VHL Code of Conduct Policy

[jRuutu 2,291]

9 minutes ago, Beketov said:

We both know you’re being ridiculous to prove a point and it’s not working so this conversation is over.

The problem with taking a stand is that you turn your back towards something else. That is how it goes these days, its ok to make fun of certain things and some are out of the limits. Some causes are worth more, some feelings and groups are more valuable. Play by these rules or you are targeted.

 

Either way, if you want - can take the 2 capped/trivia answers out this weeks update = should do it for this punishment? (6 + 2 capped at the moment)

 

 

[Beketov 8,638]

1 minute ago, jRuutu said:

Either way, if you want - can take the 2 capped/trivia answers out this weeks update = should do it for this punishment? (6 + 2 capped at the moment)

You’ve got the banked so if you’d rather I just revoke that and you earn no more this week that’s fine.

[jRuutu 2,291]

1 minute ago, Beketov said:

You’ve got the banked so if you’d rather I just revoke that and you earn no more this week that’s fine.

Sounds good!

[Phil 5,009]

I guess my days of trolling are over? 

 

 

 

[Beowoof 13]

 

@Beketov forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but I just want to share something in response to this comment. Feel free to delete this if I am

12 hours ago, Sebster03 said:

fuckin'  snowflakes.

 

Not saying provoking and antagonizing is cool here i'm just saying people gotta just mature a little bit and not get so worked up over a simple word that's not even aimed at you or others in the first place. This shit just got blown out of proportion when it really didn't need to IMO. The guy was just voicing his displeasure it's not like he straight up called someone a homo or anything. Grow the fuck up.

 

If this is truly how you feel about words in general, I implore you to read what was posted in the SBA. I doubt this will change any opinions, but I hope that it at the very least offers a different perspective on things that probably aren't thought about.

 

Quote

2.) Putting down groups of people, or using derogatory slurs should never be tolerated

I think Abaddon articulated the issue very well here: https://sba.today/forums/index.php?/topic/42778-ending-vhl-affiliation/&do=findComment&comment=735202

 

I'm going to explain an anecdotal experience I've had, but I think it could shed some light on why some people, get very upset , while others don't think it is a big deal.

 

Recently, two friends of mine that are in a homosexual relationship decided to go adopt a dog from the pound. This was because the pound was completely full with animals and they were having a special adoption drive.

 

While there, they fell in love with one of the dogs and wanted to adopt it. However, the woman working there figured out that they were a same sex couple and did everything in her power to prevent them from getting the dog, marking them down as unfit for adoption. I was present the entire time and basically, there was no real rational explanation on why they were unfit to adopt. My friends were devastated. We decided to have two of other friends go and adopt the dog, which worked out, and then they immediately gave the dog to the homosexual couple. This worked out in the end, but I couldn't believe this was even a thing we had to deal with. This lady would rather have a dog locked up without a family than have it raised by a gay couple. 

 

This was one instance of discrimination and I've seen plenty more, but I can't imagine how many stupid things like this that they have had to deal with over the years.

Low key discrimination comes up all of the time and people that are discriminated have to deal with it on a regular basis. They should not have to worry about being discriminated while playing on a sim league site.

 

If you don't see a problem with using these words in a derogatory fashion, then you've probably lived a privileged and sheltered life. Imagine hanging out having fun in a sim league, and someone says something that reminds you of the time that you couldn't adopt a dog solely based on the fact that you were gay. What if it is even worse and it reminds you that your parents didn't love you enough to come to your wedding because of your sexuality. Pretty traumatic right? 

 

Well since that's not something you ever had to deal with personally,  maybe just show some empathy and just choose to use words that won't alienate or resurface trauma for anyone else. It's not that hard to do and more importantly, it's the right thing to do.

 

We are all here to have fun in sim leagues and watch numbers on a screen, but people shouldn't feel excluded based on words said that brings back any unwelcome feelings.

