Inconsistency and banning people over petty things wasting time on real issues

what about the different variations? as a black man, i call my best friends ""
i think context should matter; if it is used to hurt, right?

 

it is either you allow all the mean words to be used or you don't allow any of them, this is what i think should be enforced, no mean words are meaner then the others, the fact that you're censoring the N word to be used is just proving to the point that you're racist in a sense too.

how so? how is the N word more offensive to the word 'Fuck', both of them are crude words, but why do you only censor the N word? are you guilty of something

 

there is a difference between calling someone a "silly willy" and "FUCKING N GO BACK TO *racist stereotypes"

insulting someone based on their actions is way different than based on their race, gender, religion etc.

 

it depends on the context.
Like he said he talk to his friends like this, it's not like he's insulting them, it's the way they chat.
Me and my friends always call each other G.. B..ch W...re N... MF ... It's just how friends are mostly.
The point is the context.
The way the gms work about this issue in particular looks like we're sitting inside a church.

 

everything dpeneds on context, banning without knowing the context is ridiculous

 

An entire race people haven't been enslaved, oppressed, "freed", then reinslaved under the table, then left the struggle till enough people realized "shit this is bad", by the word fuck. Now I know the word itself didn't do the deed but it's history is intimately tied to it.

You can't just lump all "bad" words together. All racial, homophobic, and ethnic slurs are banned here, it's not that just the N word is being singled out. Not to mention, the very definition of swearing is gradient. That's why you can say fuck in PG13 movies and not in G movies.

Lastly, you can say N word in buddy or guild chat because there, people can unfriend you or kick you from the guild if they don't like it. In all chat, people can't turn you off.

 

I've actually brought up the exact idea of contextualizing offensive words a long time ago and suggested a graduated banning system that aligned with the severity in which offensive words were used (IE: 1-day warning bans for harmless uses but 7-day bans for abusive uses).

This was the official staff response by Michael at the time:

Which is totally fair. In an idealistic server where we have all the GMs we could ever need, along with an incredibly clear and efficient system in which each GM could consistently use to evaluate the context of each verbal abuse situation, we could and would consider the context to deliver judgment. Unfortunately that's not the case in this server (or any server, really). So we make do with what we can.

And to reiterate what Evan said, keep in mind that this rule only applies to public chat. If this really is the way you prefer to communicate with your friends, you are more than free to do so via whisper, buddy chat, and guild chat.

 

@iEatEmoKids quoted this part by you which I missed and I feel should be... discussed.

I'd love to know your (@shanglelxd ) reasoning behind that thought process though. I've heard everything from "It's a cultural word and censoring it means you're censoring a culture" to "You're white so you feel guilty because of what your ancestors did". Not wanting to hear racial slurs in the community doesn't make people racist, no more than not wanting to hear especially abrasive words aimed at women makes someone sexist (I think you can all figure out which one I'm talking about) or homophobic slurs makes someone hate gay people. The issue of censorship is when institutions want to "censor" the history. When schools want to either remove the words from text or stop including a book in their curriculum (To Kill A Mockingbird anyone?), they remove the ability to teach the history surrounding the word, it's meaning, and what was happening when that word was used in common language. Granted, this is mostly a US issue, but the words meaning has spread across all english speaking countries (and most non-english).

The staff are not removing people who say the word from the game indefinitely (at least not on the first offense), and we don't sugar coat why a ban was handed out. We don't come up with faulty reasons why, we won't lie. You broke a rule, you said a hateful word and you are banned for it per the ToS, and that's because the server does not want that sort of aggressive language in places where people who may or may not want to hear it will be exposed to it. Again, you are free to say pretty much anything you want in buddy and guild chat because those people willfully engage in conversation with you. It's essentially the same as texting your friend at school vs. saying a slur out loud in front of little kids or teachers.

The goal of the server is to create a friendly place where people can come together and enjoy a game that most (if not all) have a nostalgic itch to play. This isn't the place for that sort of language and that's why the staff takes the time to monitor such language. The whole point is we aknowledge the hate behind the word and that's why it's not allowed to be said in all chat. That's not censorship, that's just common courtesy as there is a time and place for everything, and this isn't it.

 

Well, technically, you can call someone a kike over smega and not be disciplined in any way for it. But, the forbidding of slurs is an ideal that's generally worked towards on Royals.

