I wish to have a rule clarified

[trouble1234567]

So, I logged on creative today and someone said something to the effect of the following (paraphrasing):
"xx is cheating on his husband"
I replied to this with the following
"I learned two things from that, xx is cheating and he is gay"
I felt this was a fairly mundane observation, as "his husband" implies a man has a husband and is therefore gay/homosexual.

I was then told by an admin to stop talking like that. What ensued was a 20 minute crapstorm about whether or not it was okay to say someone was gay or even use the word. Personally I feel the preposterous fear of using the word is worse than actually using the word as it implies gay is negative and or a slur which I personally don't believe it is. 

I completely understand banning people and warning people for being homophobic but that is obvious and not what I wish to discuss. 
The entire debate was absurd but I want to know what the admins think about this

 

So admins, are we allowed to use the word gay or is it banned?

The rule in question:
"No sexism, racism, homophobia or any type of hate speech."

[Pyr0mrcow]

It's been described by some staff as being against the rules when the context its used in is negative...just hard to say what's negative and what's not since people have different opinions, I guess. The comment looks simple enough, you were stating something that was pretty much already said, but then there's the possibility of people seeing it as negative just because the word gets so much flak.

 

Thoughts on this subject plz.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Pyr0mrcow

[jllmprrt]

It's been described by some staff as being against the rules when the context its used in is negative...just hard to say what's negative and what's not since people have different opinions, I guess. The comment looks simple enough, you were stating something that was pretty much already said, but then there's the possibility of people seeing it as negative just because the word gets so much flak.

Thoughts on this subject plz.

Yeah this is about it. I feel like when people say things like "that's gay" or "ur gay" then it would be used as a slur in that context, however if you are referring to a relationship between two men and two women or whatever, then it is obviously not a slur. That being said, we could all lighten up a little about the whole gay thing, as general chat is... interesting enough already

[Magnyus]

It really doesn't help when modjar makes the combination of letters glow red whenever someone says it. Even usernames e.g. last name Gayle would show up as Gayle.

 

It really shouldn't take a mod that long to read under what context it was used, and then mediate (or you know, MODERATE) the conversation from there. It's pretty easy to tell when it gets used negatively as opposed to objectively.I get that it's a sensitive topic, but it only makes things worse in the long run because no one can talk about it. We're a diverse community so of course they're plenty of people whose sexual orientation differs from others, that being said, it seems counterproductive to treat them differently in an effort to protect them. It's also a bit weird the few times that players are having a regular discussion only to have a mod interrupt with the "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT HERE, CEASE AND DESIST".

[slide]

Magnyus, if you can figure out how to detect certain words completely by themselves without false positives, you have just made a lot of money. This problem is referred to as the Scunthorpe Problem and is an extremely difficult problem to solve. It is absolutely no fault of the jar that it highlights part of Gayle.

[Magnyus]

I know I know, I was just pointing out that it's kinda instinctual to see bright red letters and assume the worst. It's generally a case by case process and differs greatly from moderator to moderator, where you only kicked the two players another could have easily banned them, and because it's not clarified both of you would be correct.

[UNP]

I just can't wait for the shitstorm that happens when someone eventually uses the word niggardly.

 

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the other N-word that makes people flail, and the two words are etymologically distinct and unconnected.

[Dumbo52]

As someone with stakes in this topic, I can tell you that what you said wasn't necessarily offensive or homophobic. The only thing I might say to that, though, is that it gets a little questionable when you're talking about specific people. Though I wish the topic of sexuality was a little less taboo, you never know when talking about someone's sexuality, true or not, will make the person in question uncomfortable. For that reason, it's usually best to steer away from the topic of a player's sexuality unless they've indicated, directly or indirectly, that it's something they're comfortable with being discussed.

 

Give it a couple of decades, and when homophobia is dead and the topic of sexuality is less stigmatized in society, it'll hopefully be a lot easier to talk about this kind of stuff.

[schererererer]

I just can't wait for the shitstorm that happens when someone eventually uses the word niggardly.

 

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the other N-word that makes people flail, and the two words are etymologically distinct and unconnected.

The only time I have ever seen this word in a context other than "hee hee look at this word that isn't a racist slur but sounds and looks like it" (or a meta discussion) was in an essay from the mid 19th century. Its serious use as defined is rare enough to place it in the ranks of words such as 'abalienate' and 'coney-catcher'. 99% of those who use this word today just do so to troll people and snicker at their middle-school wit.