 

[Beketov 8,638]

1 minute ago, Beowoof said:

 

@Beketov forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but I just want to share something in response to this comment. Feel free to delete this if I am

You’re a member like anyone else, you’re more than welcome to voice your opinion and offer examples, even if they don’t come from here.

[PotatoKing 46]

2 hours ago, Beketov said:

Stupid means stupid, that’s literally the definitely of the word. Using gay as a synonym for stupid is basically saying all homosexuals are stupid because what they are is a synonym for stupid. You see the issue?

 

Stupid comes from the latin word stupere, which meant something akin to being easily stunned or amazed by new information. Its colloquial form which is synonymous with lacking intelligence has not always been the norm.

 

Likewise the word gay has not always been synonymous with homosexual. However, its former origin (cheery, joyous) isn't relegated to a dead language such as latin, meaning both definitions are still considered valid. When someone says of a situation, without any sarcasm, "Well that's gay", it would be easy to interpret it as meaning that the situation is pleasant/fortunate to them. Using the same sentence with sarcasm "Well that's gay" then indicates the opposite of its positive definition, similar to non-sarcastically saying "Well that's lame". Substitute the word "gay" for "grand" and you can also get this effect. Nothing to do with homosexuality, wouldn't you agree?

 

Words more often than not have more than one definition. It's not easy to derive intent behind someone's words without making assumptions, and sometimes these assumptions can fall short if we aren't careful. I'm sorry but I felt I needed to point that out, it doesn't seem right to me to go ahead and assume what people mean to say, rather than what they say. The appropriate response (again in my eyes) to "Well that's gay" could be: "By gay, do you mean to say all homosexuals are stupid or lame?". I suspect the speaker could then inform others of their intent more clearly, which is preferable to me than policing language.

 

I haven't been here for long so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I don't see this kind of practice (punishing words rather than intent) as something productive to do. Just my two cents.

[Beketov 8,638]

2 minutes ago, PotatoKing said:

 

Stupid comes from the latin word stupere, which meant something akin to being easily stunned or amazed by new information. Its colloquial form which is synonymous with lacking intelligence has not always been the norm.

 

Likewise the word gay has not always been synonymous with homosexual. However, its former origin (cheery, joyous) isn't relegated to a dead language such as latin, meaning both definitions are still considered valid. When someone says of a situation, without any sarcasm, "Well that's gay", it would be easy to interpret it as meaning that the situation is pleasant/fortunate to them. Using the same sentence with sarcasm "Well that's gay" then indicates the opposite of its positive definition, similar to non-sarcastically saying "Well that's lame". Substitute the word "gay" for "grand" and you can also get this effect. Nothing to do with homosexuality, wouldn't you agree?

 

Words more often than not have more than one definition. It's not easy to derive intent behind someone's words without making assumptions, and sometimes these assumptions can fall short if we aren't careful. I'm sorry but I felt I needed to point that out, it doesn't seem right to me to go ahead and assume what people mean to say, rather than what they say. The appropriate response (again in my eyes) to "Well that's gay" could be: "By gay, do you mean to say all homosexuals are stupid or lame?". I suspect the speaker could then inform others of their intent more clearly, which is preferable to me than policing language.

 

I haven't been here for long so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but I don't see this kind of practice (punishing words rather than intent) as something productive to do. Just my two cents.

As I said in the OP context will be taken into consideration. We’re not going to immediately punish someone for uttering a word but we are obviously going to look at the context it was used in to help decide. For example, a GM saying “well that’s gay” after they lost the cup final clearly does not mean “that’s cheery” and everyone involved knows it. Just as saying gay when discussing homosexuality isn’t automatically a bad thing because obviously the context of the conversation calls for it.

 

We aren’t censoring words and saying “these ones can be used, these ones can’t” but we all understand context so the argument that a word could have different meanings when 1 particular meaning was obviously meant doesn’t hold a lot of weight.

