/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2020 6:50 pm**

Bottom post of the previous page:

that's it

if you want a line drawn clearly, there you go - if you use the n word in a context that isn't obviously good faith/clinical (eg. discussing a slur ban in a thread like this) you are banned. ban it from IC, ban it from OOC, ban it from discord and the forums. idc about the exact punishment since I'm just putting this up for discussion but you could make it zero tolerance or a one time temp ban followed by a permaban, if you like

I agree that these discussions do not start with enough nuance so let's narrow shit down to something where progress can actually be made instead of habing two sides that are already hyper entrenched in their views take potshots and get sidetracked on stupid bullshit

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:39 am**

lol if you are so worried about the community's image maybe your ass should move to goon or yog.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:40 am**

Qustinnus wrote: I'm not gonna bother reading 6 paragraphs from a literal who with 6 forum posts. We let anyone admin these days.

Discrediting someone because you don't know who they are makes your own argument look weak.

Qustinnus wrote:lol if you are so worried about the community's image maybe your ass should move to goon or yog.

Also, whats wrong with caring about community image?

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:45 am**

wesoda25 wrote:
Qustinnus wrote: I'm not gonna bother reading 6 paragraphs from a literal who with 6 forum posts. We let anyone admin these days.
Discrediting someone because you don't know who they are makes your own argument look weak.
Qustinnus wrote:lol if you are so worried about the community's image maybe your ass should move to goon or yog.
Also, whats wrong with caring about community image?

our image is literaly fine.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:51 am**

Qustinnus wrote: our image is literaly fine.

You say that when your reaction to having anything changed away from what you like is to say "go play somewhere else". Doesn't exude confidence that it is "all fine"

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:52 am**

peoplearestrange wrote:
Qustinnus wrote: our image is literaly fine.
You say that when your reaction to having anything changed away from what you like is to say "go play somewhere else". Doesn't exude confidence that it is "all fine"

if you think the status quo is so bad and you can't stand it to the point where you need to start a new thread every day about the same issue then yeah, you should go to another server.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:48 am**

bandit wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote:if we do ban this word, I can see us having organized raids like with goonstation dedicated to bypassing the word filter and making our more vulnerable admins shit and piss themselves
then permaban those people, raids are already a bannable offense, how is this a serious objection

it's work vs 0 work in NOT banning the word

Unit2E wrote:Not the person you're asking a reply from, but that's an odd thing to ask. It feels more like you're seeing the time we didn't ban the word as a sunken cost. Why not ban it now?

banning it would be work and not banning it would not be work

and again, youve dodged the question. please respond to the following:

if we don't ban this word and leave things as is, what is the worst that will reasonably happen?
or to phrase it a different way, what is the sudden urgency to ban this word?

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:53 am**

Speaking from experience, it's never just one word. Slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply here, you're setting a precedent on policy and other people will use the precedent that is set to argue further on it, this is how policy and any tangentially legal related system works. So we ban nigger, no one has a problem with that, right? What about kike, coon or wop? Still good, right? What about cracker? No? Where is the line going to be drawn? Is it just racism? Does that include racism to Canadians? Is it just historically oppressed groups? Will we have to start policing homophobic and misogynistic language as well? If not, then why should nigger get special protections?

This is'nt JUST about the gamer word, it's about precdent. By giving one word specific protections, you've laid the brick for a foundation to come and no matter how much you say you personally don't want that - other people will use it.
Either it's all okay, or nothing is okay, and I much prefer a community that is permissive than restrictive.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:02 am**

peoplearestrange wrote: If you can't write around using a racist slur then you really need to sit down and consider how you use language and why you feel you need that word in your common vocab.
Or you're just not imaginative enough to use other swear words you shitty pus-seeping amoeba piss sponge. Or do you just need shock factor to be your only bastion of insult?

ok why should i be creative when im trying to insult my friends, why do i now need to call them a faggot or a "piss sponge" instead of a nigger

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:14 am**

why do you insult your friends with racial slurs?

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:05 pm**

Tarchonvaagh wrote:why do you insult your friends with racial slurs?

because variety is the spice of life

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:57 pm**

Oh for fucks sake not this shit again.

We already have a policy on harassment.
We already have a policy on spamming.
No attempt to question the maturity of your opponents is going to distract from the fact that this is a virtue signal.

If the admins (and the most heavy proponents are admins) thought this had a hope in hell of gaining playerbase support, they'd hold a vote. Instead, we get these threads, because the hope is that if they show enough of themselves agreeing with each other in a circle for long enough it'll pass the "we've had discussions and reached a consensus" threshold in the eyes of the host/headmins for them to apply a policy change.

