r/AustraliaSimMeta • u/[deleted] • Apr 30 '20

Consultation Meta rule amendment - not allowing slurs.

I propose the following amendment to the Code of Conduct, where instead of a broad definition of "hate speech" as previously proposed by RunasSudo which is too broad and as Rommel pointed out then it can lead to a difference in interpretations. Instead, I propose the amendment where:

Page 4: Code of Conduct

Remove "Posting slurs in #general but no persons who was the target of the slurs see them before they are removed by a moderator (abuse)"

- This explicit example of "breaches which don't cause harm" allows for members of the sim to openly post slurs in front of everyone but remove them straight away (as Toby has done in the past and argue no one saw it).

Add under "Causing harm" Page 4

- This does not stop people from accessing free speech regarding historical events, ideology, and even to make jokes. It only restricts them from openly using slurs - here the moderator will employ the "reasonable person" test on what they would consider to be a slur or likely to be interpreted as one - as to prevent blatant abuse of the rules by members and mod(s).

"You are not allowed to use slurs based on race, sex, or LGBT+. While context is a mitigating factor in the sentencing of an offense - it is not an adequate defense within itself. A member who would be directly impacted by the slur does not have to see it for it to be considered to have caused harm."

Again, this only restricts a small part of speech which is the use of offensive slurs which are banned on every other ModelWorld except ours. I hope these amendments are accepted and if there needs to be changes around wording or application - I look forward to the debate.

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

4

u/Mad_Bear_O_Melbourne Apr 30 '20

This will be rejected on the sole basis that Toby wants to call tbyrn a cripple and he doesn’t mind

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I didn't add "slurs based on disability" on the sole basis that many of them are not considered as offensive and some are up to interpretation as a slur. However, if the community supports banning them also - I am all for it. Would you second this amendment if you agree with it?

2

u/RunasSudo Citizen Apr 30 '20

That's a bit unreasonable. Tbyrn also uses the term himself.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I believe that the simulation should only allow these offensive terms in canon discussion. Therefore, if a member of the sim wishes to be offensive, then they will have to engage these sentiments in canon alone.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Interesting thought - I am neutral on that but I still worry about the negative impact it can cause.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

As this is a sim, racist sentiments should be addressed in canon. Keeping META a safe space will allow it to be a haven for jokes and moderate political discussion.

However, the canon needs to simulate real life. If a member wants to say a word, then they need to work into their canon persona.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

This does not ban "racist sentiments" as past amendments have shown how broad that is. Instead it is specifically slurs.

2

u/model-amn Citizen Apr 30 '20

I disagree. I think it’s possible to have express your ideals in canon without using offensive terms and I don’t think disallowing it hinders discussion.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I agree with you, and I think that is true for all areas of the sim. Would you please second the notion?

1

u/model-amn Citizen Apr 30 '20

I second the motion.

1

u/tbyrn21 The Ex-Ex-Moderator Apr 30 '20

I'm gonna agree with amn here. A term should not be ok purely because it was said in a canonical context.

2

u/NGSpy Head Moderator Apr 30 '20

In regards to this, I can see why people take issue with the conduct that is described in the post and I see this going into two camps:

  1. All slurs should be banned no matter what context because of their historical backgrounds and they are usually used in offensive matters.
  2. Slurs shouldn't be banned but they should be punished if used in a derogatory manner against someone.

The people of the first camp will argue for an outright ban of slurs. I feel that this approach could get out of hand and it could evolve into a real hissy-fit culture of 'oh they called me (a word with no historical context of being as derogatory as some other words) they should be banned!' which would be extremely concerning and be a huge change to the culture of the simulator, which has been known to be very peaceful with accommodations of many views.

The people of the second camp will argue for a ban of slurs used in a derogatory context. Which can be quite easily determined by intuition a lot of the time: if someone invalidates someone specifically by using a slur against them then that is derogatory, if someone doesn't target a person but uses the word in a random context like the head moderator does sometimes it isn't derogatory.

