No Politics or Religion in OOC

[Crescentise]

It's only useless because you can't muster up a civil, rational rebuttal.

[Crescentise]

It's only useless because you can't muster up a civil, rational rebuttal.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Quite the opposite. It's pointless because no amount of logic is going to sway jackfractal. This is where most debates in the internet end up (either that or we start calling each other hilter). It's pretty rare for rational debate to really sway someone who's firmly made up their mind.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Quite the opposite. It's pointless because no amount of logic is going to sway jackfractal. This is where most debates in the internet end up (either that or we start calling each other hilter). It's pretty rare for rational debate to really sway someone who's firmly made up their mind.

[jackfractal]

I'd debate the value of debate, but that's a bit meta even for me.

I'm fully willing to be convinced that this is a bad idea, but so far people seem to be loathe to offer any kind of criticism of my ideas that don't boil down to the person either not liking any form of censorship whatsoever and prioritizing sort of abstract purity over people's people's ability to enjoy themselves, or else they oppose the very idea of any attempts to be welcoming at all.

I've already dealt with both of these arguments at length, and I'm fully willing to keep doing so if people want to keep making them, but I'm actually really interested in what Garnascus has to say. They're the first person who has made the claim that political and religious discussions in OOC are beneficial and I'd like to hear them explore that idea.

[jackfractal]

I'd debate the value of debate, but that's a bit meta even for me.

I'm fully willing to be convinced that this is a bad idea, but so far people seem to be loathe to offer any kind of criticism of my ideas that don't boil down to the person either not liking any form of censorship whatsoever and prioritizing sort of abstract purity over people's people's ability to enjoy themselves, or else they oppose the very idea of any attempts to be welcoming at all.

I've already dealt with both of these arguments at length, and I'm fully willing to keep doing so if people want to keep making them, but I'm actually really interested in what Garnascus has to say. They're the first person who has made the claim that political and religious discussions in OOC are beneficial and I'd like to hear them explore that idea.

[Guest]

Hold that thought, since I figure quite a few people have said their piece already, but the only thing that really matters is a staff ruling here.

So, speaking of that, can we get an admin or perhaps even the head admin to comment on this?

[Guest]

Hold that thought, since I figure quite a few people have said their piece already, but the only thing that really matters is a staff ruling here.

So, speaking of that, can we get an admin or perhaps even the head admin to comment on this?

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

I get triggered at politics so I'm going censor what you want to talk about during boring extended rounds.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

I get triggered at politics so I'm going censor what you want to talk about during boring extended rounds.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

In case my sarcasm wasn't clear, I believe this is dumb idea, to censor people who legitimately relax by discussing politics.

[Vittorio Giurifiglio]

In case my sarcasm wasn't clear, I believe this is dumb idea, to censor people who legitimately relax by discussing politics.

[LordFowl]

The difference between discussing in-game events and discussing politics is clear. We ban discussing the round so as to prevent metagame, so that people can't call out their locations of death OoC. You propose to ban politics and religion solely on the basis of it causing rage. We currently do not ban any topic wholesale for the possibility of causing rage, so of course starting to do so will set the precedent.

[LordFowl]

The difference between discussing in-game events and discussing politics is clear. We ban discussing the round so as to prevent metagame, so that people can't call out their locations of death OoC. You propose to ban politics and religion solely on the basis of it causing rage. We currently do not ban any topic wholesale for the possibility of causing rage, so of course starting to do so will set the precedent.

[jackfractal]

I'm not suggesting we disallow any topic based on the possibility of making people angry. I'm suggesting that we don't talk about politics and religion because those are the categories that contain the topics that most often make people have less fun while playing SS13. There are a wide variety of possible emotional responses that can make the game less fun to play, most of them not involving rage.

We don't only prevent people from talking about the current round. We also prevent people from slagging off other servers, or discussing crimes, or posting erotica, or spamming.

We stop people from talking when it's bad for the server.

What I'm proposing is that allowing politics and religion to be discussed in ooc is bad for the server and should be prevented in exactly the same way that we prevent people from talking about other things that are bad for the server.

