Sexism When Enforcing Rules Regarding "Sexist" Comments

It does not, it affects you. The other multiple hundreds of players that are not there or don't care are not harmed. The server doesn't stop running. The other 99.99% of people's activity is not changed one bit. A single person is offended.

You are not a victim. You are sharing a space with other adults that are having conversations that don't have anything to do with you nor anybody else besides those involved. You have all the ability to remove yourself from their conversation or remove their conversation from you if you don't want to hear it. Your feelings are not anybody's responsibility but your own.

They can't do anything ever except report. You can take care of any language related problem yourself in seconds, since you seem to be concerned with saving Staff time. You are not going to conflate following hackers to hiding in corners waiting for swear words to justify your immature behavior.

 

Royals has a very diverse userbase, and the word c-nt is considered very vulgar in the U.S, Asia I don't know.
But it's very frequently used, not even in a derogatory way in Australia, the UK, and even I use it among friends. I'm from Northern Europe. It's not considered a hateful word among a large base of Royal, I reckon there are a lot of Europeans here. Though it also depends on English proficiency.

Yes/no words should be written taken into consideration the diverse userbase Royals has, but c*nt isn't anymore vulgar than d*ck, by any stretch of the imagination imo.

I myself am very outspoken, most Europeans are I think. But it's 2020, and certain things is better to keep in private chat.

However, MapleStory has always been a 7+ game, unsure about Royals, but you can't assume that only adults play Royals neither.

 

Also, it is getting late for me. I appreciate this conversation. I will reply when I wake up tomorrow.

Ok, I get your point. Although, just because some people don't voice their opinions out does not mean that it doesn't affect them. You cannot just generalize 99.99% of the population by saying "they are not affected" just because you've been here for 7 years. Also, please stop trying to generalise the population. You don't speak for them unless you actually asked every single one of them.

Your arguments are weak and can be used in any general circumstance be it for hate speech/harassment. For e.g according to you, by calling people the "n-word", and when the person is offended. Base on your argument, you are saying that "You have all the ability to remove yourself from their conversation or remove their conversation from you if you don't want to hear it. Your feelings are not anybody's responsibility but your own."? Are you advocating that this should be allowed since people should just walk away if they are unhappy? If yes, then I applaud you for sticking through to it. If no, then why the double standard?

I understand that they are in different scenarios. The first is a direct insult to another party, the second being just a general speech that does not affect the 3rd party. With your rule of thumb, don't you think it can be applied to any scenario? Here is another phrase that I stumbled upon that is similar to yours; "no one can make you feel inferior without your own permission." -- Eleanor Roosevelt. Try something less generic instead, if a change is actually made based on your guideline, there are multiple loopholes that I foresee due to the ambiguity of your guideline.

No, I'm referring to the act of stalking hackers to catch them hacking, not stalking to catch them for swearing. Just clarifying since you are the one that said and implied that stalking to uphold a rule should be punished?

 

Don't know why youre using that like some sort of "got you".

There is significant differences between the two, and only one is a well established nick name, allowed in pg13 movies, and for a while literally meant chatting. Lol

Maybe im missing the context of this entire thread, is it that its sexist that 1 word is bad and the other isnt? Well like with the other really bad words, men (the dick in this equation, if you will) have not been systemically oppressed like women have, like black people have, like gay people have.

Again tho, theres like 3 words (few extras on a occasion). I dont think its crazy that players should avoid a few certain words.

 

The n-word is not comparable to the c-word. Historically, the n-word has been used to systematically oppress black people in the United States for hundreds of years. It was used to discriminate black people as subhuman, and lower class before the Civil War. It was used during the Reconstruction period and Jim Crow era to enforce segregation culturally, by labeling black people as different and of lower standing than white people.

By saying the n-word in public, even if you aren't engaging anyone in specific, you are using hate speech. This should not be tolerated here. However, the same cannot be said of the c-word. That's not at the heart of the issue, as @Sen has acknowledged, the c-word isn't treated by the staff the same way that the f-word(homophobic) or n-word(racist) are.

I don't understand your point here. The f-word(homophobic) is also slang for cigarette in the UK. Just because dick can be a nickname doesn't mean that it isn't vulgar.