One way or another, if this does pass and get implemented, here's how it's going to go down - Ostensibly, nothing, and nobody will care. There'll be a couple of defiants that'll get made an example of and a couple of people leaving on principle, but nothing real significant. Then, after that, they'll move onto their next word, and their real target: "Tranny".

I've seen just enough of the way certain people in the community respond to that word to get a smell of how it's going to go down. If I had to guess, there's a number of transwomen in the metaclique that the admins have an eye on, kind of in the same way that male feminists tend to have their eye on women, only with more transfetishization - respectful on the surface, but kind of creepily predatorial once you peel away the superficial layers. I'd be absolutely astonished if there isn't at least one admin with pictures of tg trans catgirl dick on his hard drive.

The reason this is relevant is because aside from slightly tightening policies and a potential for a slight playerbase decline, things will mostly be fine for about 6-12 months, at which point there's going to be some kind of scandal, and what happens at that point largely depends on who's caught fucking who for what and how badly everything goes in the reveal.

tl;dr Either hold a vote, seize power, or shut the fuck up about it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:00 pm**

We've always tolerated it because we used to be a blue board offshoot off 4chan, at the core of it I don't agree with telling people what they can and cannot say because /tg/ has never been like that and we used to pride ourselves on it. Plus people allowing people to say it is a great way of identifying retards.

I feel certain admins are getting a little too worked up about this, I've had players go off on me calling me a dumb nigger cunt and various other obscenities and I just find it funny, going further into banning certain words just takes us further away from prompting a relaxed atmosphere, players should not have to feel threatened for saying the naughty no-no words and if someone wants to be IC racist then again there's nothing wrong with that just let the crew deal with them and stop trying to police every little thing.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:27 pm**

Slippery slope. You start doing it for that, enjoy doing it fucking forever, for a growing list, when the bureaucracy has issues following tenets already there.

You worded your argument awfully anonmare but you're saying the same thing, I think, despite saying it so weird.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:30 pm**

PKPenguin321 wrote:banning it would be work and not banning it would not be work
and again, youve dodged the question. please respond to the following:
if we don't ban this word and leave things as is, what is the worst that will reasonably happen?
or to phrase it a different way, what is the sudden urgency to ban this word?

This is still a fairly odd ask. You're asking for the immediate negative effects for leaving things as is, at least that's how I'm reading it, I'm not trying to strawman. Deviating from the status quo is that which has likely effects in the future, keeping the status quo when there is no urgency does not have effects. However, that DOES NOT mean this is a sound argument. I know for a fact the status quo has a negative impact on how outsiders see the community, this is frankly just about indisputable. Try talking to your non-racist side of the family and explain to them how often the n-word is used so frivolously. Of course, this is a different group of people from us, in a hypothetical scenario, and of course, there is people that will argue that getting closer to what is deemed normal is not worth pursuing, but that is their argument to make and is not a strong one in my mind either way. To make a false equivalency that somewhat demonstrates a point, when the status quo was making black people ride on the back of the bus, there was no real bad thing that would happen if they left things as is. Well, besides continuing to make people very understandably extremely upset, but that wouldn't be a genuine consideration for the white dudes. It's such a non-argument. The status quo drives people away but keeps freezed peaches people happy. Keeping things as is would obviously not change this, and the main negative effect would be that it keeps driving people away. This is not a spontaneous negative effect of keeping things the same, as such does not exist, and arguing from a position that there needs to be such a negative side effect that will reasonably happen to consider changing anything up is preposterous.

Short quip here, but, banning the word would hardly take effort. Even if it did take effort, if it was to genuinely improve the community, surely people wouldn't be against some effort. Nevermind that, as far as I can see, all that needs to happen is an announcement, a rule change, and maybe a thread about it, that ain't exactly a big time-investment we need to carefully consider in my eyes.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:42 pm**

PKPenguin321 wrote:address this portion please:
if we don't ban this word and leave things as is, what is the worst that will reasonably happen?
or to phrase it a different way, what is the sudden urgency to ban this word?

I would have fought it was self evident: There is no urgency and the worst thing that could happen without this rule change is the community continues to truck on as it always has done and some people might be frustrated enough with the community to leave for greener pastures. So yeah, nothing much happen.