Precedent, in this case, has already been amply set.

[jackfractal]

I'm not suggesting we disallow any topic based on the possibility of making people angry. I'm suggesting that we don't talk about politics and religion because those are the categories that contain the topics that most often make people have less fun while playing SS13. There are a wide variety of possible emotional responses that can make the game less fun to play, most of them not involving rage.

We don't only prevent people from talking about the current round. We also prevent people from slagging off other servers, or discussing crimes, or posting erotica, or spamming.

We stop people from talking when it's bad for the server.

What I'm proposing is that allowing politics and religion to be discussed in ooc is bad for the server and should be prevented in exactly the same way that we prevent people from talking about other things that are bad for the server.

Precedent, in this case, has already been amply set.

[LordFowl]

There is however no specific rule for each of those occurrences, except for the erotica rule, which is covered by the PG-13 rule. (I suppose slagging off on other servers could tenuously be placed under the 'no advertisement' rule.) However, every one of the topics you state we outright ban (Again, only two of the topics you mentioned are outright forbidden) does not induce rage or heated arguments. The PG-13 rule is mandated by the host to prevent legal issues, and the forbidding of advertising other servers is because advertisement generally turns into spam (To be honest, I don't agree with this rule at all, although it's pretty much bog-standard when it comes to rule making). The remainder of the topics you brought up are cut short purely on a case-by-case basis, and that includes politics and religion. Outright banning any topic in my opinion is bad enough, except for the clear case of IC in OOC and violation of pg-13, but a case-by-case basis is a good compromise, and has worked effectively so far as I have seen. I don't really see the purpose of making the process more strict. Also, 'bad for the server' is even /more/ vague than 'inducing rage', and would only set a more nebulous precedent.

Ultimately, of the two topics you brought up that actually have a rule tied to them in the official rulebook, their intent is clear.

Violation of pg-13 - mandated by the host to prevent legal issues, would probably exist if we self-hosted for that same reason.

No advertising - Actively attempts to reduce the playerbase, as opposed to the passive possibility of the playerbase being reduced because of controversial topics.

[LordFowl]

There is however no specific rule for each of those occurrences, except for the erotica rule, which is covered by the PG-13 rule. (I suppose slagging off on other servers could tenuously be placed under the 'no advertisement' rule.) However, every one of the topics you state we outright ban (Again, only two of the topics you mentioned are outright forbidden) does not induce rage or heated arguments. The PG-13 rule is mandated by the host to prevent legal issues, and the forbidding of advertising other servers is because advertisement generally turns into spam (To be honest, I don't agree with this rule at all, although it's pretty much bog-standard when it comes to rule making). The remainder of the topics you brought up are cut short purely on a case-by-case basis, and that includes politics and religion. Outright banning any topic in my opinion is bad enough, except for the clear case of IC in OOC and violation of pg-13, but a case-by-case basis is a good compromise, and has worked effectively so far as I have seen. I don't really see the purpose of making the process more strict. Also, 'bad for the server' is even /more/ vague than 'inducing rage', and would only set a more nebulous precedent.

Ultimately, of the two topics you brought up that actually have a rule tied to them in the official rulebook, their intent is clear.

Violation of pg-13 - mandated by the host to prevent legal issues, would probably exist if we self-hosted for that same reason.

No advertising - Actively attempts to reduce the playerbase, as opposed to the passive possibility of the playerbase being reduced because of controversial topics.

[EvilBrage]

I'd say getting killed in-game makes people rage more than politalks and religion, but we're not about to ban that too, are we?

Anyways, I'm really not seeing any new arguments here. You claim it's bad for the server, while you have no data to support that assertion apart from personal anecdotes (but you're still here, imagine that.) Sorry, but there are some people in this crazy world of ours who just want to go out and be offended so they can justify their childish behavior, and those are the kinds of toxic people we don't need on the server.

Trust me when I say that if it's not politics or religion, the perpetually dissatisfied will find something else to be offended and quit over.

[EvilBrage]

I'd say getting killed in-game makes people rage more than politalks and religion, but we're not about to ban that too, are we?