 

In that situation (which I'm sure you're referring to), he was Smega-ing a friend, it's a very common way to spell the shorthand name in South American countries. This was aided by the fact that the whole smega (if I remember right) was in Spanish and the players name was known. Needless to say it's not black and white always, but the "context" people talk about in bans with the N word are... "it's just a word, I didn't mean it in a bad way" where as in the situation you're talking about the context is "It's his name".

If that makes sense.

 

Next time just say fuck instead lo.

 

It's his nickname, not his name per se. The n word is also a nickname, for an alarmingly large number of people. They are exactly equivalent, in this context or any other.

The staff may tolerate rhetorical cancers like anti-Semitism, misogyny, transphobia, and Islamophobia by turns, but I'll be here to call you on it.

 

Yes Evan, it is their name, but think about the massive gray area being introduced here. Just because somebody’s name has a racial slur in it, doesn’t mean they or anybody else should be allowed to smega the particular word to an audience where a huge chunk of people may take offense to it. It takes a lot of effort to go to each person that felt offense and explain to them the context behind the smega - whereas if it’s handled with a break from playing then hopefully less of these words will be seen in public chat. Just my two cents.

 

I don't think that's fair. There's a clear difference, the cultural use of of the nickname is on par with "Dima" for Dmitri in Russia, it just happens to share a bad word elsewhere. It's not "tolerating rhetoric", that would be us showing preferential treatment for one group, and I adamantly disagree that is what is being done here.

What you guys want is a "black and white" answer, and there isn't one. You couldn't tell a teacher in school that your nickname is the N word, however it is VERY common for people with the name Enrique to have Kike as a nickname, and in many cases it's spelled a multitude of ways. What I can tell you, this was discussed with the staff, it wasn't a "oh whatever" moment, and it sure as hell wasn't "Well we like group X and not group Y so we want this word to be banned and this one to not be", so I don't appreciate the insinuation that the staff is preferentially picking groups to focus on or conversely others to let people slide on certain uses.

If someone just smega'd that single word, rather than directly attaching it to a guys name, it would have been a different story. I don't really know what else you want me to say.

I'd also like to point out, it's not a nickname that someone picks (example my brothers friend "Crash". This is a nickname like my other example, and similar to things like Richard and Dick, James and Jimmy)

 

I think the main issue is clear, that the Admins feel like there is more meaning behind derogatory terms of Negro and it has more negative impact than some other word which is deemed rude in today's culture as it contains """""""history"""""""".

Let me first invalidate your point Evan, firstly, if you look throughout history slavery, corruption and power has always been a part of every single culture it doesn't matter if you're black, white, yellow, brown, green or blue, it's human nature and every """"""""culture""""""""" has been through the phase of oppression, slavery and unfairness, not just against other different phenotypes of human beings but against their own """"""kind"""""" too. So in effect you, yourself are choosing for the word "" to have meaning because from your perspective you believe it makes up the bigger proportion in the gestalt of offensive terms.

This is where I believe shanglel is correct, to elaborate on the way I interpret this (I'm sure most people feel like this too) is that censoring and deeming a word so "offensive" that it constitutes a ban is taking 10 steps towards the stone age of an uncivil and ignorant society, the process of being victimized and persecuted by such a word entails the axiom that Negro's were victims to begin with and "they" deserve our sympathy, does this not seem ironic? (Cyclic self accepting victimization and generalized approval by the masses).

The real question is why can't we grow a pair of balls (inb4 sexism) and move forward? For god sake were in 2017 and people are getting upset about some mean words being used over the internet on a 2d Chinese side scrolling video game.

The thing is, believe it or not, people will actually behave like animals if you treat them like animals, confine them to a cage and tell them what they can and can't do and they'll do the opposite and worsen the situation for the community, do Admins honestly believe that by enforcing rules it'll clean up the community like Riot games (The point is that Riot has enforced reducing toxicity over the years and has made the situation 10 times worse). Do they have that little faith in humanity that if laws were nullified for 24 hours that civil people would go around committing crime and murder because they won't be prosecuted? Thats the thing, civil people will be civil regardless of the situation, uncivil people will be uncivil regardless of the situation.

In conclusion, the whole ordeal has the premise of a pessimistic attitude about how humans behave and assumes that we're all animals that need to be confined to mental cages, I don't think anythings going to change since John has stated that a single person is dictating the rules whom is subject to their own personal bias of these matters rather than trying to collectively approach it from an objective view to resolve matters.