There are however other words of a similar bent that aren't quite so archaic, and as always these should be moderated with an ear for context - their use in a serious, descriptive sense is fine, but their use for trolling is not.

[roastnewt]

I've always had a few niggles about this rule.

[twilexis]

This will never have a hard 'yes/no' answer. To some the use of the word gay is acceptable, others may be more sensitive to it if it's been used against them as a slur.

 

Simple solution. Don't discuss sexuality, religion or politics in open chat. If you wish to discuss this, go into PM or into a clanchat.

[XkinOEC]

"thats gay"  =  bad

"he's gay"  =  also bad

"he's gay?"  =  not bad, but it should be up to the moderator or staff member to have some common sense to observe what is being said, rather than simply tell you "don't speak like that here"

 

Believe me, I know your trouble considering I've been kicked simply for stating "I am gay" before on the servers. I've also seen one of our Cadmins kick someone the moment the word was said without even reviewing that their previous message was talking about when they came out of the closet. I'd have to say its simply a banned word because some staff here refuse to acknowledge the true subject of conversation. I mean, considering my situation, I was kicked for being a homosexual. Which then means the server is homophobic... Which, it isn't, but I'm seeing it more as the higher up staff do not want to deal with the situation either positive or negative. Which is for the best honestly because a person who simply follows the rules and eventually makes it to staff, could still be a homophobic person, it isn't something that they check profile on, nor should they. Simply making it a banned word will prevent any negative situations that may occur. However that doesn't cover everything.... what about "Lesbian" or "homosexual" people love to be twisty and make use of loopholes in this community while I feel homosexual should not be a banned word, I can completely see someone saying "you're a homosexual" with homophobic intentions. So it is a sticky situation regardless. While I completely would be in support of staff having a more watchful eye before turning directly to "/kick homophobia is not allowed here" when I am speaking of my own sexuality. And I know it is possible too considering the staff policy on how they must agree and back each other up regardless their own opinions. But it's too much to ask and will lead to more trouble than it is worth internally higher up... Best to just not say it or use it on the servers to avoid it, be more non-descriptive and use homosexual as it is a broad term that tends to have less of a negative connotation associated with it, you will likely get into less arguments with it.

[roastnewt]

To be honest, nickeox, it's probably inappropriate to discuss your sexuality in the public chat of a game that appeals to children.  Whether you're gay or not.

[Aypop]

So, I logged on creative today and someone said something to the effect of the following (paraphrasing):

"xx is cheating on his husband"

I replied to this with the following

"I learned two things from that, xx is cheating and he is gay"

I felt this was a fairly mundane observation, as "his husband" implies a man has a husband and is therefore gay/homosexual.

To clarify for everyone, I am the xx in question. Another player was working on a thematic build on C, and I jokingly suggested that it needed more scandal. The player decided to involve me in a romantic scandal acted out by blocks with skulls on them, and I found it amusing. I gave it an okay in private. My IGN was not used in the portrayal, just my skull. 

 

 

This will never have a hard 'yes/no' answer.

 

And it shouldn't. We shouldn't insulate our rules and moderation policies from the nuances of reality. Zero-tolerance policies in several aspects of our lives (irl and in-game) have been shown not to be equitable, but in a lot of cases just an excuse for staff to claim their hands are clean. I really hope this community doesn't go in this direction in terms of enforcement. 

 

 

Simple solution. Don't discuss sexuality, religion or politics in open chat. If you wish to discuss this, go into PM or into a clanchat.

 

That IS a simple solution. But I've seen plenty of people discuss those topics responsibly without anything offensive.

 

On the other hand, I've hosted the clanchats #religion and #politics on previous revisions with varying success, but no one wants to bring a prolonged discussion to those clanchats for whatever reason. I doubt any of them have surpassed 10 members, which is sad considering a lot of interesting discussions can be had if specialized clanchats are better utilized and advertised. 

 

And what of the "Church of Potato" or "Church of Carrot" or "Church of Sign". Or several thematic builds I've seen on C and P that incorporate a church? Clearly religion is an interesting topic that can be parodied and at the same time be handled with care. Making any arbitrary reference to religion in game or in chat a bannable offense seems too draconian for my tastes. 

[Narissis]

I mean, churches are awesome structures with tons of architectural potential that are great fun to build... just no need to be specific about religions and start debates or flame wars.

