Forum:Chat rules amendment proposal

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Chat rules amendment proposal
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 February 2013 by Ciphrius Kane.

Currently it is an unwritten rule in [[Special:Chat]] that while swearing is acceptable, derogatory and discriminative language is not. However, there are a few users who respond to this sentiment with "it's not in the rules". Therefore I am proposing an amendment to the rules, since UCS and UTP are apparently not enough.

My proposed rule change is as such:

  • While swearing is permitted in Special:Chat, in moderation and not directed at any specific user or group of users (as per the user treatment protocol), any language that is derogatory or discriminatory in nature, such as homophobic or racist terms, is not permitted at any time.


Support - as proposer. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 20:57, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Because I agree Dogfoger (talk) 20:59, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Finding loopholes in policies like that are unacceptable in the first place, but hurtful and racist talk has no place in the chat. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:50, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Sad. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:53, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Happy. MolMan 21:56, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Okay. Hair 22:56, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sure change the rules...but if someone is doing this, don't hesitate to kick them. The rules aren't and shouldn't be a stand in for admins doing their job. HaloTalk 04:27, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Also, honestly, I say be bold and just do it. It isn't exactly a policy issue, it is something that needs to be addressed and fixed now if it's a problem. Although I personally take issue with the word homophobic being used in this context. There's a difference between insulting someone for being homosexual and being weirded out by it. I believe what you are getting at is the verbal manifestation of being homophobic. I would like a more ideal word to be clear, but I can't think of one. So I won't complain if it remains the way it is. Unless we go with something along the lines of being discriminatory due to sexual orientation. Again though, I won't complain, I just don't think homophobic is the best word given that context. HaloTalk 04:34, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Would you prefer to replace it with hetero-supremacy? Homophobic is a more understood term. Wouldn't be the first time we say something that isn't entirely correct in a policy to get the point across. cqm 01:15, 12 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

+1 - Matt (t) 06:10, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support - svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:18, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support - *Sniffs around*... Come on Ty! Really? — Jr Mime (talk) 19:25, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Really this is already covered by RS:UTP but it does seem to me that we do get people who consider those sort of remarks acceptable and who only seem to respond to when it's specifically mentioned What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:53, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:46, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Honestly though, you should have just been kicking those people per RS:UTP or RS:UCS bad_fetustalk 09:29, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

They do get kicked, if they persist in using offensive language after a warning, just like anyone who is breaking the rules. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 09:31, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I don't use the chat myself, but it makes sense to clearly state that such things are not acceptable. --Farming-icon.png Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed.png 13:48, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely - Anyone who tries to oppose is stupid. Ronan Talk 15:19, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I, too, like calling people stupid on a thread that concerns RS:UTP. MolMan 19:45, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Seems slightly ironic to me how short your definition is. I'd suggest something like:

"any language that is derogatory or discriminatory towards groups or individuals in nature, including (but not limited to): gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, nationality or religion, is not permitted or tolerated at any time."

Worded a bit awkwardly but this way those who would use "it's not in the rules" can't use the argument that religion wasn't stated. Also, I consider race and nationality to be 2 different things, that's why both are listed What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:15, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest "...including (but not limited to)...". --Farming-icon.png Ms ZuZu Talk Quest icon fixed.png 06:47, February 15, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:40, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Small change to explicitly state already present rules will save the time of many chat mods. 222 talk 07:13, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support - As per Ms Zuzu. Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Whathog / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 19:30, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Edit - any language ... directed towards individuals or groups in nature. Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Whathog / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 19:31, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - There is consensus to amend the rule, it is just the wording that needs to be sorted. I believe that the definition that I have given above will suffice. If anybody has any suggestions or objections feel free to make them What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:19, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

"Offensive or otherwise hurtful language that is derogatory or discriminatory towards groups or individuals is unaccepted. Pejoratives are not tolerated, whether they are meant to be hate speech towards their defined target in a particular context or not. Discrimination includes but is not limited to slurring or degradation of any type of or regarding gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, or religion." I believe that's specific enough to fix the problem yet general enough to not limit what is not condoned. MolMan 00:37, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
That second sentence is the quintessential one; it covers sentences such as "that rule is so gay" which are otherwise not technically being discriminatory towards anyone. MolMan 00:51, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Good job. 01:59, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
GF - wasn't signed in. Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Whathog / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 02:00, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
btw, it does sound weird, but it's grammatically sound and correct. :x MolMan 03:04, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The version suggested by The Mol Man will be used What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 13:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC)