Rules Addendum

[cityship]

Hey, everyone. Due to a recent kerfluffle last night, we've had to come up with some new policies.

We understand the "no politics in chat" rule can be frustrating at times, as it can severely limit discussions on recent events. However, you also have to realize that the OOC chat is a game chat first and foremost. It's a place for people to come in and have fun. Forcing someone who may just want to play and fool around in chat into a serious discussion about politics--no matter how important it may seem to you--is rude. Even if you feel something is very important, you don't have the right to make that decision for other people.

This is why we ban all discussions on politics in chat, as politics can often lead to very polarizing and heated arguments, which can ruin the fun of someone coming in to play the game. Banning individual discussions on a case-by-case basis would be both painstaking and inefficient, so the ban is for all political discussion.

However, that being said, we do understand that a number of people would like to be able to easily discuss recent events and even politics with fellow players, and so we've decided on a compromise in the form of an addendum to the chat rules. Basically, we will have a separate chat which follows all the normal rules of the OOC chat except the ban on political discussions. The purpose of this chat will be to provide a place to discuss recent events and politics.

The addendum in full is included here:

Addendum: Due to the need to discuss world news and events, a permanent, separate chat, meatshipworldevents, will be available. This chat follows all of the normal chat rules except the ban on political discussions. In the normal chat, you will be allowed to announce recent events that you would like to discuss in the news/events chat (ex. "Hey guys, X happened. We're talking about it in other chat."), but all actual discussion of those events must take place within the news/events chat. In addition, you are allowed to answer questions about what is being discussed in the news/events chat, so long as you don't actually go into details about the discussion itself. (ex. "Hey, what's going on in other chat?" "We're talking about X. Come on over if you want to talk about it.")

Also, just as a precaution, remember that harassing any other member for any reason, including political stance, violates our number 1 rule: Don't Be A Dick.

That is all.
--The Trans9 Mods

Comments

[i-saw-myself.livejournal.com]

Also after seeing it on the anonmeme post, I think anons have a good point about banning religion too unless talking about it in the context of characters. I think that's enough of a sacred cow that people are fortunately very mature about it, but it is kinda fair and it does cover the same ground.

Those are the two big'uns at any rate, and religion can be just as polarizing as politics, just as heated, and just as alienating.

It's at least something to consider, and more consistent.

[fireforger]

I said something along these lines somewhere up thread as well, but I definitely want to second this here.

[i-saw-myself.livejournal.com]

I don't really LIKE censoring stuff, because sometimes I do want to talk about it, but it seems to me that the Top Three Things That Bug People are Triggery Sex stuff (hence no porn), politics (hence no politics), and religion. Which probably should have something too. And I think a split chat fulfills our needs with both allowing a space for them and a space free of them.

And then beyond that, it's hard to narrow down universals, so it'd probs be best to do case-by-case requests for subject changes like we already do. (which hey, could also be discussed in the politics/whatever chat, worst comes to worst).

[fireforger]

Well, I think there's a difference between something being censored and something being inappropriate for a certain place and time. Like, if you go and visit someone's house, it's not really appropriate to suddenly start discussing politics and religion if the host has made it clear that they'd rather not have that kind of discussion. To me, censorship is more along the lines to trying to prevent or hide all discussion of a topic and blocking off people's access to the places where such discussion can happen, and...that's not the case here. No one's stopping anyone from discussing these issues elsewhere or in worldevents chat.

[climbingthesky.livejournal.com]

The problem with the banning of religion, I think, is that a decent number of fandoms is built around it. Just for an example, the mods would have to also completely ban the discussion of the entire Shin Megami Tensei franchise except for the Persona titles, as well as all in-depth discussion of Xenogears and Xenosaga. I'm a non-practicing Shintoist, so the majority of Japanese fandoms in fact touch on my beliefs in one way or another.

Granted, the current ban also has a problem where we shouldn't be able to discuss any fandoms that don't rename their political forces with fancy names like... Earth Federation and Zeon, just to make a fandom example. Metal Gear Solid should be out of bounds, for one, as most characters in it have political motivations heavily based on the franchise creator's personal opinion on real-live politics.

I think the ultimate problem here is that it's impossible to achieve consistency at this point. No matter which other rules are added, people's discomfort with the rule boils down to the idea that a part of the game (which may or may not be a majority) has a privilege to demand that other people stop talking about the topic they dislike, while everyone else has a right to politely ask other people to stop talking about that topic without any actual guarantee that they will be listened to.