[XkinOEC]

To be honest, nickeox, it's probably inappropriate to discuss your sexuality in the public chat of a game that appeals to children.  Whether you're gay or not.

Thank you for your concern Roastnewt, and Slide, but when someone else brings up the conversation to me i'm not going to simply lie because someone else's parents don't monitor their computer use and are homophobic... And at this time, other than the moderator who kicked me, everyone online knew already or was asking towards it already.

 

Also, are you insisting that sexual orientation not something that children should have exposure to? That's a very close minded way of thinking... Some children have 2 parents of the same sex, should they not be aware that this is a homosexual relationship? should children be prevented from having such knowledge that there is something other than heterosexual relationships? This is precisely the problem with society as a whole rather than our server. Pardon that I am going off-topic here(church discussion is no more on topic though), but you do realize that lacking to acknowledge that there are other sexuality is precisely why "faggot" and "gay" continue to be terms thrown around offensively. When I was playing COD:MW2 several years back, I heard more than a few people attempt to justify their homophobic behavior with reasons of "homos don't exist so no one cares" and "fags don't play video games" these kids were roughly between the age of 6-14. Simply because they seem to be unaware that there are homosexuals at their ages, they think it's alright to be homophobic. Not only that, but looking on the psychological side of someone who may be closeted or yet to know their own sexuality will have this worldly implied idea that being "straight" is the only way to be Boys can only like Girls, and Girls can only like Boys. It's this social construct and negativity towards homosexuals that leads to so many younger homosexuals feeling miserable about themselves and potentially even committing suicide. Some people aren't strong enough to work past constant teasing, harassment, and physical abuse. For some it is too late, but the next generation could be different, we are entirely capable of ending homophobia online and make the homosexual children of the next generation equally as comfortable with living their lives as any straight male or female but not with ideals like:

 

 it's probably inappropriate to discuss your sexuality in the public chat of a game that appeals to children. 

I would appreciate if you remember that.

 

 

Again my apologies for going off topic.

[Magnyus]

I was going to mention it earlier but I couldn't really think of a way to say it, but with Nick's post it's easier to. He does bring up a good point, and I feel that we actually can have a say in the matter but the way things are right now it makes it really difficult to do so. Obviously, it isn't a good idea to talk about touchy topics such as religion or sexual orientation in public chat, but it is a basic right of free speech, and people are allowed to talk about it. That being said, if the topic offends someone or makes them uncomfortable, we have the means to avoid the conversation, said player could easily /ignore the ones engaging in conversation or kindly request that it be moved to clanchat, and if it ceases to stop they can grab a moderator.

 

I would to think that the majority of players here are mature enough not to take offense when something as simple as the word "gay" pops up on their screen. (even though everyone gasps like kids in a school yard whenever someone says it in chat or on mumble, but that's because it usually means someone's in trouble) Skrapssparks, mentioned in another thread that the one of the ideas behind nerd was a server for older players so that they wouldn't have to worry about swearing in a kids game. But nowadays we tend to cater towards the children that play on here, if kids do play on here and we're allowed to cuss just about as much as we want, then we're already messing them up and any exposure to topics like sexual orientation would be no different than observing a group of players talking like sailors. If we really want to keep that to a minimum then tell players that this isn't really a server for kids and they need to be aware of what they might hear. And yes, Minecraft is a kids game, but we can't use that excuse anymore because we're expanding into other games, some of which are geared toward more mature audiences.

[twilexis]

And what of the "Church of Potato" or "Church of Carrot" or "Church of Sign". Or several thematic builds I've seen on C and P that incorporate a church? Clearly religion is an interesting topic that can be parodied and at the same time be handled with care. Making any arbitrary reference to religion in game or in chat a bannable offense seems too draconian for my tastes. 

 

There's a significant difference between discussing architecture and discussing religion.

[XkinOEC]

When the topic of reducing the overly wordy rules was brought up once in private I spoke of making a blanketing rule that also included swearing. and one of our Head Administrators, asked where that even came from as they had no intention of ever restricting the use of swearing on the servers, so I agree with Magnyus here, that for sure cannot be the fight we are having... If we are teaching these "children" words such as "ass, bitch, bastard, cunt, fuck, shit" or other similar words, surely me answering the question "so do you have a boyfriend then?"  with my response of "yes, I am gay." should be of far less of a concern to anyone about 'protecting the children' from my inappropriate discussion.

