If you see statistics or actions and look for no deeper cause than the color of someone's skin then yes, that makes you racist.

Emollit mores nec sinit esse feros

Cute, but that's not what hipo asked. He asked if people cite FBI crime statistic that relate to afro-americans, does that make those people racist? He asked a question about frustrations (or fears) being justified with respect to statistics.

He's making a point about profiling. If you're a woman, walking down the street at night, and you see a group of young men walking towards you from the opposite direction, are you not justified in feeling uncomfortable and crossing to the other side of the street? That's profiling, and there's nothing wrong with it. Profiling is simply making a judgement about someone based on the group they belong to. There's informed profiling, and then there's uninformed profiling.

There's a reason why, when a call goes over the radio that a black man's been killed, that the police will stop any and all black men they see jogging in the area - The reason isn't systemic racism. When people kill, the tend to kill people of their own race. Your suspect is overwhelmingly likely to be black. This is informed profiling.

This is the point that hipo's making. He's not suggesting that there's nothing else you need to look at other than race. He's not suggesting that the 'cause' is race. He's just saying there are certain statistical realities and these should (and do) play a part in our decision-making and how we make sense of the world.

I think the thread has shifted into political talk instead of contributing to the topic.

Personally I think the rules should go back to the way they were, it seemed to work fine then and it should work fine now, the rule change was unnecessary. And changing the rules in wibbles of all places is the most appalling thing I've ever seen
It's too specific, extensive harassment of any kind should be punished, it just makes sense. OUTSIDE OF WIBBLES
If someone is asked once to stop and doesn't they should be punished. OUTSIDE OF WIBBLES

I think this should be expanded on, compiled and compressed into a Suggestions thread so that it may be implemented.
The rules should go back to the way they were. It worked well and didn't need revision.

I don't wish to make an argument about the new rules and what people want to do with them, I'm glad this can take place. I won't be that person to shut it down. But I think it's important to correctly address the old rules before people blindly say they want to return to them.


The more information part leads to this thread made by Gynx, in 2015: https://forum.toribash.com/showthrea...63#post8454463

The greatest irony here is the amount of racism carried out in the name of religion is far more common throughout history than racism to people for their religion. But I wouldn't expect you to hold any historical context in mind.

it is extremely on topic, we're talking about defining toxicity, and this entire discussion between you and I is about defining racism and other words. The reason it's important to the larger context of the thread, and not just me educating you on how racist you are behaving (note: the difference between saying someone is behaving a way, and flat out labeling them, is called giving the benefit of the doubt), is that you should have no say whatsoever on the rules surrounding what's offensive and what isn't. I'm not pushing to say that I should be the one defining them, but I know damn well that you oughtn't.
I get that you're upset that we're talking about something empirical like terminology and you're just flat out wrong, but don't try and run.
Especially because you're using racist arguments. Are you a racist? Nope, just ignorant. Let's get to it.

Yes, those people are either:
1) racists using a racist argument to hide their racism
or
2) ignorant people using a racist argument, unwittingly
They should both be informed that it is a racist argument.
What happened to the "warrior" part of SJW? Because I've explained this to several people in real life - they (actual real life bigots) understood it much more quickly than you, and I didn't even have to hand them a dictionary. It's a very simple technique to get closet-racists to admit their racism.

Racism and bigotry in real life is complex, challenging. It's not for people who think they can individually define morality. That type of person will just end up sore and bruised, wet and salty.
I knew an adamant racist who adopted two black children... he really does love them. What a world. I think you would benefit from looking into metaphysics, the reality tunnel junk. You're probably around the age where that's still useful. Anywho...

The word racism covers this base. But I don't think you do understand why Judaism is a race. It's not heriditary. Jews are a self-identifying ethnic group.
Later in this post you say, quote: "There are plenty of religions completely divorced from race, with total racial diversity."
Race = shared culture. It doesn't more refer to genetics, or more to language, or more to culture. It refers to all these things.
Are you sure you understand that Jewish people are a race?
Because...
What do you mean by "total racial diversity"? It sounds like you think race just refers to skin tone, genetic heritage... oh cosmos, you're not a Nazi, are you?? No, you're not a racist. So stop using racist thinking. Y'know, in the other thread I was messing with you when I called you a racist. I'm not joking right now.
Did you know there is what you'd call "total racial diversity" within Judaism? There are black Jews, Asian, European white, and Semitic. You didn't know that? Then why are you speaking on it?

So you just didn't comprehend it? I wouldn't brag about that, kid. There be worries there.