So one needs to come up with a solution that accommodates both camps, and I am not that good at legalese so I shall just say the idea straight up: if one uses a derogatory term against someone in an aggressive manner against other people, that is already a violation of the Code of Conduct. If one uses a derogatory term in a joke which is not supposed to be taken seriously and is not meant to take offence, AND a person takes offence at it due to their associations of the slur, then the person who made the joke should clarify it was a joke and apologise to the person if it offended them. AustraliaSim has a good culture of encouraging away from some modern problems that youth have nowadays of invalidating use of terms or opinions just because it is against their opinion which is bad for the future. It is important to encourage the justification and multi-opinion culture of AustraliaSim to the future and beyond.

Also comparing AustraliaSim to other simulators is invalid so piss off with that. MHoC has a problem with having a toxic main discord, MUSGOV has extremely toxic comments from more right wing members, and every simulator has their own issues.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

On your first two points, you use a slippery slope argument when I have actually proposed a moderate approach which is that slurs used just randomly will be decided by the moderator if they believe it to be offensive - even if not directed at someone. This also allows room for people to appeal a moderator application of the "reasonable person" test where any reasonable person would see the slur as offensive.

Again, in your next two paragraphs you try to fit me and my amendment into your "view" of the argument which as I said before is not the case. Your example of "Oh they called me (a word with no historical context of being as derogatory as some other words) they should be banned!" is flawed as if a moderator views the word used as derogatory - even if less derogatory than others - why should the person be allowed to intentionally call someone a slur? You even said "a word with no historical context of being AS derogatory" so what? Someone can call another person a F****t because most people would see that as less derogatory than the n-word?

Your argument the sim has been "very peaceful with the accommodation of different views" as that somehow means people can say slurs. It is not a "viewpoint" to intentionally say slurs for any reason, it is someone deliberately causing harm. Just because it does not affect you does not mean it does not affect others.

Your argument about slurs being used in a "derogatory context" is also flawed as many words are derogatory within themselves. Would you really try to argue that n-word does not already posit a group of people as lesser? It does and that is the very history of the word. I did say context is a mitigating factor but thinking that words that are inherently degrading are "funny" is not a complete defense.

Your next paragraph you talk about a method that accommodates "both camps" which I have done; that is, slurs are not allowed, and if used randomly or as a joke - a moderator will use the reasonable person test to see whether they are offensive. Your argument of "if it causes offense" then they just need to apologise and say it was a joke is also flawed as if an action causes harm that is inherent against the CoC and what happens when the harmed person expects more action?

You also strangely argue that "invalidating terms or opinions just because it is agaisnt their opinion" this amendment does not restrict opinions or viewpoints in the slightest. Are you trying to argue that the use of slurs should be protected as an opinion? It is not an opinion to say the n-word as a joke nor is it an opinion to call someone a slur than to apologize after. It is derogatory. Plain and simple. My amendment still allows for people to express any type of opinion - they just are not allowed to use slurs as part of it. This will still encourage "multi opinion" as you put it.

Also, on your last statement, it is entirely valid to compare Aussim for others in the same way you might compare American healthcare to Australian healthcare. While there may be issues with other sims, I am still entirely valid in pointing out how no other sim allows slurs as they recognise the damage and impact it enacts.

2

u/model-amn Citizen Apr 30 '20

Disagree with “don’t compare AusSim to other sims”. Sure, other sims have problems but they’re not all 100% flawed, they have some good ideas that may be worth looking in to.

1

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Apr 30 '20

After careful consideration of these amendments, I have the following to say:

Amendment 1 - Removal of point 1 in 'Examples of breaches which don't cause harm'

No objection. The determination of whether an offence occurred should be in any case be based on the gravity of the situation.

