I am amazed, simply amazed at the depths of histrionics that some people will descend to, all over their adamant and unyielding desire to utter hate speech without consequences.

In the past, AF simply banned posters who got too interested in spamming threads with their racist drivel. I can even dig up the old Hall of Shame if you'd like. If anything between then and now, we've biased towards overly permissive. Now we're asking for a formal stop to some sheer assholery. We're perfectly capable of telling the difference between discussing a slur and simply using it, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone.

(April 23, 2019 at 3:14 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I am amazed, simply amazed at the depths of histrionics that some people will descend to, all over their adamant and unyielding desire to utter hate speech without consequences.

In the past, AF simply banned posters who got too interested in spamming threads with their racist drivel. I can even dig up the old Hall of Shame if you'd like. If anything between then and now, we've biased towards overly permissive. Now we're asking for a formal stop to some sheer assholery. We're perfectly capable of telling the difference between discussing a slur and simply using it, so this shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone.

That is not what this rule is about.
"racist spam" is already covered by other rules, like the spamming, flaming, trolling, and the Prime Directive.

This rule specifically prohibits any and all slurs, whatever those things are. Not spamming, not a "desire to utter hate speech". Just particular words from within the English language.

This rule could potentially lead to my banning, even though, if I do run afoul, it will never be with the intent inherent in what you guys consider to be slurs.
As such, in order for me to be able to avoid that, it would be good to know exactly what it is that the staff would consider slurs, which precise words.Two examples were given, but 4 categories - this suggests that there are many such words.

Racist/Sexist/... terms were implicitly grouped under spamming, flaming, trolling, PD, etc,. Now it's explicitly spelt out in general terms. As to the "lead to my banning" part, no, you would not be immediately banned for that alone. Warnings, bans are handled under the same rubric. This is no different. If you're curious as to why the rule is explicitly general, it's to deal with the bad faith language lawyer-ing.

(April 23, 2019 at 3:54 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Racist/Sexist/... terms were implicitly grouped under spamming, flaming, trolling, PD, etc,. Now it's explicitly spelt out in general terms. As to the "lead to my banning" part, no, you would not be immediately banned for that alone. Warnings, bans are handled under the same rubric. This is no different.

Maybe I'd be warned, because people know I'm not one to be throwing insults around.
But some others wouldn't. I'll give it half a year until someone is permabanned without a warning for this sort of thing.

We've seen some spectacularly terrible violations of rules on AF in the past to warrant immediate banning, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet managed to summon up a unique howler for this particular rule. Those are fairly rare.

(April 23, 2019 at 2:46 am)robvalue Wrote: I’m going to have to return for one post only, one final time,

I don't believe you.

I'd seriously like to know which thread/s prompted this rule. From my perspective the other rules already covered this, and if I remember correctly, the ban hammer has descended several times in the past due to overtly assholic behavior, so I don't get the need for this. Even if there has to be a rule like this I believe it should be for cases when the slurs were used with the intent of attacking or hurting someone.

I agree with the motivation, but not the action. This leaves the rational PC line in the rearview. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LG...ated_slurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_slurs

(April 22, 2019 at 11:49 pm)Losty Wrote: A personal thank you from me to the assholes who made this necessary.

You're welcome (don't know if I'm responsible, but I always assume anything referencing 'assholes' includes me).

Boru

Alright, I should make one qualification to explain myself.

If you were to say personal attacks aren’t allowed anymore, I’d say fine. But that’s not what’s happening. You’re allowed to do personal attacks, but only using certain words. That’s what I find ridiculous. And it seems you can’t even say those words when it’s not being used to attack anyone. The word itself is just "offensive", to someone, somehow. Honestly it's extremely patronising to anyone to tell them what they would find offensive on their behalf.

All you’re really doing is giving these words more power. "Offensive" is subjective. Now, I found it pretty offensive to have been burnt as a witch over a couple of posts and for mentioning a person not on the Approved Reading List™, resulting in even a staff member implying I’m now a brain dead disciple of some evil ideology. I found that all extremely offensive and I lost a lot of sleep over it. What’s the solution? Remove myself from the forum. Don’t interact with people like that anymore. Accept that the offence is ultimately mine, and that as long as people aren’t following me around harassing me, I don’t need to have any action taken. I just ignore it. I don’t want their speech censored.

Is calling someone a peanut puncher or whatever really more offensive than that? Is merely using that phrase more offensive? That is just stupid. Individual words are not magic. It’s the intended meaning that is important.