Tense?? You mean an action in its relation to time?
In the sense where tense is a noun. Do you mean "a question of [parts of speech]"? Or just "a question of [terminology]"?
Terminology, as in the words we use to describe things.
Because like, the words adverb, noun, conjunction, article... those are all nouns that describe parts of speech...
Okay. I'll get back to the racism thing in a moment, and I'll explain it to you once again, but all things in their own time.

I think I'm starting to see the problem here. You want to police words, but you don't understand them, you use words you don't understand without bothering to look them up. It's important to learn when to listen; if you find yourself talking on a subject that you don't know anything about, like terminology, maybe that would be a good time to listen instead. Just a thought.
Quick life advice: look up words you don't know, I like to do this whenever I'm doing my reading and I come across one.
I suggest a word of the day app,particularly if you don't read.Today's word of the day was "murine", which can be used in the general sense to mean rodent-like, but does refer specifically to a large rodent subfamily.
You do realise that when I say "you didn't read" etc, that it was figurative, right? A figure of speech.

OK...Racism. You need to understand that you're feeding into a racist agenda with this bad, fallacious point you're trying to make. I know you think you're taking a moral high-ground, I get it, that's your thing - this is more important than that. I'm not trolling you. This is important.
Being racist toward a group for their religion is racist. I don't care if the religion contains racial and ethnic sub-divisions.
That is irrelevant.

In my first post I literally provided you with links to the definitions of race and ethnicity on dictionary.com - other dictionary sources have extremely similar definitions.
Read this carefully: race is defined as a group of people sharing a thing - a thing like culture, history, language, religion.

BTW, real quick: they're both spelled anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic, capital S, two i's, not antisemetic. As in, Semitic people. I wouldn't normally bother pointing this out, wouldn't even give a shit, but apparently I'm your tutor. The hyphenation is optional, and contextual i suppose, but I prefer with.
Anti-Semitism [NOUN] = hostility to Jews (ie, one with, if referring to a person rather than the ideology.
Anti-Semitic [ADJECTIVE] = something that is hostile to Jews
IE an anti-Semitic+noun, or, an adjective+anti-Semite, or, an anti-Semitic+anti-Semite, a racist racist.
Ok, now that's out the way.
Next:
Religious [ADJECTIVE]
Persecution [NOUN] = [ADJECTIVE]+[NOUN]
What's the reason that there isn't an equivalency? It's a false equivalency.
The phrase you're looking for is... a "religious persecutor" - a modified noun phrase.
Why don't we have a word for people who are prejudiced against people for their religion?

Hahahahahaha - we do. They're called racists.

Part of the definitions of race and ethnicity includes people of shared cultures. How many times do you need that explained? A dozen, or?? I even linked the definitions. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to name-call you, when you behave so incredibly obtusely?
Your lack of self-awareness is flabbergasting. It's how I know you're young. And an idio... idiom, I was gonna say idiom. Like, careful what you wish for. If you're wishing for a debate based in logic where you can't just auto-bigot everyone because you happen to be a whatever - careful.

Like I said, racists use the argument that racism based on attributes other than skin colour is not racism. It is important that you, as a progressive, understand this simple fact, so that you can explain it to racists when they try to justify/excuse their racism.

This is long as fuck, but apparently you need a detailed explanation as to why it's not only racist to be racist to people for their religion (race), but that the faux-moralistic argument you're making is more closely aligned to an argument used by racists than any kind of progressive movement. You're not a Nazi, so what's your problem?
You are literally using the same point as racists. What is your problem? Are you a racist? No? Then stop. I know you're trying to be morally angelic, it's not necessary.

You ain't gotta lie to kick it. Every point you've made here is redundant, so I've made the most redundant, fault-tolerant post possible to get through your skull. This is a RAID array 5+0 of the most basic, easy, simple logic possible.
And before you get all - "yes i know, i sed dat dwee nweed mwoar definitions" - muddying the waters makes it easier for RACISTS to be RACIST and get away with claims that they're not racist.
Your suggestions will only help racists be racist without getting caught.
You are trying to help the racists.
Maya = Enclave
Why have I wasted so much text on Maya in this thread? To highlight a very simple point: who decides what's offensive? That person?? ? This ignoramus who proudly shoves their ignorance in peoples' faces while lecturing everyone? Virtue signalers should not help shape the rules; having morals doesn't mean you have understanding of the nuances that comprise terminology, offensiveness, and social dynamics. That's what staff are for. I want staff reviewing these reports to be of dense moral fiber. But I also don't want them to be fucking morons. Well... insult each other here I suppose. But...
Literally. No one should ever look to Maya for moral understanding - she is boisterously ignorant.
Maya = Enclave.
Seriously. Not bc Enclave is all Merica, but because he revels in his ignorance. Stupidity is apolitical.

staff care more about trying to make people like maya feel safe and comfortable rather than making an enjoyable game, and average players feel comfortable. well have fun because nobody plays this shit no more. look at this fool commenting on every single thread bringing up trans issues like anyone cares

For the sake of comparison, could you share what the 'old old' rules were (if you can find em)?

