Directly state "discrimination" in MC-M rules.
- Thread starter LillianA
- Start date
- Status
PebbleHost
High performance, consistent uptime and fast support. Minecraft hosting that just works.
Whether you're liberal or not has nothing to do with simple respect. As it stands, people using homophobic/otherwise derogatory slurs are already punished under rule 1.6, the fact is that a derogatory language part is not explicit, under that rule. As a result, people may have a hard time using their common sense and pulling slurs out left right and centre - a frequent occurrence on this forum. Some of the slurs people can pull out can get a person a nice fine or some jail time in life - it's not (or shouldn't be) any different here. Opinions play no part in respect.
(TL;DR, no, it has nothing to do with how liberal a person is)
It isn't directly quoted within rule 1.6, yes. But, the action itself is obviously something a user should not be partaking in. Additionally, it is still enforceable as it violates our TOS :
Content Restrictions -
Code of Conduct -
However, we are open to changing to Rule 1.6 if you believe you can word it better. It would need to be concise and easy to understand since we don't wish to complicate the rules even further. I do agree that it does need to be updated as it is a bit outdated and can be improved.
Another note, keeping it vague isn't quite so bad as it does allow us to enforce a much wider scope of negative content.
Last edited:
Never actually thought about the TOS or Code of Conduct having something like this so I never actually bothered to look but I guess it does make perfect sense, and I do guess keeping 1.6 more vague would allow you guys to not have to directly state everything but instead the general basis of something like this. Just thought something more direct would've been alright since I see a bit of discrimination on here, But since it is against the ToS I guess people should know directly either way that they'll be punished for it.
Our base rules are often simply just an extension to our TOS.
That has nothing to do with this thread - that's a reputation issue. You could misuse anything and provide any excuse... it's just irrelevant. Open a rep dispute and wait for a Mod :shrug:.
is this thread not about the discrimination rule being vague and therefore misused? just giving an example of that
Hate speech is such a loose term, it's plain and simply subjective. Anything I find slightly hateful, mean, appalling, offensive, etc. is by definition considered hate speech.
Even making jokes is considered hate speech if it personally offends someone, which jokes always do, they always offend at least 1 person. For example, let's say I tell a child's joke, like a "Yo mama" joke. Oops, the person doesn't have a mother, they find it offensive, by definition it's labeled hate speech, I get warning points on the forum for telling a yo mama joke. Maybe I won't, maybe I will. But according to the rules on the forum, if you're going to objectively moderate, I should receive warning points.
Even if someone says something I dislike on one of my products, it can be considered hate speech.
I'd suggest removing the hate speech rule since everything is already covered inside of the other rules, and they're not subjective, unlike hate speech.
Last edited:
I want to preface by saying this may sound as though there is some prejudice I am trying to protect. That could not be further from the reality, what I would like to be able to do, my sole goal with the following statement is to protect myself from a potential future issue, not to show prejudice or hate towards any particular group.
Ok, that said; from my understanding, you are looking for a role that directly states discrimination is not allowed, a noble goal. But that expects that this rule will only be used by those with noble intentions, the reality is is that the rule needs to apply to both the benevolent and the malevolent. A rule like this will be used as a weapon for those looking to disallow people from denying them a position or exiting a deal. Users will report others for denying them on grounds of discrimination, true or not, because that is not something that is easy to show as reasonable, and quite difficult to disprove.
The current rules serve well enough against preventing discriminatory content and practices. A rule flat out banning all forms of discrimination will, realistically, only be used as a tool for upset users to force others into giving them what they want.
Ok, that said; from my understanding, you are looking for a role that directly states discrimination is not allowed, a noble goal. But that expects that this rule will only be used by those with noble intentions, the reality is is that the rule needs to apply to both the benevolent and the malevolent. A rule like this will be used as a weapon for those looking to disallow people from denying them a position or exiting a deal. Users will report others for denying them on grounds of discrimination, true or not, because that is not something that is easy to show as reasonable, and quite difficult to disprove.
The current rules serve well enough against preventing discriminatory content and practices. A rule flat out banning all forms of discrimination will, realistically, only be used as a tool for upset users to force others into giving them what they want.
The current rules & TOS (as mentioned by Lotus) already state discrimination is not permitted. It would simply be a moving (or making it explicit) of this to the rules section. Perhaps you could provide us with say, a more articulate rule which objectively describes what would and what wouldn't be discrimination?
I totally get what you mean, though.
The word discrimination should be used with the context which describes the degrading, dehumanising or objectification of another person, idea or belief (err... to an extent. *cough* anti-vaxxers & flat-earthers - the earth is clearly a cube) - which is what this suggestion is trying to achieve.
Last edited:
- Status
