You know, I was about to reply to this with some elaboration on how hate speech is treated these days, but then deleted my typed out reply because I figured I might catch a ban for it. Such times we live in where we stifle discussion for fear of offending someone.
Yes, I too hate freedom of speech comrade, we should all watch what we say.
Right on the money
I would disagree based on:
being quite similar to
though I do agree that
is a bit vague in that āunfair attitudeā is vague.
Is this where we drop a #freestunt, or a GigX did nothing wrong comment?
Seems the updates just reflect practice as itās been for a while, particularly on using evidence from third-party sites and applications.
Not much of an issue unless Iām totally missing something.
Uhm, I do think that appointing races and (positive or negative) traits to people is vastly different from establishing a hierarchy that is used to dominate the others, let alone preserving a specific race.
Also, one does include āsocial groupsā and one does not, which makes it a totally different beast. If you include social groups, it has nothing to do with race anymore.
I didnāt read the changes, but I hope Eve isnāt going the way of social media where anything can be defined as hate speech or racism. There are more important things that the CSM should be working on. Apart from real life threats or attacks, I donāt see why this matters when it is simple to just block a person.
I think youāll be fine as long as you donāt make a real life threat on the other platform.
ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā . I was reported and received a ticket for responding to a troll in local with a āi ā ā ā ā ā ā your motherā joke after he spend the better part of 15 minutes spewing racism and other abuse at me and my friends. CCP is changing this policy for the sole reason that they joined the ā ā ā ā ā ā ā ā āFair Play Allianceā without doing proper research as to who runs it.
Fun fact: The people running the FPA are some of the biggest known harassers, abusers, and doxxers in gaming, and should not be taken seriously at all. Theyāre a textbook case of ācreate a problem and sell a solutionā and CCP should back out as soon as possible.
I want to preface this by saying: Enjoy the fall down the rabbit hole.
"The types of behaviour that we consider to be harassment include but are not limited to:
Hate speech is meaningless nowadays. It basically means you said something that someone finds offensive which is pretty easy with the current generation of snowflakes. Anything can be interpreted as hate speech. It is basically an excuse for the government to use these draconian laws to shut down political opposition or jail people for making a harmless joke.
It getās even more pressing when you consider the fact that CCP has openly communicated that ābeing a dck in eve is not only accepted, but also encouraged". CCP accepted market scams (completely illegal in RL), promoted them even, and things like "questioning onceās seuality in localā in the past, which would classify as HateSpeech nowadays, depending on who you ask.
What once was part of the game and even an accepted profession (!) is now a bannable offense? That doesnāt make sense and as a player, I canāt just accept a āwe donāt give you any broader definition because we are affraid players will use it against usā (which doesnāt even matter one bit!).
Just tell us what you have on your mind and stop ignoring that things arenāt easy anymore please.
Itās not as easy as that either. The internet is a harsh place and it got a lot harsher during the last 2-3 years. Our politicians made HateSpeech-Laws because theyāve observed a correlation between bad behaviour online and a rise in crime.
I do think it makes sense (some at least, if thatās true), but I am very much against vaguely defined or worse, completely undefined or varying terms. We all need rules we all have to abide. It doesnāt work when everyone can make their own laws/rules on every single occassion.
I too think that CCP wants to be as consistent as possible and I really understand (from first hand experience) that arguing with players over bans is quite the nuisance, but a GMās comfort shouldnāt have priority over clear rules for players.
No it isnāt and you know it. And if you really think that you are deluding yourself
Iām not joking, guys. Someone really did threaten to touch my goat. Iām serious. Like I said, I donāt even have one, but what if I did?
Stop laughing.
Sense common to whom?
āUncommon Gadget
Gaslighting point brought up is good; main abuser then reporting the āvictimā 's response, etc. In addition to my earlier post, Iāll steal the point someone made about making this policy change (again, I have no idea what was actually changed) more visible. If it is made an intrusive thing, like re-agreeing to an EULA or something, or a pop-up on the Launcher then the objectionable actions are more likely to be actually corrected (and CCP saves employee time correcting/banning people and still gets their money) and EVE players will be more likely to believe CCP is serious.
If preventing the objectionable actions is actually the goal.
As is, aside from [other potential problems], it is hard to believe this will actually be implemented based on the percentage of people that would be banned. Can bold, italic, and underline the next sentence, but Iām not going to risk doing so. The percentage of players who use the objectionable actions listed due to their own reasonsā¦ is significant. Significant. (I am not willing to risk characterizing/explaining these reasons.) If the players whom ā in-my-reasoning ā deserve punishment do receive it, then fantastic. Itās hard to imagine currently, given everything.
GTFU.
The approach to explaining the terms differs, but I donāt see a āvastā difference between the two, as it would affect CCP. The Oxford definition front-loads ethical negative considerations, but the end of the first clause uses the same word āsuperiorā that the UN definition explains. The UN offers a more mechanical definition, getting to ethics with the word āunfairā in the second clause. It explains it in the context of social groups and not individuals. But, Individuals are members of social groups. Both definitions can work for CCP, because CCP provides ethical context that they consider racism directed at real players to be harassment.
Itās more that miners are particularly well known for this sort of behaviour.
When I was actively ganking in highsec I was getting IRL threats from perhaps 5% of, uh, clients.
Can I just sayā¦
About bloody time?
Good work on this Brisc Rubal. nice1