[chosenfamily]

If it's IC and in the context of the characters, that's one thing. It's the real life ones that we have to be careful with.

[climbingthesky.livejournal.com]

The original V for Vendetta comic is built around 60% on Alan Moore's dislike of English government under Margaret Thatcher. Watchmen is the same, except it's built around his opinions on Cold War. Metal Gear Solid is basically an interactive series of essays about the government's use of controlled warfare as propaganda and way to maintain a balance between world powers. Warrel Ellis's RED is all about rantings on the internal workings of CIA whenever it's not an action comedy. The Starship Troopers novel has been described by its author as a decorated exploration of his political views.

Where would you suggest I cut the discussion of these franchises in case if they pop up? All of those sound like thinly disguised ways to explore real-world politics to me.

[climbingthesky.livejournal.com]

Actually, that response to you is a bit off-topic as far as my actual point is concerned. My apologies.

My actual point is that I still don't see why a part of the game gets a rule entirely for their personal triggers, but the other part doesn't. It's simply not fair how anyone who presses those buttons are punished by moderators, but if someone, say, apps an alcoholic and gets into a discussion of alcoholism while I'm in chat without knowing that it's about 80% guaranteed to give me a panic attack and send me to pop sedatives for the rest of the night, all I'll get later is a possibility of an apology.

[daemonomicon.livejournal.com]

The reason politics in particular are banned is because they are known to start arguments, as has been proven in this game and others, no matter how mature the participants.

While we'd want to be able to make a rule that would 100% accommodate everyone, the problem lies in the fact that it's impossible to ban every possible trigger and still have a functioning chat.

We allow the discussion of IC and fandom politics as long as they pertain specifically to those realms. Admittedly there are some borderline cases as you've mentioned above, but I suppose that would have to be one of the non-clear cut cases that would be dealt with if people felt uncomfortable about it.

And I'm sorry that the possibility of something like you described exists, but like I said, we can't reasonably accommodate for everyone's desires in this matter. However, the group that prefers politics to stay out of regular chat is a large enough group that can be accommodated easily enough without ruining the game or the chat.

It's not an ideal situation, no. We're only human, but we're trying to do what we can for those we can help.

[chosenfamily]

The reason the rule is in place is because the mods know that real world politics is a problem for a lot of people. Before the blanket ban went into place, the subject came up and people spoke up so that the mods understood there was an issue and they did something about it.

Here's the thing. If they bring up a subject that you find triggering without knowing that it's a trigger, you say that it's a problem and ask that the subject please drop? Or you say that you can't be there for that conversation and ask someone to call you back in when the subject changes. Most of the time, the subject will drop without a problem, you'll get an apology and they'll do their best not to let it happen again. Just like when politics comes up, usually all anybody has to do is mention, "Hey, RL politics, guys", and it also gets dropped.

I'm trying my best not to be dismissive. But there's no way to make a rule to cover every eventuality. Some things have to happen on a case by case basis. And if somebody were to keep a conversation going after being asked to stop, it falls under Rule 1.

[climbingthesky.livejournal.com]

Not to be forceful about my opinion, but neither of these comments really address my concerns.

My concern, to word this much more bluntly and rudely than I ever intended (and for which I apologize) is that by choosing to protect the emotional safety of one group of people via official rules without doing so to any other group looks and feels a lot like favoritism. I'm not saying it actually is favoritism on the mods' part, but it does paint an image of bias if observed wrongly.

I'm not going to say that this fills me with outrage and makes me want to ragequit the game because, honestly, that would be a lie. I can understand your stance on this and why you decided to do so. What I want you to understand is that...

1. The "don't be a dick" rule doesn't look nearly as safe on paper as a very specific rule like "no politics" does. This combination is bound to make a number of people uncomfortable. I, for example, am a newbie and yet I have zero interest in attending chat from this point onward because I know that my interests are merely self-regulated in comparison to the interests of other people who are protected by hard mod-established rules. Yes, there is a chat without the rule now, but this also means that the chat regulars are essentially split in two groups.

2. The "no politics" rule harms and alienates a number of people on a personal level. Kairi-mun, for example, cannot talk about her personal life in chat because she works in a politically charged environment.

3. A lot of people can no longer advertise this game or invite people into it with a clear conscience because a lot of people in LJ RP are anal-retentive about freedom of speech. They would ragequit about it.

