(Mar 21, 2019, 09:33 PM)Judge Rage Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 21, 2019, 08:38 PM)Stell90 Wrote: [ -> ]And yes the rule wasn't discussed with the community beforehand as you don't need to cough up the funding to pay for the legal dispute if one does happen, which granted is unlikely but could still happen. So, as a result, the rule was introduced to stop us from having to do so.
Sometimes, a company needs to take actions to protect its self before speaking to the people who use the platform just so that we don't have to remove the platform as we are unable to continue to fund it due to a legal dispute costing the company thousands.
Except that any legal dispute literally wouldn't be LL's problem because LL themselves don't take responsibility for what people say on their platform. UGHHHHHHHHHHH READ MY EARLIER REPLIES
I'm not a lawyer nor do I wish to be, I'd rather LL took the side of caution rather than be done for this as another community has been done for. This rule change myself doesn't affect me and I believe it won't affect 99% of the people in this community as I have hardly ever heard racial slurs being said and even if they have been they were without any prior RP.
As said by Faustie, no one in the team is a lawyer and we'd rather be on the side of caution than be sued thousands in which the company cannot afford to be paying and to keep running the server. Again, I don't know this but by looking at the number of donations made and then putting costs of a legal dispute and the costs of running the server on top won't be anywhere near the amount the server is pulling in to remain running.
Again, another disclaimer this is totally my feeling and not the feelings of the team, this is what I personally think and don't start going against the team due to how I've interpreted the situation at hand.
Some say pictures say a million words, thus in all seriousness, I recommend you take Growacet.
I personally don't care one way or another, however some people do enjoy being a little racist to compliment their character. It also stops paperwork regarding "he/she said" type junk that would occur and end up with bans for saying a word. You're in game, if you don't want to hear it, move on, or take actions IN CHARACTER. If you get offended by a word, then, in all honesty, you're going to have some issues in life. The whole point of RP is the limitless capabilities that you can potentially run into, just like life. Just because you don't agree with someones RP, doesn't make it right or wrong. There will always be misinformed people, some just want to be that antagonist.
![[Image: 9d4401193683823dd11b44226307b0a0.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/9d4401193683823dd11b44226307b0a0.png)
(Mar 21, 2019, 11:04 PM)Gungranny Wrote: [ -> ]
That was actually in the original rule. Excessive use of discriminatory or racist actions IC was not allowed to begin with
I am aware, what I don't get is why we didn't go back to something like that instead of an outright ban.
(Mar 21, 2019, 11:01 PM)bismo Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 21, 2019, 10:33 PM)Jeff Ford Wrote: [ -> ]Some may think that Monty is exaggerating his "Buzzfeed comes on, hears a racial slur, and says all GMod servers are racist" but, nothing is a reality until it actually happens.
you can say that about literally anything. its real cute you guys think limelights so important, but buzzfeed aint hoppin on any time soon. its kinda hilarious that people think that could be a reality.
Yup reality... Hilarious.
I think the discussions about extreme left journalism are a tad far-fetched; that wasn't even considered when the rule was made and I doubt it'll ever be an issue. I may be wrong, but it seems very unlikely. Bar the occasional witch-hunt, most people are pretty good now at filtering out rambling nonsense.
's perspective of the issue is much more accurate: if we're overtly saying racism is fine and someone closely linked to us claims harassment, it could be a nasty kick in the leg for us when defending from that. It's not just about whether something is explicitly legal or illegal; even if we're in the right, it still costs significant time, money, and stress to defend that position.
Lawsuits can get confusing, and in the absence of professional legal advice - with which we can state we received professional advice saying a stance was OK - it is far better to err on the side of caution. It's true that there are people in this thread stating legal facts that may well be very correct, but we would be colossal idiots to take some guy on the internet's advice as professional advice. - I appreciate the advice and you make good points that are likely accurate, but you're also not our lawyer.
Jono also makes a very valid point that other social networks and games can regularly follow similar policies: generally free speech is allowed but significant filters and banning mechanisms are still usually in place, even with their massive legal teams. Most platforms also don't have to deal with an IC/OOC differentiation which can occasionally add confusion.
His idea of admin notes on players is also a good one. Current systems could be extended so that sensitive RP could be allowed on a much better case-by-case basis with long-term permissions as opposed to a player having to ask every single time. I think that would be a sensible compromise that allows genuine good IC roleplay to occur with the minimum restrictions possible. Some players might see it as unfair, but the quality of roleplay differs massively anyway so that's unavoidable. We will seriously consider implementing this and I'll ask the admins what they think.
's idea of adding "excessive" to the rule could work but I think that only shifts the problem of where to draw the line from IC/OOC to excessive/acceptable. There would have to be significant clarification. This is possible, however and will again be discussed.
Someone in the staff team mentioned that there seem to be two streams of criticism: genuine concerns about freedom of roleplay and that any implementation of this rule could be too subjective; and people who've been wanting to say racial slurs or troll. The former absolutely presents very valid points of discussion and we're taking these seriously and exploring potential compromises (all of which are dotted around this post). The latter is just hindering the constructive discussion of the former group and seems to be dramatically reducing any sympathy in the related staff thread. I'd suggest that if you do genuinely care about modifying this rule to allow greater roleplay freedom and minimise subjective rule moderation, to let the former group take the lead on this.