 

I tried to come up with a detailed and comprehensive response to your post, but I decided that I would prefer simply letting you know instead that you are objectively and categorically incorrect about every single one of your assertions. But then I figured that would be rude, so I changed my mind and decided after all to come up with a detailed and comprehensive response to your post showing why you are objectively and categorically incorrect about every single one of your assertions. Anyways... [insert inhaling seagull meme]

1. You've asserted that "Admins feel like there is more meaning behind derogatory terms." Whether that's true or not, anyone else can assert in turn that you simply feel like there is less meaning behind derogatory terms. You say this is the "main issue" of this discussion, but it's actually just your opinion without any actual substantive reasoning behind it. As such, and so, ergo, therefore, so the audience may be reasonably led to believe, et cetera—this is a moot point.

2. You've asserted that "slavery, corruption, and power has always been a part of every single culture," regardless of race. Um, okay? And so we hold those cultures responsible? Its existence and its prevalence does not justify the fact that these forces are morally wrong. We held Japan accountable for the use of comfort women in Korea during WWII. We held Germany accountable for forced experimentation on concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust. We hold American men accountable when they travel to Southeast Asia to purchase child sex slaves. If anything, your point proves the need for accountability when it comes to the treatment of Africans and African-Americans. Or maybe we can all just heil Hitler at the Reichstag instead and see how that goes.

3. You've asserted that oppression, slavery, and unfairness is part of human culture, and it has been projected upon people who are of "their own kind" as well as those with "different phenotypes." Let's talk about human culture. Many political theorists argue that yes, rules and laws exist as a means of providing a societal barrier to the chaotic nature of "human culture." But that's exactly the point, isn't it? The systems of laws in place currently throughout the world, as well as the systems of accountability that we just discussed in the last point all exist precisely to prevent as well as bring justice to these acts of evil.

4. You've asserted that "civil people will be civil" and "uncivil people will be uncivil regardless of the situation." I don't know how to respond to this other than: literally no???? First of all, when making an absolute claim such as this, you need to be clear with all of your terms, particularly with how you define "civil people" and "uncivil people" in this case. Second of all, I'm sure every single one of us can recount many situations in our lives in which people have deviated from their normal/regular/expected behaviors. Hey that annoying aunt of yours that's drunk and obnoxious at every family gathering? Maybe she was quiet and respectful at her sister's funeral. Hey that chill stoner kid who's usually cool with whatever happens and doesn't bat an eye? He got really mad when a drunk driver rear ended him. Need I come up with more asinine examples? The point is as such: people change. (*audience gasps*)

5. You've asserted that "the process of being victimized and persecuted by such a word entails the axiom that Negro's were victims to begin with and deserve our sympathy." Well let me show you something:

Spoiler: WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND VIOLENT IMAGERY

https://image.filehostingsite/ioYut6/This_Nigger_Voted.jpg

Do you still truly believe that this word isn't directly connected to the violent history of slavery, murder, and oppression against black bodies? Do you still truly believe that this word did not wield the power to "victimize and persecute" black bodies? Are you actually that naive to possibly think that "people are choosing for this word to have meaning?" The deflection of victimization is precisely how the history of black oppression is erased and silenced. I'd love to share some academic papers regarding this topic if you actually care about the words that you've put into your post.

6. You've asserted that "people will actually behave like animals if you treat them like animals." Well, people are animals.

7. You've asserted that Riot Games enforced reducing toxicity over the years and has made the situation 10 times worse. You haven't provided any data to back up your quantitative claim so your argument is entirely baseless. In fact, Riot Games has provided tons of transparent data detailing how their policies and systems have dramatically reduced toxic behavior amongst their community.

8. You've asserted that the "premise" of this ordeal "assumes that we're all animals that need to be confined to metal cages." What does this mean, exactly? Before I can even counter this assertion, how can we possibly have a productive discussion in the first place regarding the assumptions of the "premise" if you haven't even laid out what the "premise" actually is? Your conclusion as a whole sounds like a collection of a college freshman political science course buzz words strung along together as a way to make your point seem intelligent and cohesive, but it ultimately lacks any significant thought.

Normally I don't bother debating with people on the Forums about "PC culture" or whatever. Or anything else, really, considering that this is the internet after all and at the end of the day no one really gives a shit. But over the past two months alone I've seen so many people bring up this exact same fruitless argument over and over again in the Forums. And at this point I'm sure most of us are sick of hearing it, and people need to either just deal with it and get over it, or find another server that provides them the safe space to say whatever nonsense they want.