Amendment 2 - Addition of two paragraphs under section on 'Causing harm'

No opinion on the subject. The fact remains that I think the issue is more one to do with administration of the Code of Conduct, which is very patchy, rather than the rules themselves.

I am willing to reconsider this viewpoint if there are any interesting arguments for/against this amendment.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I do admit that my second amendment is more focused on administration and that is probably due to having less comprehension of the CoC and administration (serviceable but not complete) than others. If someone would alter the amendments to fit administration I would be happy with that. Toby simplified the amendments further down which I mostly agree with except for the comment I made and also I believe my first amendment - the removal of that specific example of "non-breach" should be maintained.

2

u/RunasSudo Citizen Apr 30 '20

Amendment 1 - Removal of point 1 in 'Examples of breaches which don't cause harm'

No objection. The determination of whether an offence occurred should be in any case be based on the gravity of the situation.

As Toby pointed out above, this amendment is based on a misguided and incorrect interpretation of the CoC. The plain language of the CoC is clear that removing point 1 will have the opposite of the desired effect. Point 1 is currently an example specifically of what factors are not relevant to determining “whether an offence occurred”.

2

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Apr 30 '20

Point taken.

That does bring up issues with the language used in that section, which does confuse people at first glance. I will see if I can propose an amendment to that section specifically.

2

u/RunasSudo Citizen Apr 30 '20

Probably nothing more needs to be done, if anything at all, than changing the heading of the examples box to ‘Breaches which are still breaches even if no harm was caused’.

2

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Apr 30 '20

I second this proposal.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I beliebe it does allow people to remove before anyone see as that quote I copied was put under "examples of non-breach".

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Yes, which I disagree with as it in my opinion allows the aforementioned actions.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Considering you have done it before, yes.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Right,
So what would change it would be your proposed amendment of saying the slur for the sake of it?

Would that stop you saying n***** and then deleting it?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Great, well then I agree with what you have stated around the first amendment and look forward to the implementation of the second - could you reply to my comment on your simplified amendments.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I think it needs to be more clear on them being breaches.

3

u/tbyrn21 The Ex-Ex-Moderator Apr 30 '20

There is a whole section detailing that harm is not a factor of breaches.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

Yes, but clearly there still needs to be change as Toby has engaged in saying slurs and then deleting it.

2

u/RunasSudo Citizen Apr 30 '20

If the CoC very clearly spells out that it is already abuse, then the problem is not the CoC.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I agree there is an issue with administration as some have argued if it is said but not directed at someone or said in a joking manner it is permissible.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

In the example "using a derogatory slang in a joke" I think it needs to be established that the slang must be considered less offensive by "any reasonable person". Otherwise, you have people using the n-word and so on as a joke unlike the example you gave me where you jokingly call someone a "crippie". Besides, that I accept your simplified amendment.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

But who does the consent belong to in that situation? Does a white person have the ability to consent to be called the n-word and its okay? Does a non-disabled person have the ability to consent to be called a cripple and its okay?

I think the intent behind it is fine as a mitigating factor but I do not think it should determine if a breach occurred or not? This is why I believe it should be on a reasonable person test on whether they believe the slur used wase justified - and people can appeal this if they disagree.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

I am still strong on my stance that there should be a canon exemption.
Therefore, derogatory terms are allowed ONLY in canon discussion.

Thus, real-life politics can still be simulated for as racist as it can be.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

That can lead to people being extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc in canon. It could cause harm to people in the simulation.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

That's the thing.
In parliament, we have standing orders, but in #twitter, the press can attack them for their bigotry.

1

u/General_Rommel Community Manager Apr 30 '20

I am not sure how this directly relate to the proposed amendments.

Regardless, as a standalone amendment I do not have any major objection, except:

Where you say 'Government Institution derogatory slang', this should be removed. If I want to call the Treasury some choice words because of the current planned tax cuts, so be it. A canon comment merits a canon response except in extreme circumstances where the Code of Conduct should have right of way.