+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-102.html)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Important Rule Change (/thread-13280.html)
Pages:
1
2
Important Rule Change - Admin - 11-11-2017
Hello all,
We are bringing forth what we understand will be an incredibly controversial update to our rules. We currently have in place an anti-harassment policy that is only as clear as "Do not badmouth other players or engage in excessive swearing". We know that many prominent users have construed the meaning of certain racial slurs to become jokes and ultimately, jokes with no sentiment behind the statement.
Why?
We want to create an open and inviting atmosphere where anyone interested in computational design and logic can join, partake, and further their skill set in this field. When new individuals see the discussions and often appalling language used, the community comes across as revolting and generally uninviting. With an atmosphere of inviting discussion, the community as a whole becomes much more respectable in the eyes of others.
We also hope this rule will help steer the community back to what it was often like when it was first conceived. At that point, many offensive conversations were stopped and individuals received punishment based upon the severity of the incident. The intention with this new addition is to help get back to that state of retaining polite conversation because when those who are visiting the community see these sort of discussions, they are almost always immediately repulsed.
Simply put: we want individuals to join the community without worry of being the recipient of demeaning insults based upon uncontrollable circumstances. The Staff team is simply not proud of representing a community that allows this behavior.
What's new?
We want to append the anti-harassment rule with the following:
Please do not harass people with racist, sexist, antisemitic, or otherwise derogatory remarks towards a specific group of people.
We understand the controversial nature of this anti-discrimination addition, so we will allow a grace period of two weeks (November 25th) until this rule is fully enforced. This new addition can essentially be deduced from the original anti-harassment policy of "do not badmouth other players" and the "be kind to others" rule. Also, this is not an anti-swear policy. Swearing is just as fine now as it was before.
However, do not forget that our current rule of "Maintain polite conversation" still exists, and if any one individual abuses this grace period with redundantly insensitive remarks, they can still be receive punishment like normal according to this rule. Depending upon the severity, either a warning kick or an indefinite ban will be applied.
Common Questions
Where does this apply?
Everywhere. The game servers, the forum, and the Discord will no longer tolerate this sort of conversation once the grace period is up.
If I previously did something against this policy, am I currently held accountable?
No. This is a new rule and will only be enforced once the grace period is up.
What if I see others partake in this discrimination?
Simply report the incident in Incident Reports.
*Do NOT abuse incident reports. Any abuser of incident reports and any sign of trolling from the poster will be immediately disregarded and promptly be reprimanded.
Discussion
As mentioned, we understand the controversial nature of this change. We invite conversation here regarding such change and the Staff team will answer to your concerns.
RE: Important Rule Change - Matthew - 11-11-2017
me alone following this makes the community look 80% better and 100% less retarded lol.
RE: Important Rule Change - crazypurrfect - 11-11-2017
You forgot to close it!
RE: Important Rule Change - Admin - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 09:16 PM)crazypurrfect Wrote: You forgot to close it!
(11-11-2017, 09:00 PM)Admin Wrote: Discussion
As mentioned, we understand the controversial nature of this change. We invite conversation here regarding such change and the Staff team will answer to your concerns.
RE: Important Rule Change - Digitalis - 11-11-2017
This rule either seems pointless or indicative of a shift in ORE's rule system which appears to go against the previously highly held value of free speech.
In the former case, it's just a clarification of an existing rule which was cited at the top of the post. If this is the intention, then I have no real problems with it, although it does widen the grey area which ORE operates on.
In the latter case, I would like to know what provoked this decision and who exactly was making purposefully derogatory statements. The way ORE has always worked (at least during my stay on the server) is that the rules act more as guidelines for the admins to judge if an event is ban-worthy. If this is no longer the case, then this rule seems to act as a more stealthy way of introducing a harsher moderation upon ORE's chat, which I find to be unnecessary; if being inclusive was part of the goal at any point in the past, why was this rule not introduced during one of the times it was actually needed, for example back when Maze and Sadie were the subject of a lot of drama?
TL;DR:
-Why? What provoked this?
-Are the ways the rules are enforced changed?
RE: Important Rule Change - LambdaPI - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 09:00 PM)Admin Wrote: if any one individual abuses this grace period with redundantly insensitive remarks, they can still be receive punishment like normal according to this rule. Depending upon the severity, either a warning kick or an indefinite ban will be applied.
Important part which wasn't bolded.
RE: Important Rule Change - LambdaPI - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 10:01 PM)Digitalis Wrote: This rule either seems pointless or indicative of a shift in ORE's rule system which appears to go against the previously highly held value of free speech.
In the former case, it's just a clarification of an existing rule which was cited at the top of the post. If this is the intention, then I have no real problems with it, although it does widen the grey area which ORE operates on.
In the latter case, I would like to know what provoked this decision and who exactly was making purposefully derogatory statements. The way ORE has always worked (at least during my stay on the server) is that the rules act more as guidelines for the admins to judge if an event is ban-worthy. If this is no longer the case, then this rule seems to act as a more stealthy way of introducing a harsher moderation upon ORE's chat, which I find to be unnecessary; if being inclusive was part of the goal at any point in the past, why was this rule not introduced during one of the times it was actually needed, for example back when Maze and Sadie were the subject of a lot of drama?
TL;DR:
-Why? What provoked this?
-Are the ways the rules are enforced changed?
1. There were many cases of people just plainly saying words which are hateful to particular groups. And not just once, but many times in a row.
2. IN my opinion only bad cases ( Unnecessary spam ) will be punished severely. Otherwise the old system stands.
For example saying the n word multple times in a row will probably result in a kick or a small temporary ban. (15 minutes?)
Basically this was implemented because of certain over the top cases.
RE: Important Rule Change - Digitalis - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 10:07 PM)LambdaPI Wrote:(11-11-2017, 10:01 PM)Digitalis Wrote: -snip-
1. There were many cases of people just plainly saying words which are hateful to particular groups. And not just once, but many times in a row.
2. IN my opinion only bad cases ( the stuff above ) will be punished severely. Otherwise the old system stands.
I understand that there were "many cases", but then why was such a rule not proposed during the time that one of those cases were happening? Rather than "why" as in "what does the rule solve", I mean "why" more as in "what provoked this to be done NOW"?
RE: Important Rule Change - LambdaPI - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 10:09 PM)Digitalis Wrote: I understand that there were "many cases", but then why was such a rule not proposed during the time that one of those cases were happening? Rather than "why" as in "what does the rule solve", I mean "why" more as in "what provoked this to be done NOW"?
I think the staff were just a tad late on their reaction. There may be another reason I am not aware of.
RE: Important Rule Change - Nickster258 - 11-11-2017
(11-11-2017, 10:09 PM)Digitalis Wrote: I understand that there were "many cases", but then why was such a rule not proposed during the time that one of those cases were happening? Rather than "why" as in "what does the rule solve", I mean "why" more as in "what provoked this to be done NOW"?
This has been a thought amongst the staff for a while honestly. We have often considered adding this one rule change. That being said, we made sure not only all current staff were familiar but also made sure many other post-staff understood why we want such change. This is merely the result of a rather long private discussion regarding this issue.