As you suggest, maybe we should all just "grow a pair of balls and move forward" from this pointless debate.

Spoiler: TL:DR

THONKING SPINNERS ON FULL THRUSTER BOYEEES WE HAVE LIFT OFF

 

Please note, I am currently banned for the use of the n-word in a smega, and, especially after having read this thread, I'm all for their current policy. You're allowed to use it in private chats, but not in all chat or smegas. I assume, also, that harassment, private or public, is also bannable, and I think this is fine.

Really, I'd just like to tack on some history to this thread.
Y'all are ignorant if you think that the enslavement of blacks in America was in any way analogous to every other "phase of oppression, slavery and unfairness."

As Evan noted previously, blacks were enslaved -> slavery was abolished -> and slavery was reestablished under a clause in the 13th amendment.
After the ratification of the 13th amendment, the majority of blacks in the prison system were pinned with crimes they straight up did not commit, and the ones who did commit crimes were given sentences that they did not deserve. The 13th amendment allows for slavery to continue so long as it is a "punishment for a crime." This clause paved the way for a prison labor system that essentially ought to have been dubbed a "rent-a-slave" program. Under this system slaves were actually treated worse than they were prior to the ratification of the 13th amendment. With slaves, and a steady supply of them, available for rent, people could and literally did work the slaves to death (big coal and big steel were built on the prison labor system, actually, this is where all of the cartoon imagery of chaingangs with pickaxes comes from). Prior to the civil war, slaves were, at least, treated as an investment, and it was just imprudent to work your property to death. I'm also fairly confident that the disproportionate and unjust criminalization of black america is the reason for the stereotypes that exist today - stereotypes that, even now, continue to do damage beyond just "offending" a group of people.

@iEatEmoKids posted a picture of a lynching and these lynchings were a lot more grave than people realize. In a lot of areas, lynchings were public events. I emphasize the word event because it's exactly what it sounds like. Children would be let out of school, employers would let people out of work, and everyone from the town would gather as they mutilated and hanged an African American. No lie, there are documents, pictures even, of lynchings with food stands and various other carnival-esque attractions - for a lot of white america, lynchings were "fun for all ages." Lynchings weren't just a clean execution either. They didn't just drop someone off the gallow. Oftentimes they would cut off fingers and toes, gouge out eyes, cut off noses, they would stick large corkscrews into their bodies and pull out chunks of entrails and flesh. What's worse is that these things were often auctioned off as "souvenirs."
You can argue that it was a long time ago, but, really, the last lynchings to occur were in the early 1900s. Which, in America at least, really isn't that long ago if you think about it in terms of generations, and for most millennials, this would be an average of 3-4 generations. This, of course, means people have great grandparents who might've actually attended one of these.
If you think about all the opinions, traits, character, morals, and values that you have that you've picked up from your parents - and if you're a person who deadass says, "xD I hate my parents, and I'm nothing like them!" then i don't even know man - it's really no wonder that racism is still such a big issue - especially in the American southeast.

All of this is just to say that no other country in the modern world has had a systemic culture of racism that was as brutal and lasted as long as the Americas. So this idea that "every country has dealt with slavery in some fashion" is straight up ignorant nonsense that a lot of high-schoolers like to spout lol.

As far as how this all connects to the situation at hand, the GMs stance on the use of the n-word... I really think everyone needs to remember that this is Maplestory; like, in GMS you couldn't even say snowballs because it had balls in it. The GMs aren't saying you can't say the word. They're saying that if you're going to say it, make sure it's not intended to be inflammatory, and keep it out of public chats where people who don't like the word don't have to be exposed to it. This is literally the apex example of a healthy compromise.

 

I'm speaking on more than just Royals when I say, if you ban a word you give it power. You make it taboo and people will always inherently gravitate towards taboo words and phrases, ESPECIALLY if they're trying to hurt someone. IMO the goal shouldn't be to outright ban and out-rule such a word, but to use public shaming, social isolation and other such indirect methods to dismay people from using it.

In a nutshell, I think people should be able to say n***** all they want, but you too are under no obligation to like or interact with someone who does. Afterall, we have thousands and thousands of words to choose from, it's just one word of many and if they can't be bothered to refrain out of respect then you can just return their manners in kind.

 

It's okay, today I learned I can screen shot something and report someone in 2-3 weeks and get them banned when I feel like they deserve it. Petty or not, some of the rules are a bit flawed.