So, in conclusion, I want the mods to understand my opinion on why this rule harms and alienates just as many people as it protects, and why it has a lot of potential to create just as much wank and drama in the long run as it could stop. Again, I'm not saying this makes me judge the mods harshly or dislike the game in any manner, but I think it's best if a player's stance on this is spelled out clearly now and would come off as no surprise to the mod team later.

Since you seem to understand why I feel this way and where I'm coming from, I think it's best if I leave it on this note of a detailed opinion. So, thank you for listening and thank you for understanding! I couldn't ask for anything more.

[chosenfamily]

I think at the moment, agreeing to disagree is probably the best way for things to go. There's never going to be a way to make everybody happy, but I'm always willing to listen. (Same with the mods. I'm only a mod helper, personally.)

If you ever want to chat about anything, litshard is my AIM. I'm always happy to listen, at least!

[vissernone.livejournal.com]

3. That's not anal retentive about free speech, it's incorrect. T9 is not a censoring government, they're not an employer spilling into their employee's personal life, they're not coercing anyone into silence...the T9 mods have all rights whatsoever to decide what is and isn't appropriate chat discussion. There are countless other avenues, including one provided by the mods, where you can discuss politics. How is this rule any more unfair and worthy of free-speech ragequit than the 'no porn' rule? Either LJRP is zealous over topics they don't understand, or you're underestimating them.

[i-saw-myself.livejournal.com]

1) There's times you're not going to be in chat. During those times, people could probably safely talk about alcoholism without it bothering anyone, as with any number of issues that could be triggers for a specific person. If someone is there and it bugs them, and you ask, people are willing to stop. Politics (and religion) are that way for such a vast group that there is almost always going to be someone in chat, so rather than asking for constant subject changes, it makes more sense to do a blanket ban anyway and just have a separate chat.

Also, chat regulars can be in both chats. They don't have to choose one or the other. I definitely agree with politics being a separate chat, and I don't really like politics discussion in my funtimes, but that doesn't mean I don't like political discussion at all. There's a lot of times I take it to PM, and on some occasions, if I'm in the mood, I might be over in the politichat. You can ask any other long-timer here, it's not as if I never participated in political discussions before the onset of the rule, and it's not like I stopped PMing people to privately have them after (I had a huge one with Shae over the first responder's bill). It's just that I think it should be a choice rather than something forced on people who don't want it, considering this a game and the chat, even if it goes OT sometimes, is still usually geared towards fandom and gaming. Political discussions can get intense and heated, even if they are polite, AND spammy, and are a lot harder to cut into to be like "Okay, guys, so about that plot right now!"

I know I find it far easier to cut into a discussion about Gundam with "Hey, guys, haha, look at this crack meme that got posted," than with intense discussion about political protesters getting fired on with metal pellets and tear gas. It seems wrong to cut in on that discussion with talk of gaming, and disrespectful to those people, like someone will say "How can you think about RP games at at time like this?" But then it's still a gaming chat and some people game not because they're oblivious to reality (I'm following the protests in Egypt too) but because they like to have fun to try to offset the worry.

Political stuff is intense even when it's polite, and it's spammy, and if you want to talk game or fandom stuff, it's alienating, and for all your talk of two separate chats, I'm not sure how the "Let's talk politics" side feels alienated by being forced into a chat devoid of people who don't always want to talk politics, but that will sometimes have people who don't always want to talk politics in there when they do actually want to talk politics.

And if you keep the politics in the game chat, you're getting a split chat anyway. Someone would inevitably make a "politics-free" chat just to compensate, or leave chat altogether, leaving you alone in the room that'd be the politics people anyway.

3) Considering we're supposed to be severely limiting ads, that's...actually not a bad thing. We're not supposed to advertise anymore, and honestly, for invites, if someone doesn't like the rule, they shouldn't app in, just like at any game where you don't like the rules. Also, as someone who has ragequit before and thinks it's a severely dramatic thing, even if I didn't even do it all that ragily and had to leave because of mental health stuff, I'm not sure people who ragequit over stuff are the kind of people I'd want to play with. It's immature. It's unreasonable. I think this even after doing it myself and were I ever to freak out or something and do it again, the mods wouldn't let me back in, and I think they'd be very, very right to.

Talking about this maturely and voicing concerns and agreeing to disagree is...quite frankly the kind of attitude I'd want in other players over any disagreement. Someone who'd wank and ragequit is someone I hope you'd be wise enough to not invite into the game in the first place.

[i-saw-myself.livejournal.com]

...Also just as a note I wrote this comment before I saw Ish's drop post. I still had all this up in a tab before I looked at the ooc proper. This is not meant to be a dig.