Anyways, I'm really not seeing any new arguments here. You claim it's bad for the server, while you have no data to support that assertion apart from personal anecdotes (but you're still here, imagine that.) Sorry, but there are some people in this crazy world of ours who just want to go out and be offended so they can justify their childish behavior, and those are the kinds of toxic people we don't need on the server.

Trust me when I say that if it's not politics or religion, the perpetually dissatisfied will find something else to be offended and quit over.

[jackfractal]

@LordFoul.

I know there aren't specific rules, that's why I didn't use the term 'ban' instead I used the term 'prevent'.

While we have no formal rules about slagging off other servers, but we do have a very strong informal moderation on the topic. It's very rare to see an instance of this go past without being moderated, but

I'm sorry, I should have specified the topics that are explicitly mentioned in the rules. That was a rhetorical shortcut of mine. Thanks for pointing them out.

That being said, I am asking for a ban, but I would be fine with an informal moderation, provided the moderation was both strong and about the topics of politics and religion and not done using the vague metric of 'heatedness' which is how we currently do it.

I'd prefer it to be a rule, as I believe that it should be and that it will be easier on the people that such a rule is designed to protect, but consistent moderation would be a good first step.

You did miss one thing from your list of formally banned topics, which is the "no IC in ooc" rule, but that one's fairly obvious and well known.

That being said, I'm excited to see that we agree that the server does both ban and informally prevent certain topics from being discussed and this curation has not resulted in the widespread banning of all topics.

I'm glad we can put that particular argument to rest.

Bans on particular topics exist, and they exist because they're necessary for the health of the server. I'm suggesting that the server would be healthier without discussions of politics or religion.

While rereading the rules (prompted by your post) I was reminded of a point I wanted to make earlier, but then forgot about, which was General Rule 7.

General Rule 7 reads: "Keep the round fun for everyone - your actions should always have the goal to add to others' fun, not detract from it."

I contend that people who broadcast political or religious topics in OOC are in violation of this rule.

@EvilBrage

You must have missed something while reading the thread. It's cool, it happens to everyone. I've missed things too. I'll quote it here because it's important to understanding where I'm coming from.

 

I'm not suggesting we disallow any topic based on the possibility of making people angry. I'm suggesting that we don't talk about politics and religion because those are the categories that contain the topics that most often make people have less fun while playing SS13. There are a wide variety of possible emotional responses that can make the game less fun to play, most of them not involving rage.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, I really don't know how to respond. What kind of data are you looking for? Evidence that emotions exist? Or do you want some kind of data proving that people who have negative emotions aren't lying about them as part of some sort of sociopathic power play?

I'm baffled. I have no idea what you're really asking for.

You claim that I haven't supported my claims with anything aside from personal anecdotes. That's not true, I haven't used any anecdotes.

I bring this up because it's made parts of this discussion rather challenging to write about, as it would have been much easier to make certain points had I been able to offer specific examples. I haven't. I have used no specific examples of any kind.

I chose to do this with a great deal of deliberation because I knew that if I included any examples or personal anecdotes people would try to make this about the validity of the examples or they'd try to make it about me.

It might be convenient if this topic were ultimately about me being filled with rage when people talk about a specific topic, but it's not.

It's not about rage, it's not about a specific topic, and it's not about me.

This topic is about a proposed method for making our community more welcoming to everyone, even the people you don't like.

[jackfractal]

@LordFoul.

I know there aren't specific rules, that's why I didn't use the term 'ban' instead I used the term 'prevent'.

While we have no formal rules about slagging off other servers, but we do have a very strong informal moderation on the topic. It's very rare to see an instance of this go past without being moderated, but

I'm sorry, I should have specified the topics that are explicitly mentioned in the rules. That was a rhetorical shortcut of mine. Thanks for pointing them out.

That being said, I am asking for a ban, but I would be fine with an informal moderation, provided the moderation was both strong and about the topics of politics and religion and not done using the vague metric of 'heatedness' which is how we currently do it.

I'd prefer it to be a rule, as I believe that it should be and that it will be easier on the people that such a rule is designed to protect, but consistent moderation would be a good first step.