The whole thread is about people who care trying to argue a case for why the effort is worth it. Personally I'm not convinced; banning one slur out of many isn't going to make a big impact on reducing bigotry, at least if it's just one word on auto-filter the impact wouldn't be so big either. I just don't think it will really achieve much outside of symbolism. Stronger rules changes would make a bigger impact but would come with greater costs. People like to downplay the chilling effect it would have but I do think a lot of players we have enjoy the freedom to tell edgy jokes, be racist in game or deal with those situations in character.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 3:16 pm**

Anonmare wrote: Will we have to start policing homophobic and misogynistic language as well?

god yes please

you have no idea how much i wish i still had admin powers so i could use the gib button anytime someone says 'that's gay' or uses other homophobic slurs

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 3:52 pm**

legality wrote:
Anonmare wrote: Will we have to start policing homophobic and misogynistic language as well?
god yes please

you have no idea how much i wish i still had admin powers so i could use the gib button anytime someone says 'that's gay' or uses other homophobic slurs

Now that truly is gay and I get off on sucking dicks

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:08 pm**

Anonmare wrote:
legality wrote:
Anonmare wrote: Will we have to start policing homophobic and misogynistic language as well?
god yes please

you have no idea how much i wish i still had admin powers so i could use the gib button anytime someone says 'that's gay' or uses other homophobic slurs
Now that truly is gay and I get off on sucking dicks

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:56 pm**

To be perfectly honest banning no-no words is literally putting /tg/ down the path to become like yog and I'm pretty sure id rather see /tg/ implode than become anything like yog

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:02 pm**

have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:08 pm**

Lazengann wrote:have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao

How exactly could you possibly know that Laz? It's not like we have skin colour listed on our profiles

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:19 pm**

Or maybe how about we don't become literal digg

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:21 pm**

Lazengann wrote:have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao

How could you know the racial makeup of the playerbase?

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:23 pm**

Farquaar wrote:
Lazengann wrote:have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao
How could you know the racial makeup of the playerbase?

i look at people who get mad when i say the n word in ooc

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 6:28 pm**

Why though? Because its offensive? So is every other slur and insult, to someone. The only reason our sights are set on the N word is because of its prominence. The rules are already in place that harassing someone is bannable, why does it need to be anymore than that? Sure someone saying it because haha funny n word may be shit and unoriginal but it's not like the experience is any different without it. If someone honestly believes that somehow the server will be better and isn't saying to ban it because of virtue signalling then I think you're mistaken. If someone's skin is so thin that it is hurting their experience then this server is not right for them, N word or not

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:23 pm**

While I get this is a hot button topic for certain people, I will remind that the point of Policy Discussion is discussion, not screaming at the other side till they shut up. There's more then a few posts in here breaking Rule 1:

Posts only designed to antagonize or otherwise escalate the situation are generally considered spam. Try to be civil about your grievances

Consider this a general warning to be civil with one another, even if you disagree vehemently about the subject topic.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:00 pm**

if you're so vehemently opposed to the simple notion of not using one or two particular words with a long real-life history of causing meaningful harm to actual living people for no reason than "hurr stop trying to be digg" and "virtue signalling" then maybe you're actually the asshole here?????

nobody is actually going to start arguing that we should ban people for saying fuck and shit and cunt and ass

filtering out those 1-2 words would have exactly the same effect as readding felinids: for about a week a bunch of pathetic assholes who are absolutely seething over not being able to say their edgy racism words will raid from other communities, and then once they stop literally nothing will have changed for anybody who actually plays on these servers

if you're that scared of slippery slope, just hold a poll/vote on it, its not actually that big of a deal

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 8:04 pm**

Anonmare wrote:
Lazengann wrote:have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao
How exactly could you possibly know that Laz? It's not like we have skin colour listed on our profiles

They've got this idea that black people are fundamentally different from them, and everyone here acts like them, therefore none of them could be black. If you've ever spoken to a black person you'd know that they're literally just people, and not all of them are the incredibly fragile "poor little thing, we have to save him!" stereotype that some (white) people like to make them all out to be.

There are black people that think "MRS OBAMA GET DOWN"/"n-word pass" memes were/are hilarious. There are black people happily browsing 4chan as we speak, in spite of its reputation for spamming the n word and outright racism. I would frankly be surprised if 0 black people played on our servers. One of my friends irl that plays this game is jewish, despite us frequently building gas chambers on the server. I've tried to get a black friend into the game but he didn't get into it for no reason other than he didn't really care for roleplaying games.