[PotatoKing 46]

4 minutes ago, Beketov said:

As I said in the OP context will be taken into consideration. We’re not going to immediately punish someone for uttering a word but we are obviously going to look at the context it was used in to help decide. For example, a GM saying “well that’s gay” after they lost the cup final clearly does not mean “that’s cheery” and everyone involved knows it. Just as saying gay when discussing homosexuality isn’t automatically a bad thing because obviously the context of the conversation calls for it.

 

We aren’t censoring words and saying “these ones can be used, these ones can’t” but we all understand context so the argument that a word could have different meanings when 1 particular meaning was obviously meant doesn’t hold a lot of weight.

 

Agreed, it obviously does not mean a serious "that's cheery", but have you considered it could be a sarcastic "that's cheery"? Similar to saying "Well that's grand" after losing the cup. Obviously, that would not mean "that's splendid" either, but I don't think it's a comment on how thousand dollars (grands) are stupid/lame...

 

You say the meaning was obvious but was it? Because right here and now, we're both seeing a different meaning to the same sentence. I could be wrong of course, but I would be interested to hear the side of the offenders in this case rather than to make an assumption on what they really meant.

[Beketov 8,638]

1 minute ago, PotatoKing said:

 

Agreed, it obviously does not mean a serious "that's cheery", but have you considered it could be a sarcastic "that's cheery"? Similar to saying "Well that's grand" after losing the cup. Obviously, that would not mean "that's splendid" either, but I don't think it's a comment on how thousand dollars (grands) are stupid/lame...

 

You say the meaning was obvious but was it? Because right here and now, we're both seeing a different meaning to the same sentence. I could be wrong of course, but I would be interested to hear the side of the offenders in this case rather than to make an assumption on what they really meant.

And if there’s an issue like that we’ll talk to the offender privately but I don’t think we need to go into the etymology of most words to establish their meaning. I have to assume our members have enough common sense to recognize when their words could come off as harmful.

[PotatoKing 46]

Just now, Beketov said:

And if there’s an issue like that we’ll talk to the offender privately but I don’t think we need to go into the etymology of most words to establish their meaning. I have to assume our members have enough common sense to recognize when their words could come off as harmful.

 

My apologies but we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not, and cannot know what may or may not potentially offend someone because offense is taken rather than given.

 

Thanks for explaining your thoughts on the issue however, I appreciate your open-mindedness.

[Doc Holliday 35]

8 minutes ago, PotatoKing said:

I do not, and cannot know what may or may not potentially offend someone because offense is taken rather than given.

 

I think this is an important point that often gets missed. However, I'd argue the onus is still on you to consider this when choosing your words. There is a lot of talk about intent in semantics--e.g. "I didn't mean it like that"--but intent is essentially irrelevant. Rather than considering intent, you ought to consider impact. How did the people who heard the words receive them? Especially someone who identifies as LGBTQ? Given their history, they're likely going to hear "gay" referring to their sexuality rather than the archaic meaning that, despite your claim earlier, is not really widely used anymore. So the impact is such that "this is big gay," which context tells us means "I don't like this" or "this is bad," will land on an LGBTQ person and feel like an indirect statement about who they are.

 

So yes, offense is taken. But if you pay attention to what people say offends them, often you can anticipate it and not use vocabulary that is likely to cause offense.

 

Also, while I'm here: cheers to the BOG for taking this seriously. When all the fracas started, I had hoped to do my part to help curb a thing I've seen in many corners of the internet, and even if the process wasn't exactly smooth or pretty, I'm glad VHL will be a more welcoming place for future members.

[PotatoKing 46]

28 minutes ago, Doc Holliday said:

 

I think this is an important point that often gets missed. However, I'd argue the onus is still on you to consider this when choosing your words. There is a lot of talk about intent in semantics--e.g. "I didn't mean it like that"--but intent is essentially irrelevant. Rather than considering intent, you ought to consider impact. How did the people who heard the words receive them? Especially someone who identifies as LGBTQ? Given their history, they're likely going to hear "gay" referring to their sexuality rather than the archaic meaning that, despite your claim earlier, is not really widely used anymore. So the impact is such that "this is big gay," which context tells us means "I don't like this" or "this is bad," will land on an LGBTQ person and feel like an indirect statement about who they are.