I am sure that everybody in this thread can acknowledge that women have been systematically oppressed throughout history, whether it be through lower wages, being denied the right to vote, and even now, being denied the right to have access to safe contraception and access to abortion. But unless I am mistaken, the c-word isn't part of that systematic oppression, not in the same way that the f-word(homophobic) or the n-word(racist) have been. The f-word has been used to otherise and discriminate against the LGBTQ community during the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s; perhaps I'm ignorant, but the c-word doesn't have the same cultural connotations versus women.

Regardless, as Matt has acknowledged, I see that the staff have at least addressed the abuse of the ToS to catch people off guard, so I suppose some good has come out of this discussion.

 

Actually, I think the "d word" and "c word" are way closer together than the "c word" and words that are actually systemic hate speech like racial or homophobic slurs. Some evidence for this is, based on some research and also wikipedia, it seems the c word has a very different connotation in informal British, Irish, New Zealand, and Australian English. Apparently it can even have a positive connotation.
https://www.indiewire.com/2013/07/t...he-worlds-end-and-the-british-censors-127615/
"As you say, we passed a single use in Shaun of the Dead because the use in question was throwaway, unthreatening, and essentially a term of endearment amongst friends (“Can I get any of you c***s a drink?”).

It seems in the United States the connotation is taken more seriously as a female slur. It raises a question is it any different from other female slurs like sl*t, w***e, b**ch, p***y? These words are used occasionally even in PG-13 movies e.g. Mean Girls (2004). I see people use these words in game sometimes but they don't get banned. What makes the c word so different? It actually seems it could be more innocent than those other female slurs because it has a connotation that can be used in jest in UK and Australian English. Maybe I'm ignorant.

I tend to avoid language like this altogether especially in Royals which is a good rule of thumb.

Not sure the actual specific context in which the players got banned but I think they were using the word in jest at a male player from a guild spying on them.

 

I'm not generalizing, people literally can't be upset about something they don't even know is happening, and my tenure here has nothing to do with that. We are talking about a single, isolated instance of person/party A and person/party B. 99.99% of players wouldn't even know about it. It doesn't harm the server, its just 1 person being offended.

You can deny my anecdotes of ban appeal reading and player interaction over 7 years, but my sentiments are carried in a resounding echo in this thread right in front of your eyes. I've never seen someone get banned for speech that wasn't discriminatory, wasn't directed at someone, and wasn't on smega. Its frankly absurd.

I've addressed and refuted each point you've made one at a time while you've failed to do anything besides create imaginary scenarios that don't pertain to the situation being discussed and then asking slippery slope fallacy driven leading questions that get shot down with ease, as can be seen here feebly attempting to compare the n-word with dick or pussy. If my argument is so bad, you should have easily been able to make a successful rebuttal.

I never once mentioned stalking hackers to catch them swearing, I'm calling you out on your poor comparison of stalking hackers to make a report and placing yourself in a 100% avoidable scenario that doesn't affect you or pertain to you whatsoever in order to be offended.

 

I don't find it to be a fair assumption to assume what people should feel just because of how you, yourself, perceive different words, connotations, or innuendos. Regardless if hate speech was used or not, at a much more broad spectrum; there isn't a rule in the world that tells you to not feel a certain way. This thought process would be very constricting and hard to deal with for the "third party" (Quotes added due to the scenario being an example scenario). BY definition, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. At the basis of what hate speech really is, is the intent to speak about a particular person/group of people in a "vilifying", "humiliate", or provocative (with the pretext of "inciting hatred") manner.

Looking at the C-word, objectively, yes it is referring to the woman's genitalia but let's not kid ourselves when everyone uses the word it has an entirely subjective connotation. It's derogatory depending on the context (Honestly, when's the last time you used the C-word to refer to the woman genitalia). The word itself has a separate meaning and this meaning is usually supplemented by context (i.e Aussies in particular can use this word, given the context, which can refer to their friends/mates in a completely normal way). Using this logic, calling someone a B**ch means that we should be taking what the word means at face value, a female dog (Americans [predominantly woman] use this term, given the context, to refer to their female partner, in some cases, in a friendly way). Everything is just a word, yes that is true, but the extent to which a word is used cannot be justified by how only a certain amount of people view it as, because there is always another side to the story.