Fact is, if your humor is already dark enough to enjoy SS13, you're pretty much never going to be turned away by an n-word. Targeted individual harassment with the word is obviously different, but we already have a rule against that and I don't think it's ever happened with this word in particular.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:28 pm**

I strongly disagree with censoring people in any form. I think we have adequate policies in place to protect people from individual harassment. I shouldn't have to consult a list of no-no words before I speak. I will say that I don't see the case for banning one word. Ban them all or ban none of them, I doubt nigger offends black people any more than tranny offends transgender people. What makes this particular minority so important? Again, I'm against banning any of them at all, but let's not be choosy about which slurs we ban since that's dumber than banning every slur.

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:30 pm**

Doublepost but would this include nigga or is nigger the only word being banned?

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:25 pm**

Lazengann wrote:have you guys ever wondered why no black people play here lmao

It hurt itself in its confusion!

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:26 pm**

To every retard crying "B-b-b-BUT SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Posted: **Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:44 pm**

Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't apply to legislation, which is what server policy is. Legislation is based upon precedent and people arguing from these previously established precedents to set further precedents. In essence, calling slippery slope fallacy on policy-making is to ignore every policy that has ever been made ever.

For example, people hated people spamming WGW. Precedent is set that reading it makes you valid. Robot kills human reading WGW, people complain and the precedent is set that reading WGW makes you non-human. People start using voice-changers to read WGW as other people, people complain, new precedent is set that you have to be sure it really was them now.

In layman's terms, just because not all slopes are slippery doesn't mean there aren't slippery slopes.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:20 am**

Anonmare wrote:For example, people hated people spamming WGW. Precedent is set that reading it makes you valid. Robot kills human reading WGW, people complain and the precedent is set that reading WGW makes you non-human. People start using voice-changers to read WGW as other people, people complain, new precedent is set that you have to be sure it really was them now.

For example, people hated people bullying them. Precedent is set that goes on bullying makes it harrassment. People start saying the N-word randomly, people complain the the precedent is set that saying the N-word makes you bannable. People start saying Ligger or other no no words, people complain, new precedent is set that you can't use those words because is a bypass of the N-word.

I'm not for nor against the banning of the N-word. just showing the fallacy of your statement.

Slippery Slope Fallacy doesn't apply to legislation, which is what server policy is. Legislation is based upon precedent and people arguing from these previously established precedents to set further precedents. In essence, calling slippery slope fallacy on policy-making is to ignore every policy that has ever been made ever.

It does, like i showed you.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:54 am**

That's exactly my point though, people use the precedent set for one word to apply it to others. The definition gets continously expanded to the point of being both an administrative nightmare and overly-restrictive by people who will use the precedent that's established. It's better to side-step the issue by never comprimising on the issue at all.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 12:57 am**

Really if we do any word bans at all I'd like a further-reaching ban than just the n-word. And I very much am of the position we should. I get wanting to do it gradually, but you're just giving the "s-s-s-ssslippery" people ammunition for when more words are up for bans. Any progress is good progress, and I don't think the naysayers will ever be satisfied, but what can you do.

I will say that you'll never satisfy the people that simply do not want this, as Gigapuddi said, there are people that want to make edgy jokes, and be racist, and there is nothing you can do about that. When you try for gradual progress you'll get people saying tg is slipperying its way down to [server they do not like] status. I hypothesise if a lot of change was done in one shot, however, there would be pushback for suddenly pushing for such a large change.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:16 am**

I will say if that does happen, I'll move downstream. I have no desire to be a part of someplace that feels the need to language police.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:48 am**

Unit2E wrote:Really if we do any word bans at all I'd like a further-reaching ban than just the n-word. And I very much am of the position we should.

I get wanting to do it gradually, but you're just giving the "s-s-s-ssslippery" people ammunition for when more words are up for bans.

No no, you already gave all the proof that you DO want to expand on it if it goes through and that every time you decry "slippery slope" you're showing that you're either intentionally arguing in bad faith or you're legitimately a dumbass that doesn't understand what "slippery slope" means.

Are you SURE you aren't American?

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:11 am**

Yes, I am positive I'm not american. Are you equating being american with being a dumbass?

That aside, no, I'm not arguing in bad faith, I am seeing a fair amount of people respond with slippery sloping. I do agree that is essentially what would happen if more and more bans on words are done without discussion. However, if a fair discussion is given any time someone wants to push the envelope, I'm sure actual slippy-ing would be stopped in its tracks, as people can just say no whenever they do not agree, as is being done here. Also, I have stated that I am very much for simply banning more words in one go on multiple occassions, and for all I care we can be done with it after that. So yes, I don't think I'm arguing for actual slippery sloping. I want more words gone than just the n-word, and I don't think how I'm presenting that is done in bad faith.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:20 am**

Unit2E wrote:Yes, I am positive I'm not american. Are you equating being american with being a dumbass?

