shows you have truly not learned your lesson, and you are simply not worth the effort anymore. you have proven yourself to be exactly what you declare yourself not to be. good job. and please stop bringing me up and trolling this thread in an effort to bait me into a flame war. this thread is not about me, it is about bigotry on CC, and from the posts and andy's input, it is obvious it is a far larger problem than you are willing to recognize. afterall, you still seem to be part of the problem.-0

I suppose it's okay to call yourself-- The Black Jesus. I don't care for racism nor hypocrisy.

[mpjh]

Hmm, do we have an object case here to test Andy's approach? What action would a mod take here?

[xelabale]

Wow, there was totally like a conversation and stuff, then like everyone worked together, then people disagreed but like completely respected each other, then there was a whole bunch of really cool ideas and stuff which people totally talked about, then like a dude in charge actually really totally listened and did stuff.

Where am I?

[Woodruff]

Wow, there was totally like a conversation and stuff, then like everyone worked together, then people disagreed but like completely respected each other, then there was a whole bunch of really cool ideas and stuff which people totally talked about, then like a dude in charge actually really totally listened and did stuff.
Where am I?

You and I even agreed a couple of times. HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD?!?!?!

[MrBenn]

The proposal makes sense. Clamping down on abusive behaviour can only result in a more positive feel to the site.

[jiminski]

The proposal makes sense. Clamping down on abusive behaviour can only result in a more positive feel to the site.

it was specifically bigotry we sought to reign-in! i think our rights to abuse eachother in other ways is still entact, ya badly drawn little bowler-hat wearer!

[MrBenn]

i think our rights to abuse eachother in other ways is still entact, ya badly drawn little bowler-hat wearer!

I can take comfort from the fact that you're likely to die before me: http://www.ancestry.com/facts/JIMINSKI- ... tancy.ashx