In terms of your punishment feedback, I would say that seems a bit tedious, no? If the real world was run in this manner, don't you think people would take advantage of how many strikes someone can get before they really get in trouble (And "really get in trouble" in this case, only reaching a 30 day ban consistently there after as the maximum possible punishment?) ? I don't think that this would encourage players to learn from their mistakes, rather, it gives people more of a reason to be able to break rules with almost no real repercussion; hence individuals being able to "weaponize" and "by pass" the T&C just to get under someone's skin, knowing they would eventually get unbanned.

 

There can be x amount of rules implemented but this does not eliminate people trying to bypass it. The community is lacking mutual respect and common sense. I do believe each bans should vary depending on context.

p.s. just don't break the rules

 

"onisan has logged in" never again

 

Sorry, I didn't seem to catch your point. If you are trying to tell me that the context is different, I think I already acknowledged it in my post.

Yes, I agree with you that it is a single instance that a 3rd party might be offended when 2 parties used questionable terms. What I'm trying to get across is, for every 2 parties using questionable terms, a 3rd party might get offended. If this is allowed then more 3rd parties will get offended, despite it being a one-off instance that doesn't correlate with other instances.

I think I've stated my point, maybe you didn't catch it. Let me try this again, this time without any imaginary scenarios. Hopefully, this is enough for you to grasp what I'm saying.
Because of the action X occurring, the outcome of Y is present,
My argument from my perspective
-> For the action of using questionable terms, a 3rd party is offended.
-> For the action of a 3rd party removing himself from the conversation, more responsibility(it can be as easy as a 10 seconds solution) is imposed on the 3rd party.

I clearly see the distinction between the ways of how we perceive things, not saying any of us is right/wrong. I'll summarise the things that I've comprehend so far. Also, please correct me if I'm missing out on any points.

Your stand
- camping/stalking to catch someone is toxic/immature/petty.
- camping/stalking should be a form of harassment.
- majority of the people are not offended by this.
- Main point of "You have all the ability to remove yourself from their conversation or remove their conversation from you if you don't want to hear it. Your feelings are not anybody's responsibility but your own."

My stand
- camping/stalking to catch someone is petty
- camping/stalking someone or a group of players should be punished as a form of harassment. camping/stalking hackers for the purpose of catching them hack should not be.
- minority/no one at all should even be given the opportunity to feel offended by this.
- Main point of "Be considerate and follow the T&C so that you don't impose any additional responsibility(regardless of big or small) on anyone because of your actions."

I would like to hear your opinion on this matter.
In the context of using questionable terms in a friendly manner, I've come to understand from your perspective that a 3rd party should just go away. However, what if the scenario was 2 individuals using questionable terms on a malicious basis, will the 3rd party have the rights to care then?

I personally believe that regardless of the usage of these questionable terms, in both scenarios, the 3rd party has the right to voice out(even though it might be considered nosey).

Maybe I misinterpreted your sentence, my bad for this.

 

good morning

 

And what I've been trying to get across is, thats a slippery slope fallacy and still isn't really addressing any points. No, I don't think if we allow people to speak freely there will be additional instances of people being offended, because in my experience, this rarely happens as it is. In fact, its so rare that people had to be chat camped to get busted. Its ludicrous. For the <10% of people who are genuinely offended, blacklist and move on.

Yes, the 3rd parties feelings are their own responsibility, and they have to manage that. Pretty simple and reasonable.

More or less, ya.

-Thats a very interesting reversal of opinion considering you are quoted as willing to go out of your way to be somewhere where something that offends you might be said in order to gain a report, unless you admit that you're being a petty child, in which case at least you're honest.
-Yep
-Here is where we have a fundamental difference in opinion. Firstly, no minority was singled out and nothing racial was said. Secondly, it is impossible to police every situation where somebody might be offended, nor is it Staff's responsibility. That is what the blacklist is for. Sometimes, when you go into public spaces, people are going to say things you don't like or agree with. Get the fuck over it.
-Those person's feelings were already solely their responsibility to begin with, so no additional responsibility is being imposed. Just because one is poor at managing their emotions does not make it the responsibility of others to do so. The ToS are vague and up for interpretation, and different people will have different interpretations of that as a result. While you say a 3rd parties enjoyment of the game is being theoretically harmed or has the potential to be harmed, I'm looking at the concrete, what is actually happening right now, and that is that this sort of banning is setting a precedent that anybody can be offended by almost anything you say, are allowed to infiltrate chats and camp regular hang outs of people waiting for them to say something that can be use as ammunition in a report. That drastically lowers the enjoyment of many, as can be seen in most of the reactions here. That is not conducive to a social environment, its antisocial and goes against one of the biggest aspects of this game.

