Originally Posted by sir
Why though, just so that someone can find a loophole in that specific definition, abuse that and later whine after they still get banned? I've never seen people struggling with defining what "harassment" is to this day, and I still doubt that going too specific about such rules is the way to go.
Harassment is a broad af term. As I said, many sites have 'regularity' as a defining characteristic of harassment. It's the same with bullying, 'frequency' is usually a defining characteristic. It's not as clear cut as you say it is.
It seems to me like you just want some catch-all rule that you can default to when you find someone acting maliciously towards another user, and that's why you're hesitant to include definitions for these things. However, including a definition of harassment would not disqualify you from doing that - It would just make things less broad.
Originally Posted by sir
Please keep in mind that what you think isn't harassment may be very much it for others.
Absolutely. That's why we should include definitions. To get everyone on the same page.
Originally Posted by sir
Outlining every aspect of what may be harassment and what isn't would get us an overly long set of rules (which already is an issue with current rules) that nobody would end up reading.
Mate, it's not overly long, and we don't need to post an essay on what harassment is. As I posted just before (going with your definition that doesn't include 'repetition');
"Harassment is defined as malicious targeted abuse (through insulting, name-calling, trolling and so on). We wish to maintain a friendly environment, so harassment may result in a ban. There is also a standing ban on the malicious usage of any homophobic or racial slurs in any public space in the community."
That's really not long (it's actually a few words shorter than the current rule, if you wanna count), so I don't consider your point here to be valid. It's just a slippery slope argument.
Originally Posted by sir
Interesting how one can read a wall of racist shit literally containing a link to the text that reads as, I quote:
- and see some points about "profiling not being a racist thing". Are you sure we're speaking about same posts that he made? And even then, how is profiling based on race related to moderation within an online video game?
As I said, hipotibor made a point about the legitimacy of profiling. Hipotibor also made a bunch of other points - I'm not disputing that. I made my post in defense of profiling because Divine mischaracterized the point he made about that. The point he made about that was relevant to the discussion because hipotibor was arguing about what it means to be toxic.
As always, definitions are important. What does it mean to be toxic? I argued that profiling was not necessarily a racist thing (in response to Divine's mischaracterization).
Originally Posted by sir
We do profiling based on offender's history, which is, again, a thing that's been done in Toribash for as long as I remember. If they did shit in past, they may get harsher punishment - just how Bailey and hipotibor got their permanent bans recently. We know enough about their history to safely assume that their intentions are malicious and that they will do same thing again after getting unbanned. It's also same case with Smurf, who is known for being toxic to other players and thus getting a way more strict punishment for harassing Maya.
Sure. That's fine.
Originally Posted by sir
There's only a little other information we can actually use when it comes to Toribash, and it will always be very subjective and based on lots of barely reasonable assumptions. For example, there are quite a bunch of accounts owned by Russians that were involved in scam duels, and we assume that any Russian user is now a bigger threat compared to other players by default. But this won't actually be true, because if you take a closer look it'd likely only be a few real people who owned those accounts involved in scamming - and because of them regular players who just want to play the game are now getting an unfair treatment. Same applies to stereotyping people based on their clan, while them being a part of a group of people notorious for breaking rules or acting toxic doesn't inherently mean that they must have malicious intentions behind anything they do. Assuming otherwise would only mean lazy moderation to me, and I doubt anyone here would like to get worse treatment because staff decided they belong to a group of people that deems more questionnable than others.
Yes, profiling is never the be-all-and-end-all. What profiling does is help direct your attention. It's especially helpful in areas like policing, where police have limited time and resources.
Originally Posted by sir
Sorry, don't like it when people who are known to among the community's worst or were given chances and fucked up act as if they know everything better and thus staff are bad.
If you have suggestions on how to improve things (and not actually act on it, because you don't want "petty politics"), suggest them in a peaceful way. This doesn't mean those changes will be implemented, but not being an asshat about everything you say would certainly help.
Where have I been an asshat about everything in this thread? I made a joke about agreeing with hipotibor that I should run shit. I gave two examples of staff not responding to community wishes (market thread and wibbles removal poll), because Divine asked to see some examples. I think I was quite right to be irate that the market thread was ignored for so long. It really does deserve a response, even if it's just 'Yes, we made some wrong decision regarding pricing, but the sales are always going to continue regardless (we have our reasons)'.
And then you came storming in, posting usernotes, poisoning the well, making me out to be unreasonable and only interested in arguing for argument's sake. I'm not calling you an asshat, but that's an asshat move.
Do I instantly become unreasonable here if I accuse you of being unreasonable right now? Or am I just arguing for the sake of arguing? I also don't see how my reluctance to become staff equates with me 'not acting' on the things I suggest. Can you explain that to me?
Last edited by Ele; Jan 27, 2020 at 09:11 AM.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»