Salt Lord Cinnabon

Scarcely Lethal Noob
Summary:
Toxic, salty, and vulgar language

Player Name:
Akrel

SteamID:
[U:1:118169813]
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/[U:1:118169813]
https://stats.skial.com/#summary/player/SteamID/All/[U:1:118169813]
https://www.skial.com/sourcebans/index.php?p=banlist&advType=steamid&advSearch=[U:1:118169813]
https://www.skial.com/sourcebans/index.php?p=commslist&advType=steamid&advSearch=[U:1:118169813]

Time:
about 40 minutes ago.

Servers:
2FORT VANILLA | US

Detailed Explanation / Screenshots / Demos:
He was ranting about sniper being overpowered, i gave some advice. (Use the sewers) and started calling me names he *clearly* didn't know the meaning to (faggot and such) i doubt much can be done now as i didn't take any proof at the moment... but i guess i'll hope you can see the logs regardless
 

RMSniper

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
Sorry, but what he said doesn't break the rules. Faggot is allowed unless used very clearly to disparage homosexual folk. I suggest using the in-game mute feature so you don't have to see his text ever again. Thanks!
 

haytil

Mildly Menacing Medic
Faggot is allowed unless used very clearly to disparage homosexual folk.

Can you explain how the use of the word "faggot" is not clearly a disparagement against homosexual folk?

If one were to use the word "faggot" to insult someone for something that has nothing to do with their sexuality (i.e., "You suck at this game, you're a faggot"), then one is implying that being a "faggot" (a homosexual) is a synonym for being something bad. It's a disparagement. Otherwise, without the implied disparagement of homosexuals, it would otherwise be nonsensical to use in the first place.

Just as the use of a racial slur as an insult is a disparagement to that race, regardless of whether or not the target of the insult is a member of that race. By using the term in place of an insult, it's implying disparagement of that race, because it's insulting to simply BE that race.
 

RMSniper

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
Can you explain how the use of the word "faggot" is not clearly a disparagement against homosexual folk?

If one were to use the word "faggot" to insult someone for something that has nothing to do with their sexuality (i.e., "You suck at this game, you're a faggot"), then one is implying that being a "faggot" (a homosexual) is a synonym for being something bad. It's a disparagement. Otherwise, without the implied disparagement of homosexuals, it would otherwise be nonsensical to use in the first place.

Just as the use of a racial slur as an insult is a disparagement to that race, regardless of whether or not the target of the insult is a member of that race. By using the term in place of an insult, it's implying disparagement of that race, because it's insulting to simply BE that race.
This has been discussed in detail on the forum for many years, and it was decided by leadership that the word can be used unless there are additional words being said that imply the person's meaning to disparage homosexuals. If you want to drag that conversation back up, feel free to do some on the Suggestions subforum, but please not on this report thread. :blush:
 

haytil

Mildly Menacing Medic
This has been discussed in detail on the forum for many years, and it was decided by leadership that the word can be used unless there are additional words being said that imply the person's meaning to disparage homosexuals. If you want to drag that conversation back up, feel free to do some on the Suggestions subforum, but please not on this report thread. :blush:

I'm sorry - my intention in this thread is not to discuss what the rules should be (which should be done in the Suggestions subforum, as you indicated), rather it's to discuss what the rules currently are. Because I believe you've made statements in this thread implying a misunderstanding or misapplication of the rules. And because you are an admin, acting as an administrator, your statements in this thread are going to be taken as policy by those (such as myself) who are reading it - which is why it should be addressed here. It's also entirely possible that I am the one misunderstanding the rules - which is why I'm asking for public clarification.

I don't believe the rules as they currently are state anything about disparagement or discrimination against homosexuals being illegal. (Specifically, race, gender, and religion are the protected classes in Skial rules). But I believe your statements imply that sexuality is a protected class by the Skial rules, which is incorrect.

I think what you mean to say is that Skial does not protect against disparagement of homosexuals - it is not against the rules to be disparaging of homosexuals. Am I correct in that assessment (both my assessment of your intent and my assessment of the rules)? If not, where am I wrong?
 