 

So yes, offense is taken. But if you pay attention to what people say offends them, often you can anticipate it and not use vocabulary that is likely to cause offense.

 

Also, while I'm here: cheers to the BOG for taking this seriously. When all the fracas started, I had hoped to do my part to help curb a thing I've seen in many corners of the internet, and even if the process wasn't exactly smooth or pretty, I'm glad VHL will be a more welcoming place for future members.

 

How can intent be "essentially irrelevant"? I cannot accurately predict the impact of my words, as I suspect, not many people can. People can perceive and interpret words in several possible ways, the only way to communicate clearly between each other is to clarify the intent behind those words. Words are just imperfect vessels that help transmit our thoughts from one individual to another.

 

Let me illustrate: I am assuming in good faith that your intent, by replying to me, was simply to voice out your thoughts here, chime in or elaborate on a specific point. But if I was to interpret your words as a personal attack on me, as if you were deeming yourself superior to me and talking down to me, who would be in the wrong? You, for using a sequence of words that hurt me, or me for too quickly assuming you meant to hurt me? Well, that depends on the intent behind your words, does it not?

 

Thanks for the input, much appreciated. 

[Doc Holliday 35]

6 minutes ago, PotatoKing said:

 

How can intent be "essentially irrelevant"? I cannot accurately predict the impact of my words, as I suspect, not many people can. People can perceive and interpret words in several possible ways, the only way to communicate clearly between each other is to clarify the intent behind those words. Words are just imperfect vessels that help transmit our thoughts from one individual to another.

 

Let me illustrate: I am assuming in good faith that your intent, by replying to me, was simply to voice out your thoughts here, chime in or elaborate on a specific point. But if I was to interpret your words as a personal attack on me, as if you were deeming yourself superior to me and talking down to me, who would be in the wrong? You, for using a sequence of words that hurt me, or me for too quickly assuming you meant to hurt me? Well, that depends on the intent behind your words, does it not?

 

Thanks for the input, much appreciated. 

 

Maintaining the good faith approach: as I understand it, my role would be to apologize for the impact of my words being hurtful and attempt to correct that in the future. In theory, if that is engaged in good faith all the way around, it's a much better discourse for everyone, right?

 

Also--I think perhaps a better phrase would have been "functionally irrelevant." The idea is that impact isn't dependent on intent, so arguments of "I didn't mean it that way" don't lessen the impact.

 

Just some things I've encountered recently that have helped me in thinking about what I say and how I say it. Thought it'd be germane here. I won't say I'm the expert--this is all based on how I've understood and attempted to implement this.

[DMaximus 1,045]

56 minutes ago, PotatoKing said:

I do not, and cannot know what may or may not potentially offend someone because offense is taken rather than given.

 

40 minutes ago, Doc Holliday said:

Rather than considering intent, you ought to consider impact. How did the people who heard the words receive them?

 

Thank you @Doc Holliday for saying this.

 

@PotatoKing and anyone else. You're entirely correct that you can't predict the impact of all your words. However, if someone tells you the word(s) you're using hurt them and you still continue to use those words, you are choosing to be hurtful and choosing to offend.

 

 

 

[PotatoKing 46]

4 minutes ago, Doc Holliday said:

Maintaining the good faith approach: as I understand it, my role would be to apologize for the impact of my words being hurtful and attempt to correct that in the future. In theory, if that is engaged in good faith all the way around, it's a much better discourse for everyone, right?

 

Interesting approach. I agree civility and politeness makes for a better discourse always. Preventing others from using specific words/sentences however, is not very charitable as to how they might use them (maybe in good faith?).