That aside, no, I'm not arguing in bad faith, I am seeing a fair amount of people respond with slippery sloping. I do agree that is essentially what would happen if more and more bans on words are done without discussion. However, if a fair discussion is given any time someone wants to push the envelope, I'm sure actual slippy-ing would be stopped in its tracks, as people can just say no whenever they do not agree, as is being done here. Also, I have stated that I am very much for simply banning more words in one go on multiple occassions, and for all I care we can be done with it after that. So yes, I don't think I'm arguing for actual slippery sloping. I want more words gone than just the n-word, and I don't think how I'm presenting that is done in bad faith.

First off - yes.

Secondly - There's multiple instances of headmin precedent saying "No we don't want to do this" but the same clique keep bringing it in (who ALL lost in the election) and for a fact you can tell that if you give them ground they'll use it as precedent to go "okay how about more since we're a positive community

))"

Thirdly - It's bad faith to claim "slippery slope" as a fallacy when it's clear as day if this goes through the word police will push for more using this as a precedent. ESPECIALLY considering that this "we wanna ban the one word" thread is derived from MSO closing their last "we wanna ban bad words" thread.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:34 am**

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:
Unit2E wrote:Yes, I am positive I'm not american. Are you equating being american with being a dumbass?

That aside, no, I'm not arguing in bad faith, I am seeing a fair amount of people respond with slippery sloping. I do agree that is essentially what would happen if more and more bans on words are done without discussion. However, if a fair discussion is given any time someone wants to push the envelope, I'm sure actual slippy-ing would be stopped in its tracks, as people can just say no whenever they do not agree, as is being done here. Also, I have stated that I am very much for simply banning more words in one go on multiple occassions, and for all I care we can be done with it after that. So yes, I don't think I'm arguing for actual slippery sloping. I want more words gone than just the n-word, and I don't think how I'm presenting that is done in bad faith.
First off - yes.

Secondly - There's multiple instances of headmin precedent saying "No we don't want to do this" but the same clique keep bringing it in (who ALL lost in the election) and for a fact you can tell that if you give them ground they'll use it as precedent to go "okay how about more since we're a positive community ))"

Thirdly - It's bad faith to claim "slippery slope" as a fallacy when it's clear as day if this goes through the word police will push for more using this as a precedent. ESPECIALLY considering that this "we wanna ban the one word" thread is derived from MSO closing their last "we wanna ban bad words" thread.

I don't think all Americans are dumbasses.
That aside, I suppose there is a point to be made that some people would use this as a precedent. Frankly, that is probably the truth, and I don't intend to overlook that really. However, unless that is suddenly going to go over without debate, I don't see why people would not be up in arms as they are now, about it. Perhaps that's just not how these forums operate, I will admit I mainly play the game and admin, I rarely look at the forums. I don't doubt people would still argue against removing more gamer words, even when a gamer word was previously removed.

It was entirely not my intention to argue in bad faith, or to shove slippery slope under the bus entirely. My belief that it doesn't apply that much is because of even the current extreme pushback over this, I don't personally think that would suddenly entirely subside should a gamer word, or multiple gamer words, be banned. If it did, that is a seperate issue, in my mind. In any case I'm sorry for making it seem like it's entirely not something to consider, as I do agree that, if a word or multiple words are banned, it would be used to argue different points in the future. I just do not personally believe that argument will be seen as valid, anyway. That is all.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:47 am**

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:
Unit2E wrote:Yes, I am positive I'm not american. Are you equating being american with being a dumbass?
First off - yes.

OK BUDDY RETARD CLEARLY SOMEONE IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF SOME FREEDOM. GIVE US YOUR COORDINATES FOR DRONE RELATED PURPOSES

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:02 am**

Okay, here's one - For those admins arguing slippery slope fallacy:
Why should we trust you?
What's your argument for why you won't just keep increasing restrictions?

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:09 am**

Anonmare wrote:I will say if that does happen, I'll move downstream. I have no desire to be a part of someplace that feels the need to language police.