I remember making a couple of threads about context + intent at the time when these 'old' rules were made (and I remember a lot of virulent discussion and.. Anger about the change to these rules). People were generally fine with the 'old old' rules before the 'contextless' ones were put in place.

In any case, I think, we ought to specify that 'malicious usage' of homoracist slurs in private spaces aren't allowed - But I also believe that private spaces should include private servers that /aren't/ passworded. Really not a fan of private servers only being private if they're passworded. Basically, I'd be happy with leaving the rules as they were before this recent change, and to allow staff to police private servers by taking into account 'malicious usage' of those words. Passwording is really just not necessary, and it feels like an overstep to me.

Malicious actions, when it comes to posts on forums or messages in-game chat, usually include the use of foul language. There are obviously exceptions when it's done with the use of regular words which get a different meaning under a specific context, but that's still something that moderators already handle in the way you suggest. Adding a word "actions" to current rules won't change much in that sense, but I don't see it being a harmful addition.


Bandwagoning is obviously not something malicious on its own, reason it's in the rules is to prevent cases when user A insults someone, users B and C think it's now fine to insult same user because user A already did it and haven't received an infraction yet, so they try to "fit in with the cool kid" - but later complain when all three get their punishment. I don't think we ever infracted people for just stating their opinion (obviously, considering that was done accordingly to other global rules and their post wasn't 50% racist slurs).


Wibbles is a board where users are allowed to shit - as long as we, staff, all agree that the amounts of shit in Wibbles isn't "too much". Rules update in Wibbles were a result of staff agreeing that shitters went too far. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide whether you (not you particularly, but the "regular users posting in Wibbles") have gone too far or not.

As for the "private spaces" rule update, I agree that the announcement should have been made earlier, that's something you can blame on staff. However, the reaction I've seen in announcement thread was something I'd never really expect to hear people saying with a serious face. Seriously, being upset because you can't flame random users in a room you've made?
The whole idea of current ruleset can be summed as "Anything that gets reported gets handled equally". I honestly can't see how that can be harmful to any user who isn't acting like a prick to people around them. Nobody's taking your "freedom of speech" and nobody is prohibiting you to use any sort of language around your friends - but if your friends report you for it because they find your words offensive then you should probably limit the usage of such language around them. And if they reported you as a joke and staff found the report legit, well, you got bamboozled by your friends. Happens. Sorry but none of the staff have the higher knowledge of what's going on in people's heads so it's only logical that we'd assume the report is not a joke by default.


A lot of people who complain are also those who regularly get infracted for harassment, racism, scamming and so on. Obviously that doesn't mean that everyone who dislikes the change is a shitter in our eyes, but every time something is being updated it's always the same people who aren't happy - and miraculously they're also those who deal more problems on a monthly basis than regular Toribash players cause during all their time spent in the community.


Sales happen, prices change. There have been some wrong decisions regarding pricing in past, yes. Sales, however, will continue to happen - no matter how rare the item is among marketers - thus no response to the thread.


Apply to staff, work on these changes together with other staff members. That's how self-managed communities work, no? Oh wait, you already were staff - and were first fired for leaking information, then given a second chance and tried your best to be as much of a headache for others as possible. That's not even my words, it's what people who were in charge of you said: "...this person does not belong on a functional staff team and will do his very best to wear at that team's infrastructure. His attitude is abrasive and conflict-oriented; anyone attempting to reason with him should be very aware that Ele is not one to reason, but instead one to drone on with no end in sight unless the other party has given in or he's gotten what he wants".

Staff do not always know what's best for the community, but usually, in fact, we do. That may seem ridiculous to you, but we have to deal with all sorts of players daily, and I can assure you that people who can't live without saying the word "faggot" out loud aren't the majority of Toribash players - even if they may seem to be the vocal majority on forums.


