Well i just saw another person got banned for it. Since server owner lives in UK and i know its much diffrent than US and by the way, word ***** isnt nothing to do with insulting/racism if you use in a good way. I have few black friends in other country that i meet with all the time when i go to finland and ill be serious, im telling them all the time "whats good *****"... They dont get mad on me or think im racist, if you take ie. a rap video where white guy is raping ie. Lil wyte, Paul Wall and more others, they using also word *****, i dont see how its abusive to some players. Im doing this thread because i saw some girl called Jennifer get banned for saying "Sup niggas" if im not wrong and i think its in a good way not like "fuck u black *****" or something, yeah that what i sayd is offensive and should be taken as offence. Do something about the ***** word. And im not gonna even talk about the new GM's that been selected in past month... They using more offensive words than any other regular player. I was in a popular guild and also i was in a zrun and zakum got glitched @2nd body and people called GM, some GM appeared to help out and they started talking about dicks, pussys, faggots, bitches and all those words and i was like WTF? Gm is right here and using the same words and not doing nothing about it. Not gonna say whos the GM i was talking about above but something has to be changed, people get banned like for no reason actually and ive seen plenty of appeals where people been perma banned for using word "*****". Sorry for my bad english, im from europe and there's nothing i can do. English is not my main language and ive learned all of this in internet/games. Thanks. /EDIT: The ****** = mostly the N word.
Not to quote myself or anything but...erm. I'm gonna do that since I'm too lazy to retype. HOWEVER in regards to the second half of your post about the GMs, if you feel comfortable enough doing so, please feel free to PM me so we can talk about this. This kind of behavior is a serious issue, and we'd like to do our best to get it under control so we can do away with this kind of confusion. Or if you have any other concerns, you can go ahead and PM me about them as well. Through all of these recent developments, we are trying to achieve a balance that maximizes our players' comfort levels. I know to some the rules may seem harsh, but to others it may be a relief. However, as always we do appreciate receiving your feedback! Thank you for posting! Like I said, feel free to PM me at any time for a more secure conversation/a more detailed response. I look forward to hearing from you!
I'm sorry, but what in the world makes you think that intent is not a viable defense? Intent is absolutely crucial in the world and in any court of law. It's the difference between accidental manslaughter and murder, a fistfight or a hate-crime. Yes, we cannot prove intent, but in most cases intent can be determined through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is how we make most of the claims about anything in the entire world. It is how scientific research is done and how judges make their decisions -- by inducing whether something rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. This is literally how judges make their verdicts -- they decide whether the evidence is enough to reject the null hypothesis (guilty) or fail to reject the null hypothesis (innocent). Yes, only mathematical theorems can be proven. But that does not mean that we are incapable of saying: there is a 95% chance that his use of ****** was not done in a hateful or harmful manner.
Mekansm, Yes, intent can typically be proven or disproven in a court of law, and is at the very least examined as a component when necessary and the case is not prima facie. But there is an integral difference between a court of law and an online game. You are attempting to equate discernibility of intent in the commission of a crime such as manslaughter to the discernibility of words exchanged through the internet. The scrutiny subjected to the examination of intent DEMANDS difference as the medium of exchange and platform of action is completely different from real life to that of the internet. You can't prove intent through deductive reasoning in a game where encounters are exchanged through text. For example, if Person A walks into the FM and screams "I love my N****s". This is a typical scenario of a bannable offense, regardless of intent. But let's insert your argument. Can you use inductive reasoning to establish INTENT solely based on the utterance of Person A? NO. Person A may, in his/her defense, claim that they are using it in terms of endearment toward their respective friends/family. However, for all we know, Person A could be an elite member of the KKK who owns a cotton plantation with African slaves, and is very excited about the productivity of the slaves. Intent in such cases can never, ever be contemplated simply because it boils down to either hearsay or self-testimony. You can't use inductive reasoning, as there is nothing to substantiate it from. And in an effort to exonerate, what wouldn't compel someone to simply lie his/her way out of a situation whereas they are banned? Essentially there is no way to actually determine whether "I love my N****s" was exclaimed out of malice or endearment unless we were inside of Person A's head at the time that phrase was spoken. Through text alone intent cannot be determined. Furthermore, just to bolster my point, you can't compare any situation where someone would be banned for use of the "N" word in MapleRoyals to that of a legal proceeding. For instance, let's take a case of Fraud where a Creditor is attempting to pierce the corporate veil to collect assets on a Corporate Debtor. Intent can easily be examined even by not considering a deposition of parties involved. Intent instead is discerned through traceable actions of the company, such as co-mingling of corporate assets or the "alter ego theory". Inductive reasoning could be used to examine the intent of the company through its actions, because words exchanged by and between people can always be rendered useless. Finally, to address your use of inductive reasoning argument from a holistic perspective: legal theory alone is NEVER sufficient enough to present; if you're a law student or a lawyer, you should know that by now. You need case law to back up theory . And there exists plenty of precedence in MapleRoyals in support of indiscriminate banning of the use of the "N" word.
Bring in the next subject. I'm tired of seeing this shit all over the place when we can just leave it behind and move on... I mean, come on.