But we already do. You can't say certain words IC, they're blocked by a filter. You can't use slurs in directed insults to someone (I.e. calling someone who's transexual when you know it, the T slur). We don't allow direct sexual language to be used in any circumstances (ERP, creepy stuff etc). Its in our rules already. Its just you happen to accept those things and somehow you don't accept that this particular shitty thing isn't part of that.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 4:24 am**

peoplearestrange wrote:
Anonmare wrote:I will say if that does happen, I'll move downstream. I have no desire to be a part of someplace that feels the need to language police.
But we already do. You can't say certain words IC, they're blocked by a filter. You can't use slurs in directed insults to someone (I.e. calling someone who's transexual when you know it, the T slur). We don't allow direct sexual language to be used in any circumstances (ERP, creepy stuff etc). Its in our rules already. Its just you happen to accept those things and somehow you don't accept that this particular shitty thing isn't part of that.

these are not word censorship. i can say tranny with no reprecussions provided i don't say it to harass someone who i know is transexual, just like i can say nigger as long as im not knowingly saying it at a black person with intent to harass.
if the word nigger or the word tranny was banned, i would be banned for this post.

also HOLY SHIT do NOT compare rule 8 to word censorship, i thought I MADE MYSELF CLEAR

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:03 am**

XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Secondly - There's multiple instances of headmin precedent saying "No we don't want to do this" but the same clique keep bringing it in (who ALL lost in the election) and for a fact you can tell that if you give them ground they'll use it as precedent to go "okay how about more since we're a positive community ))"

And the headmins of the day can just keep passing on it.

You guys do realize that you don't have to be a admin to propose rule changes or new policy right? Literally anyone could push for further or lesser restrictions. Like everyone else they just make a thread and argue their case, at best admins are in a better position to influence their peers. The ultimate decision makers are the headmins who themselves need to form a majority to change things. Even if the current headmins agree to ban this slur, there is nothing preventing future headmin teams from unbanning it or going further. Any admin or player could push for further changes in the mean time, they can also push to remove those changes. Anonmare's point about precedent does hold some weight however; with one step towards censorship the resistance against going further would be less in the minds of the people you are trying to convince. It still holds true that each step would be fought over and it's not really a slope with resetera gulags at the bottom as a inevitable outcome.

Face it, some people will always push for change and they are entitled to do so, headmins don't have to enact proposed changes and you can argue how the changes would negatively impact the server. Try actually arguing your point.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:41 am**

people who dont believe in the slippery slope are either lying or stupid

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 8:59 am**

terranaut wrote:people who dont believe in the slippery slope are either lying or stupid

but dude i read somewhere it's a "fallacy" which means its not real? internet not lie to me??

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:10 am**

I really like this idea on the surface. People who can't go 30 seconds without saying their funny gamer words are unbearable - but I'm not sure what it would really accomplish. People like that will just find something else to say in its place, and they'll always be one step ahead of the banned words list. Even if banning gamer words was practical, it does nothing to stop people saying racist or sexist things in general. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone scream DESPITE MAKING UP ONLY 13% both ic and ooc, on manuel. And reading this thread, it looks like there's some disagreement in the admin team too. I don't think it would really be possible to enforce this rule, between some admins potentially overlooking violations, how quickly racists come up with new words to avoid bans, and the endless screaming from people who are angry that they can't be ironically ;^) racist anymore.

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 9:10 am**

Gigapuddi420 wrote:
XivilaiAnaxes wrote:Secondly - There's multiple instances of headmin precedent saying "No we don't want to do this" but the same clique keep bringing it in (who ALL lost in the election) and for a fact you can tell that if you give them ground they'll use it as precedent to go "okay how about more since we're a positive community ))"
And the headmins of the day can just keep passing on it.

I seem to remember you saying people couldn't keep re arbitrating on cat people

Posted: **Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:55 pm**

oranges wrote:I seem to remember you saying people couldn't keep re arbitrating on cat people

I say a lot of shit on discord, especially discussion general where we likely had that conversation while surrounded by people who want to remove felinids for no other reason then they don't like them. Otherwise I've avoided every single poll about cat people and to the best of my memory argued that I don't mind it being a coder decision with proper reasoning. If the community decided that cat people don't fit the theme and could square that away with equally silly stuff then whatever. It isn't my project.

I have no doubt people will continue to keep trying to remove cat people in the future. I think it's stupid we have a vote on it almost every year with threads about it every new term but it's not such a core part of space station 13 that the community couldn't decide to drop it sometime in the future. Regardless of what I individually think the reality is out of my hands and like many other things it's down to convincing a team of headmins it's worth adopting. Just as easily you can argue against it.

/tg/Station 13

Ban the N word

Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word

Re: Ban the N word