First, I never said that the 3rd party shouldn't care. Its fine to be upset that someone said something you didn't like, it just shouldn't be reportable/bannable in that context. If any amount of people are using questionable terms with malicious intent, of course one can do something about this. That is literally harassment.

I don't think 3rd party has the right to complain. It has nothing to do with them and they have the tools to solve the problem in its entirety in a few seconds if necessary. Grow up.

 

I'm starting to get where you are coming from, "If it is not severe, just get over it and deal with it", but I disagree as I think it does not help progress positively as a whole. We can agree to disagree all we want, but please let's not throw unnecessary shade.

The thing that I'm debating for is literally this. Why should there even be a chance for this <10% to be offended in any way? Why can't people just watch their speech?

Maybe you missed out? Being petty is one thing, being a child is another. Stop throwing shades if you are actually trying to debate, it is disrespectful and in no way constructive for this debate.

I didn't say any minority was singled out. I used the term minority to define the people that were mentioned as the <10% above. I agree with you that it is ridiculous to police this situation and it isn't the staff's responsibility. No one is asking the staff to come out to monitor them as this is a complete waste of time. My view is that it is the player's responsibility to keep the chat clean, as mentioned in the T&C. This is also why they are held accountable for their own speech.

What about the people who can't manage their speech and have to resort to using those terms? It is also arguable that these people are poor at managing their emotions and hence, have the tendency to use those terms. So like you said, "Just because one is poor at managing their emotions does not make it the responsibility of others to do so". I'm implying that both parties are poor at managing their emotions, but the ROOT cause of all these was because someone started with a questionable term.

Agree

Apologies, I phrased that wrongly.

The party that is hurling questionable terms with malicious intent definitely can without a doubt do something about it. Don't you think this is a disruption for the 3rd party
Objectionable Behavior (Disruption) - The act of engaging in any sort of action that is deemed to be excessively disruptive to the individuals around you, including spamming or flooding chat or skills.

 

No shade implied. Speaking plainly and directly, there are no hidden meanings.

Because, as said above, its both impractical and unnecessary to police every single interaction that takes place or may take place on the off chance somebody is offended. That lowers the quality of life of the other 90%, and also introduces steep penalties to literally minding your own business and talking with a private group, up to and including permanent bans from the server, apparently.

Or, the person being offended can blacklist or just not put themselves in a position to be offended on purpose. Its like running up to a group conversation on the street that doesn't involve you, eavesdropping, and then getting mad when you hear something you don't like. Absolute insanity.

Again, no shade, I mean exactly what I say. That sort of behavior is petty, and being petty is childish. Most adults don't act that way here. Its relevant because its being established that your attempted arguments come from a place of selfishness and emotional immaturity. "I can't manage my own feelings and emotions, though given the tools, so others should do it for me, regardless of context." That is what is coming across.

Sure, I misunderstood then, apologies, but regardless, my response remains the same. Running to Staff because somebody said something you don't like is making it the Staff's responsibility. It is not the player's responsibility to "keep chat clean", that is open to a million interpretations. Its the players responsibility to decide what they do/don't see in their chats. If you didn't think think its Staff's job, why would you go report in the first place? Again, blacklist and move on.

 

What I intepret by "policing" -> staff trying to actively maintain the order of peace. Which in this case, similar to you, I feel it is redundant. However, what they are doing now is more of a passive "policing" -> letting the community file the reports and then acting on it. Which I think is perfectly fine. I really like the picture you drew, it was clear, concise and gets the important point across. I think I've spoken more than enough on my own thoughts about this matter. Also, I appreciate that the entire discussion was leaning more towards the civil side. Thank you.

Edit: But needless to say, we have differing thoughts and perspective and I still cannot agree to it. However, let's just agree to disagree since most of the important points were already mentioned. It won't be constructive to go in circles.

 

To "be an adult" means you sometimes need to agree to disagree and not always try to get the last word in.

Especially when you have been dragging on the thread for the past 5 pages... I think most of us get the point

 

Everyone needs to mentally download this decision tree. I wish this was posted 7 pages ago lol. Woulda closed the loop a lot faster haha.

 

Dragging it on or discussing it so that it becomes less ambiguous in the future, whatever floats your boat.