You did miss one thing from your list of formally banned topics, which is the "no IC in ooc" rule, but that one's fairly obvious and well known.

That being said, I'm excited to see that we agree that the server does both ban and informally prevent certain topics from being discussed and this curation has not resulted in the widespread banning of all topics.

I'm glad we can put that particular argument to rest.

Bans on particular topics exist, and they exist because they're necessary for the health of the server. I'm suggesting that the server would be healthier without discussions of politics or religion.

While rereading the rules (prompted by your post) I was reminded of a point I wanted to make earlier, but then forgot about, which was General Rule 7.

General Rule 7 reads: "Keep the round fun for everyone - your actions should always have the goal to add to others' fun, not detract from it."

I contend that people who broadcast political or religious topics in OOC are in violation of this rule.

@EvilBrage

You must have missed something while reading the thread. It's cool, it happens to everyone. I've missed things too. I'll quote it here because it's important to understanding where I'm coming from.

 

I'm not suggesting we disallow any topic based on the possibility of making people angry. I'm suggesting that we don't talk about politics and religion because those are the categories that contain the topics that most often make people have less fun while playing SS13. There are a wide variety of possible emotional responses that can make the game less fun to play, most of them not involving rage.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, I really don't know how to respond. What kind of data are you looking for? Evidence that emotions exist? Or do you want some kind of data proving that people who have negative emotions aren't lying about them as part of some sort of sociopathic power play?

I'm baffled. I have no idea what you're really asking for.

You claim that I haven't supported my claims with anything aside from personal anecdotes. That's not true, I haven't used any anecdotes.

I bring this up because it's made parts of this discussion rather challenging to write about, as it would have been much easier to make certain points had I been able to offer specific examples. I haven't. I have used no specific examples of any kind.

I chose to do this with a great deal of deliberation because I knew that if I included any examples or personal anecdotes people would try to make this about the validity of the examples or they'd try to make it about me.

It might be convenient if this topic were ultimately about me being filled with rage when people talk about a specific topic, but it's not.

It's not about rage, it's not about a specific topic, and it's not about me.

This topic is about a proposed method for making our community more welcoming to everyone, even the people you don't like.

[Saintsbury]

tl;dr the whole topic, still adding my part though.

I never had a heated discussion about politics or religion on Aurora. I had discussions where people literally smacked their head against the monitors about shit like nation rounds, Race war and My Little Pony. Weapons, yeah people were flaming each other because "A: 'Eh you have no clue about gun xy', B: 'eh I have, I fired gun xy at the range just yesterday.'" which results in them calling the other faggot for over half an hour.

And religion is almost never a topic, when it is it's like "A: 'Meh religion is stupid', B: "Gah, heathen, don't talk to me'" discussion ended.

Politics mostly ends analog to religion.

AND DON'T YOU DARE FORBIDDING ADOLF HITLER DISCUSSIONS!

Anyway if a discussion gets out of hand, regardless what topic, an admin/mod will probably bwoink them so hard they can only shut up afterwards.

[Saintsbury]

tl;dr the whole topic, still adding my part though.

I never had a heated discussion about politics or religion on Aurora. I had discussions where people literally smacked their head against the monitors about shit like nation rounds, Race war and My Little Pony. Weapons, yeah people were flaming each other because "A: 'Eh you have no clue about gun xy', B: 'eh I have, I fired gun xy at the range just yesterday.'" which results in them calling the other faggot for over half an hour.

And religion is almost never a topic, when it is it's like "A: 'Meh religion is stupid', B: "Gah, heathen, don't talk to me'" discussion ended.

Politics mostly ends analog to religion.

AND DON'T YOU DARE FORBIDDING ADOLF HITLER DISCUSSIONS!

Anyway if a discussion gets out of hand, regardless what topic, an admin/mod will probably bwoink them so hard they can only shut up afterwards.

[Guest]

Hold that thought, since I figure quite a few people have said their piece already, but the only thing that really matters is a staff ruling here.

So, speaking of that, can we get an admin or perhaps even the head admin to comment on this?

 

Please?