 

6 minutes ago, DMaximus said:

@PotatoKing and anyone else. You're entirely correct that you can't predict the impact of all your words. However, if someone tells you the word(s) you're using hurt them and you still continue to use those words, you are choosing to be hurtful and choosing to offend.

 

I am rather hurt that you would honestly believe I would choose to be hurtful and offensive. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used any language that would be deemed injurious or offensive. I am simply stating my opinion that I do not think word policing makes for a welcoming environment.

[Cxsquared 455]

1 hour ago, PotatoKing said:

 

Interesting approach. I agree civility and politeness makes for a better discourse always. Preventing others from using specific words/sentences however, is not very charitable as to how they might use them (maybe in good faith?).

 

 

I am rather hurt that you would honestly believe I would choose to be hurtful and offensive. I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used any language that would be deemed injurious or offensive. I am simply stating my opinion that I do not think word policing makes for a welcoming environment.

Just to inform you, because you've stated that you aren't aware that this is a problem, but for those in minorities, specifically LGBTQ+ in this instance, not having a policy around language used can be very off putting. While yes, some would rather not feel "controlled by the man", that minimal control helps many people feel welcomed. I for one don't fall into any minority but fall into the category of having this new policy makes me feel more welcomed.

 

If you don't feel welcomed by the new content policy it's great to voice your opinion but the words you have used in this thread can easily be taken as not an opinion but an attack against those for the policy. I would not assume that your intentions were to attack anyone but you've made it clear that you aren't capable of understanding that your words might hurt people. Just wanted to let you know that your "opinion" can easily, and probably is to many, seen as an attack. I hope this clarification has helped you.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Cxsquared

[der meister 2,900]

Long overdue. Good to see.

[gorlab 4,321]

[PotatoKing 46]

2 minutes ago, Cxsquared said:

it's great to voice your opinion but the words you have used in this thread can easily be taken as not an opinion but an attack

 

Many opinions, including yours, can be taken as an attack. That is exactly my point: why take people in such bad faith as to assume attacks where there might not be any?

 

4 minutes ago, Cxsquared said:

I would not assume that your intentions were to attack anyone but you've made it clear that you aren't capable of understanding that your words might hurt people.

 

I fully understanding people can cause harm to each other via insults, uncharitable depictions, belittling, etc., however that does not mean the words themselves caused that harm. It would rather be the actions that caused that harm (insulting, belittling...), no?

 

6 minutes ago, Cxsquared said:

the words you have used in this thread can easily be taken as not an opinion but an attack

 

If that is the case, I apologize for the insistence on this topic and will not be arguing further. Clearly I am in the minority in seeing an issue with this policy; ultimately I do not decide the level of speech suppression applied by this forum.

 

Cheers.

[gorlab 4,321]

Just wondering if I can get clarification on my "pause" slang usage.

 

"pause" is akin to the early 2000s saying 'no homo' but is IMO a less jarring/offensive way of using the slang/term. You ultimately use it as a postface to a comment that, in some context, could be interpreted as homosexual in nature.

 

i.e.

 

you're eating peanuts and you say "wow these nuts taste great, pause."

or

you're doing some kind of manual labour with someone and you instruct them to remove a part/piece from something, by saying "now pull it out, pause."

 

------------------------

 

 

This post is 100% serious by the way, if saying 'pause' after a sentence that could be construed as homosexual is offensive, I will try my best to stop doing it.

[BluObieZ 1,125]

I've skirted many rules lol. Ah the good ole days

[jRuutu 2,291]

@Beketov I can go back to earning TPE normally?

[Beketov 8,638]

3 minutes ago, jRuutu said:

@Beketov I can go back to earning TPE normally?

Normally I would say yes because we revoked your trivia answers from last week but they appear to be back on your player? I might have messed up and not realized they go back into the queue or something. Stand by.

 

Edit: Yeah, I think that’s what happened. I revoked it but it went back to the queue or something and was re-approved. I went in and revoked again and then denied it so yes, you’re covered.