I think Urban Dictionary gives a fair description of what "harassment" is:
"Harassment is the act of bullying somebody based on their sexuality, race, religion, size, hair color, or anything like that. It is NOT considered harassment if you are just arguing unless one party is bullying you."
I feel like that's pretty much the way we've been handling moderation for like forever and kept it pretty stable in that sense - even lately when staff had to make some tough calls when it comes to moderation, especially in "Dear Cishet People" thread.[/QUOTE]


Several problems with your version that I can see:
- Nowhere does it state that harassment isn't allowed. The line that says that it "may result in a ban" is kept, but anyone who likes to fight over semantics would be right to later point out that "they didn't know it's not allowed because rules don't say so". Specifically including the word "repetitive" would likely backfire too - this essentially means that you are allowed to go and throw the worst racisal / homophobic slur you can come up with towards some user and get away with it, literally because you didn't repeat it and thus stayed clear according to rules.
- "There is currently also a standing ban on the malicious usage of any homophobic or racial slurs..." - "currently" as in "we may rethink it later"? Might have misunderstood it, but if that's the correct meaning then this word is certainly shouldn't be there.
- "Pornography/gore/warez etc. are not allowed in public spaces at any time for any reason within the Toribash community." - gore and warez aren't allowed anywhere on forums, including private boards. Would be better to either separate porn with gore + warez, or keep the rule as is with the addition of something like "unless stated otherwise by board rules".


Not personally in favor of going ultra specific with these words because then it gives more space for people to fight over semantics. Changing wording doesn't affect how cases are dealt with (e.g. we don't turn down reports that contain transphobic language because rules only contain the word "homophobic") , but allows shitters to try to weasel their way out with complaints such as "but you specified this and this and what I did wasn't listed in the rules so I lift my ban stupid staff".


You truly are lucky. Never seeing skizzify or Swaves acting like pricks does, indeed, require an insane amount of luck.
However, judging by your posts in this thread (that aren't significantly better than those of hipotibor), I'll allow myself to assume that you might be one of those people who act in a similar way to others, which would give a perfect explanation of why you never noticed users mentioned above spitting racial slurs and/or continuously being toxic over their whole stay in this community.


Hahahahahhahaahahaha


SMH DIVINE HOW DARE YOU REPLY IN A THREAD WHERE I, THE MIGHTY GOD OF DISCUSSION, REQUESTED THE PRESENCE OF SIR.

By the way, Divine was absolutely right. How dare we not make a guy who's known to be an ass to work with make an admin, especially after one of community's worst racists and bigots said they should be one. Wow, staff bad.


No, his point was "it's ok to be racist" - which is false, being racist is not ok.
I suppose the whole point of this post of yours was to say "look at context, not at raw text", and this is what staff have been doing since the day automated in-game reports became a thing. The whole idea of that system was that we could get said context - because this way we can see the whole chat log and not only what the side that made the report included in their screenshots.
If you meant something else, please explain without tying it to racist bullshit that hipotibor shat out.


Except the fact that staff have been following the new rules for like half a year now.
As I said above, the fact the recent announcement was this delayed is a mess-up on our side, yes - but the old rules were not better in any sense, unless you're the user who liked to hide behind the "private space" definition and act toxic as much as you wanted outside static rooms.

Just for everyone's understanding, there are no "your" rooms / actually private rooms in general in Toribash - at least as long as you don't write your own server code and stay there, with all other users virtually not being able to even join it / see it in room list unless they know your server's IP. If we ever decide to release game server code to public, anyone can make their own private servers with rooms and maintain any rules you wish to in there. Until then, it's on staff to make sure people playing the game enjoy their stay, and the majority of people who don't act toxic are those we'd be happy to please more than the toxic minority.


Sorry tbashboii, how dare we not make you feel safe and comfortable. Please let me know how many more accounts you would like to hijack, users to scam, or racist slurs to say. The fact that you are still allowed to play the game is fascinating on its own, and if I were you I'd try to stay as low as possible and not casually advocate for muslim people murderings, be toxic to other players in-game and keep breaking other forum rules. I'm even more amazed we haven't yet permabanned all of your accounts now that I've checked your current account's history, wow. Sure staff give no second chances, right?


This I can agree with.


Let's try to actually discuss how toxicity should be addressed in the community and not make bring in politics or some personal hate (looking at you drgonz).

Everything that has context to this thread OP has already been put, and the one in News as well. Those are the "old" old rules In the spoilers, I have a few screenshots of the edit logs in the FAQ Global Rules thread. First post was made by SkulFuk, a filler. It has a "-" because it was edited (removed) with all the text in green from BillyTheSk8rBoi, better known as Sparky.



Anything before June 6, 2016 might've been stored in a different thread. But I can assure you that has always been the standard of our old rules.

EDIT: I've made a mistake, those are newer-old rules I originally quoted. In essence they're the same, just more language added.

Called it.