NationStates

Fris posted here

There is a difference between using a derogatory word for a group and posting an argument that is offensive to that group. We don't allow people to describe groups as "trannies", "kikes", or most other offensive stereotypical terms, but we most certainly don't censor arguments that certain players find offensive, as long as they are presented politely.

It is the consensus opinion of site staff that offensive arguments should be debated, not suppressed.

And may I ask for a clarification of this ruling? I know that I'm certainly not an involved party, but I'd like to ask for a secondary look, seeing as the sentiment seems to go against the rules. According the OSRS,

Flaming wrote:Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming.

Trolling wrote:Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people.

Neither give free reign to offensive arguments and/or comments because the poster has a silver tongue, and they seem to specifically discourage that idea.

Furthermore, if we are allowed to make offensive statements so long as they're made politely, may I now go around saying that "All those of European descent are inherently tainted with sin and a bloodlust that has led to a detrimental effect on the world as well as the cultural literacy of all societies"?

Caninope wrote:Fris posted here

There is a difference between using a derogatory word for a group and posting an argument that is offensive to that group. We don't allow people to describe groups as "trannies", "kikes", or most other offensive stereotypical terms, but we most certainly don't censor arguments that certain players find offensive, as long as they are presented politely.

It is the consensus opinion of site staff that offensive arguments should be debated, not suppressed.

And may I ask for a clarification of this ruling? I know that I'm certainly not an involved party, but I'd like to ask for a secondary look, seeing as the sentiment seems to go against the rules. According the OSRS,

Flaming wrote:Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming.

Trolling wrote:Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people.

Neither give free reign to offensive arguments and/or comments because the poster has a silver tongue, and they seem to specifically discourage that idea.

You are confusing attempting to anger people and saying something that makes people angry. The first is trolling, no matter how it is said, the second is an argument.

I've said this many a time, but it bears repeating: Max is on record as stating that silly and stupid arguments shouldn't be verboten but drug out into the sunlight and shown to BE silly and stupid. The whole approach is how you go about it, a post designed to anger is trolling but that does not mean just because you are angry it was.

Furthermore, if we are allowed to make offensive statements so long as they're made politely, may I now go around saying that "All those of European descent are inherently tainted with sin and a bloodlust that has led to a detrimental effect on the world as well as the cultural literacy of all societies"?

We don't rule on hypotheticals.

NERVUN wrote:You are confusing attempting to anger people and saying something that makes people angry. The first is trolling, no matter how it is said, the second is an argument.

Then how do you justify punishments for trolling for people who genuinely believe their arguments?

If I truly believe that all X are Y, and I'm not trying to make you angry, isn't that still trolling?

We 'justify' by stating, as we always have, that often it comes down to 'best judgment' and checking a player's post history, and other qualifying proofs of intent.

Edit: Nathi said it better.

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:We 'justify' by stating, as we always have, that often it comes down to 'best judgment' and checking a player's post history, and other qualifying proofs of intent.

Well that sounds incredibly nebulous, and it seems to lead to rather contradictory rulings that allow completely offensive statements and trolls go without punishment.

So, I want to revisit my question. Can I be incredibly offensive about things so long as I'm polite about it?

Caninope wrote:

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:We 'justify' by stating, as we always have, that often it comes down to 'best judgment' and checking a player's post history, and other qualifying proofs of intent.

Well that sounds incredibly nebulous, and it seems to lead to rather contradictory rulings that allow completely offensive statements and trolls go without punishment.

So, I want to revisit my question. Can I be incredibly offensive about things so long as I'm polite about it?

Caninope, we're not going to have this out, again. It's been explained to you before and honestly there is nothing to be gained from having yet another go-around.

We're simply not going to debate it.

Question answered, iLock.