RMSniper

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
I'm sorry - my intention in this thread is not to discuss what the rules should be (which should be done in the Suggestions subforum, as you indicated), rather it's to discuss what the rules currently are. Because I believe you've made statements in this thread implying a misunderstanding or misapplication of the rules. And because you are an admin, acting as an administrator, your statements in this thread are going to be taken as policy by those (such as myself) who are reading it - which is why it should be addressed here. It's also entirely possible that I am the one misunderstanding the rules - which is why I'm asking for public clarification.

I don't believe the rules as they currently are state anything about disparagement or discrimination against homosexuals being illegal. (Specifically, race, gender, and religion are the protected classes in Skial rules). But I believe your statements imply that sexuality is a protected class by the Skial rules, which is incorrect.

I think what you mean to say is that Skial does not protect against disparagement of homosexuals - it is not against the rules to be disparaging of homosexuals. Am I correct in that assessment (both my assessment of your intent and my assessment of the rules)? If not, where am I wrong?
Rules say:
Other Discrimination: Any persistent discrimination based on gender or religion is not allowed. What qualifies as persistent will be determined by an admin.

This means faggot is allowed. We removed the wording "faggot is allowed" several months ago to clean the rules up, but the rules are still the same. Faggot is allowed unless "persistent." I still think you're hijacking this thread, and we could have this discussion elsewhere, but I'll oblige.
 

haytil

Mildly Menacing Medic
Rules say:
Other Discrimination: Any persistent discrimination based on gender or religion is not allowed. What qualifies as persistent will be determined by an admin.

Ok, that rule seems very clear to me: Any persistent discrimination based on gender or religion is not allowed. But this does not say discrimination (persistent or otherwise) based on sexuality is not allowed.

In other words, any discrimination (persistent or otherwise) is allowed for sexuality, and (incidentally) any discrimination that is NON-persistent of any kind is allowed (including gender or religion) - with the exception of racism, which is covered differently in a different rule.

I think you're reading the rule as "Any persistent discrimination, including discrimination based on gender or religion, is not allowed." You seem to be interpreting "gender" and "religious" discrimination as EXAMPLES of TYPES of discrimination that are not allowed when persistent. But that is not supported by the text of the rules as posted or quoted.


Faggot is allowed unless "persistent."

Separately from my above point - do you believe this statement to essentially mean that "Faggot is allowed unless used more frequently than X amount, where X is determined by individual admins?" And if my interpretation of your words is correct - how often is "too often" to cross YOUR threshold? (I'm just trying to get a sense of your meaning here and interpretation of the rules, as I respect your judgement to be used as a relative baseline)

I still think you're hijacking this thread, and we could have this discussion elsewhere, but I'll oblige.

Thank you - I believe you know I respect and care about the rules enough to know that I wouldn't be discussing this here if I didn't think it were appropriate, necessary, and better than anywhere else (also there is precedent on other "Appeal" threads for discussion of the interpretation of rules as they are being applied to that thread, as they can be misinterpreted and also changed silently without notice).

I think you know I'm not trying to troll or break the rules here, and for what it's worth, the reason I began replying to you specifically about this is because I specifically respect your judgement demonstrated and actions taken as an individual admin in the past.

I also think that if we were to create a separate thread elsewhere about this, it would soon devolve into the cesspool that these sort of discussions end up being when placed squarely in the message board public sphere on its own (with every Tom, Dick, and Harry throwing in their toxic 2 cents for the sake of getting a laugh or rise out of people). It's a bit "safer" for discussion here, and it seems that OP's original issue is pretty much settled as far as OP is concerned (they can certainly correct me if I'm wrong about that!)
 

RMSniper

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
I don’t make the rules - Bot does. Please address your concerns in a suggestion thread or PM him. The rule is still technically no discrimination against sexuality imo, regardless of how it was edited.
 

haytil

Mildly Menacing Medic
The rule is still technically no discrimination against sexuality imo, regardless of how it was edited.

If that's true, then the publicly-posted rules need to be edited to state as such, because currently the publicly-posted rules do NOT forbid discrimination against sexuality (quoted above) - and it's not fair to publicly post one set of rules but then apply a different (secret) set of rules when enforcing.

I am continuing this discussion elsewhere, so as not to derail the thread any further. For those interested, here is the link: https://www.skial.com/threads/clarify-the-rules-regarding-discrimination.80330/