This is further reflected by the related poll in the staff thread (sorry HR for minor leaks, but I think transparency is more important here). Mods/admins are being asked to vote on how they currently perceive discriminatory RP in-game so that we can find the most suitable compromise. They were asked if RP was well-developed with strong genuinely in character roleplay; or 50/50 good roleplay and no roleplay/veiled OOC racism mix; or mostly no good justification for the RP and used as an excuse for racism or RDM. There have been no votes for the former option; the majority go in the middle; and there are some on the last option. With this in mind it's clear that staff on average think that there is scope for well-developed discriminatory RP as part of good character development and roleplay; but that it is very borderline and 50% to the majority is not.
On the basis of that result and the previously mentioned issues highlighted by Jono and in this thread, the rule won't be removed. However, compromise will be found if discussion remains good and we'll likely incorporate Jono's, Project's, and 's ideas. To summarise those:
- Jono's idea: Expand admin notes so that individual players can be granted either short- or long-term roleplay freedom for that which requires admin permission. This would require that discriminatory RP still requires admin permission under rule so that it is only used for well-developed in character roleplay.
- Project's idea: Add "excessive" or similar to the rule. This does add another grey zone, but with some clarification and in conjunction with Jono's idea could work to further limit RP to the acceptable kind.
- Nev's idea: Add a word filter. This would filter all discriminatory slurs OOC and everywhere except IC chat. Further possible compromises to this could include having it be age-based: players on server would have it enabled as standard unless they have a linked forum account stating they're over 18 and choose to disable it, granting players the choice and still limiting some risk of minors being exposed to slurs etc. We'd have to check GDPR to see if this would be possible.
Depending on staff votes and your further feedback, the end compromise may be something like a rule allowing discriminatory RP with admin permission (and extended admin notes so this can be applied long-term or even permanently for good roleplayers) which would allow good roleplay freedom. But a filter may be in-place and clarification and bans on excessive RP in the rules to prevent this from ever getting out of hand. The filter may or may not apply to everyone and may or may not apply to those with permission. It's likely that slurs will still be banned as their contribution to good roleplay is minimal - if you need slurs to RP a racist character, you're probably not that creative with RP.
I'll put these ideas in the staff thread. Please keep the constructive discussion going if you'd like to have you say on this at all.
Would fantasy forms of racism be affected? Say I open up a store that sells animatronic servants, that are sentient, and people start discriminating against them. This is technically "otherwise discriminatory" even if it isn't racist. The wording needs to be changed there ideally.
(Mar 22, 2019, 10:12 AM)Montyfatcat Wrote: [ -> ]Would fantasy forms of racism be affected? Say I open up a store that sells animatronic servants, that are sentient, and people start discriminating against them. This is technically "otherwise discriminatory" even if it isn't racist. The wording needs to be changed there ideally.
This is a really good point. I can't imagine any admin applying this rule to, for example, sentient robot servers servents as there's a ton of fantastic, non-harmful roleplay opportunity there.
An admin suggested revising the rule to add "against protected classes" which would remove this risk. It would require clarification though of those classes. Adding a phrase referencing "real" might help too.
(Mar 21, 2019, 02:33 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Except with this rule, even if it is a high quality RP, you can still get banned for it. The rule makes no distinction between a 'casual racist remark' made as part of a developed character and excessive, non-relevant racism/discrimination that 'blurs the lines'. I could be RPing as an RC bishop and refuse to ordain women, and be perm'd for '1.6, sexism is bad'.
There is no distinction between the two, and it is far too risky to 'leave it up to the admins'.
I think you misunderstood me - I wholeheartedly agree with that. I was saying that the groups dedicated to racism offered little to no RP value and should be banned and that the rule should be amended to allow it as a part of your character. I probably should have made that clearer lol
(Mar 22, 2019, 04:41 PM)goigle Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 21, 2019, 02:33 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]Except with this rule, even if it is a high quality RP, you can still get banned for it. The rule makes no distinction between a 'casual racist remark' made as part of a developed character and excessive, non-relevant racism/discrimination that 'blurs the lines'. I could be RPing as an RC bishop and refuse to ordain women, and be perm'd for '1.6, sexism is bad'.
There is no distinction between the two, and it is far too risky to 'leave it up to the admins'.
I think you misunderstood me - I wholeheartedly agree with that. I was saying that the groups dedicated to racism offered little to no RP value and should be banned and that the rule should be amended to allow it as a part of your character. I probably should have made that clearer lol
I’d agree to that. Maybe as a note on FailRP or under the rule
racism shouldn't be done at all, doesn't matter just don't do it u fucking racists.
(Mar 22, 2019, 10:00 PM)Tom_ Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 22, 2019, 09:44 PM)richie Wrote: [ -> ]racism shouldn't be done at all, doesn't matter just don't do it u fucking racists.
Rascisim is not a choice
it is, and it's disrespectful if you do it. just snobby people who do it who think they're better than other races. all are equal
(Mar 22, 2019, 10:12 PM)richie Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 22, 2019, 10:00 PM)Tom_ Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 22, 2019, 09:44 PM)richie Wrote: [ -> ]racism shouldn't be done at all, doesn't matter just don't do it u fucking racists.
Rascisim is not a choice
it is, and it's disrespectful if you do it. just snobby people who do it who think they're better than other races. all are equal
What if they have a reason to be racist
(Mar 22, 2019, 10:12 PM)richie Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 22, 2019, 10:00 PM)Tom_ Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 22, 2019, 09:44 PM)richie Wrote: [ -> ]racism shouldn't be done at all, doesn't matter just don't do it u fucking racists.
Rascisim is not a choice
it is, and it's disrespectful if you do it. just snobby people who do it who think they're better than other races. all are equal
That's not the point lmao. The point is a character development one - racism happens irl so why should it be barred on a real-life RP server?
![[Image: uG1upWp.png]](https://i.imgur.com/uG1upWp.png)