[tobylane]

It's never been about protecting the children, it's a topic almost never wanted by the subject. I guess the informal rule is something like 'Chat on this area about a specific person, by name or inference, is only permitted with their permission'. You could still get some immature player saying "Oh but we were talking about Luke Perry in Family Guy", but that's true for nearly every rule.

 

The cheating and the husband parts, regardless of the pronoun, sound like doxxing. Would anyone have complained if the ban reason was doxxing?

[Magnyus]

The cheating and the husband parts, regardless of the pronoun, sound like doxxing. Would anyone have complained if the ban reason was doxxing?

No one was banned, the conversation on question and the ruckus that followed is why we're having this conversation. Read Aypop's post, he explains it, since it was referring to him.

And once again, you're focusing on a minute detail that is staying away from the point I was trying to make.

[Narissis]

I think we could stand to dial back the sensitivity on the homophobia rule a little. Generally it's not too hard to determine if someone's actually using the terms in a negative fashion, and it's not right to kick someone for mentioning their sexuality in a mature way.

 

Kicking gay people because they mention being gay is, as described by the OP of this thread, a complete contravention of the spirit of the rule.

 

It's one thing if a player expresses discomfort at the topic of conversation and asks for it to be taken to private channels and it continues anyway. But it's quite another for Somebody to be immediately kicked just for identifying as gay simply because they used the word.

[slide]

Being the staff member on during the incident that spawned this thread I'd like to state a few things for the record.

 

The conversation in question did not start off innocently, instead it started with 2 trolls trying to rile people up, one quote for reference "Is this whole server gay? lol" followed by a few more references as well. After warning that it was not appropriate I asked all the parties to take their discussions to a clanchat which they refused. They then proceeded to attempt to argue over what usage of gay is appropriate. After about 10 warnings for discussing it I believe I kicked 2 people and muted 1 person 2 times. At no point did I "kick a gay person for mentioning they were gay" and find it quite insulting that anyone would paint that picture of nerd or its staff. The current rule is simply that we do not allow that chat in global and all participants of that incident were well aware (one having been banned for it previously and then proceeded to evade said ban)

 

Now, on to discuss the merits of this rule. Whose judgement shall we use on what usage of the word (or other words) is allowable? If the person says their intent is pure but others are offended, we just have to let them say it because? Can only gay people use the word to describe themselves or others? What happens when a straight person refers to someone as gay? How are we supposed to know the intents of every utterance. Sure, we can *try* to gather from the conversation, but then that leads to staff subjectivity which I know a few of the people in this thread have been trying to remove. We don't have a 100% outright ban on the word. We usually warn first and attempt to move the topic to a private chat or clanchat and usually only then kick/ban if they persist. Have staff been over zealous in the past? Absolutely! I myself have, but we are only human. I tend to find that allowing leniency on words that are capable a very strong emotions can lead to trolls taking advantage of it. Take for instance this thread in which there have been a few "tongue in cheek" references to the n word. No they didn't say the word, or specifically mean anything negative towards it but their intentions aren't the problem. That word still carries a lot of baggage in this world.

[Difficult1]

There's a significant difference between discussing architecture and discussing religion.

Religion as in real religions, or fake ones made for fun (non spam chat ones)

 

If someone wants to make a cathedral and put a holy melon in it, let them as long as its just pure satire and as long as it doesn't go to far.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Difficult1

[EeHee2000]

There's a significant difference between discussing architecture and discussing religion.

Irrelevant, churches are a cross between the two, not one or the other. There's no need for correction here, I'm certain you know what he was getting at. 

 

Now, on to discuss the merits of this rule. Whose judgement shall we use on what usage of the word (or other words) is allowable? If the person says their intent is pure but others are offended, we just have to let them say it because? Can only gay people use the word to describe themselves or others? What happens when a straight person refers to someone as gay? How are we supposed to know the intents of every utterance. Sure, we can *try* to gather from the conversation, but then that leads to staff subjectivity which I know a few of the people in this thread have been trying to remove. 

There really isn't a strict guideline that can be used to determine what judgement should be used, as you cannot determine a players intentions; only their actions. 

I think the current way we handle the matter is fine, but we need to dial it back a few notches on how we react when 'gay' is mentioned, because the main problem people appear to be having with it is that it's being enforced too strictly, to the point where it only serves to complicate matters rather than resolve them. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by EeHee2000