Armageddon General Discussion Board

So apparently we can't make polls anymore (or my forum-fu is just failing). But do people think staff overuse their DM Fiat?

Nergal certainly sounded offended when he was accused of it:

QuoteI find the notion that this thread was only posted to eventually ban words to be ridiculously accusatory and offensive.

And yet, one hour later here is what we got from Nergal

QuoteStaff would like to see players stop using the word necker to refer to elves, and stop using sexist insults framed against people (e.g. bitch, dick, cunt). We'll be taking the word bitch out of the curses helpfile for its lack of thematic sense. We do not find the word necker to be as thematic as other established words for elves such as sharpear and it is not in the curses helpfile. There is clear evidence that the word "necker" is used as a stand-in for the word "nigger", and regardless of whether it started that way or devolved to hold that place in that game over time, staff believe that this is the best way forward.

We will give players a month or so to phase such words out of their characters' vocabulary. By August we will expect such words to not be in use anymore, and approach players who do use them on an individual basis.

Thread locked.

Now this thread isn't to discuss whether or not certain words should be banned. The avenue for that discussion has already been locked and I do not want this thread to be locked. This is to discuss whether or not staff overuse their "We're in charge, this is what we're doing" card.

I believe the way this particular thread was "handled" was all sorts of inappropriate. I already put in a complaint using the request tool, so there's not much more for me to say about the matter here. I'm just here to say you're not alone in feeling the way you do about this incident.

I do wish that thread had ended differently. I thought it stayed pretty reasonable right up until the end, and I was surprised by the way it felt like Nergal's temper went from 2 to 100 in a single post.

We're all human, we all lose our cool sometimes, but I do think this particular situation might have been better handled by taking a few deep breaths and stepping away from the GDB for a little while.

I think that it is hard to generalize that staff overuse their DM powers, especially from this single instance (and I don't believe they do), but that you CAN say that this was not a well handled situation.

Shhhh, they're gonna ban you for having an opinion that criticizes them!

I interpreted the whole thing differently (not surprised are you?).

In my head - my imagination - I was thinking:

Two reports come in from different people complaining about words.
Staff says "hey - are these isolated situations and those two people need to just get a thicker skin, or are there other players being made personally uncomfortable by these words?"
Nergal posts to see if there are any others.

Turns out, those two weren't the only people who thought those words were being used for oocly-hurtful things. The majority disagreed, however - the fact remained, it wasn't an isolated situation afterall.

So a decision was made - and while the decision was made, the thread devolved. As a result, Nergal's final post on the matter was less than syrupy sweet.

No idea if that's how it happened staffside, but that's what it looked like to me, in my imagination.

I think the staff in general, but especially Nergal, handle GDB discussions poorly. Extremely poorly.

It doesn't help that some of the loudest voices, like Armaddict and Melkor, are too stupid to be argued with. But I think the blame rests on staff for being able to handle discussions with both the reasonable majority and the unreasonable minority on the GDB.

Until today I would have said that, while in the past it was that way, many strides had been made to better the problem and that I hadn't seen that kind of attitude for a very long time. 

This left a bad feeling in my gut and I feel like I'm flashing back to an unhappier time when I did not even care to post on the GDB because of this kind of thing.  I don't like the rule but more than that, I don't like the way it was handled.  The way we the players who cared enough to participate in the thread were handled.  It has gotten to where we could discuss just about anything and staff would let us, so long as nobody got stupidly out of line.  That was such a big improvement over when I started playing this game.  I hope it remains that way.

I wrote a letter of resignation after this happened but I thought about it awhile and deleted it.  Maybe it's just an isolated incident.  Anyone can have a bad day.  Maybe he didn't realize how it came across.  Everyone's experienced that.  I have.

Quote from: Lizzie on June 17, 2017, 07:52:16 PM
I interpreted the whole thing differently (not surprised are you?).

In my head - my imagination - I was thinking:


...

No idea if that's how it happened staffside, but that's what it looked like to me, in my imagination.

While an active imagination is certainly a great asset in game, it is singularly unhelpful when trying to decide matters of fact or propriety.

The fact is that the staff member in question reacted with anger at the suggestion that he might do--exactly--what he ended up doing.

It was a highly unprofessional display however you slice it. People in positions of leadership should always be cognizant of how their actions are likely to be interpreted. In this case, staff gave the appearance of instituting game-wide rules in a fit of pique at having their words questioned.

That is not how good leadership behaves. It's amateur hour in here.

QuoteIt doesn't help that some of the loudest voices, like Armaddict and Melkor, are too stupid to be argued with.

Can't argue with that, the intellect is too staggering.

hylomorphic - they ARE amateurs.  I'm guessing that not a single person on staff has ever been to "internet based game leadership" class. And none of them are, and probably have never, been paid for it. They're not professionals, and there is no professional standard that they can even live up to. I've played games where the staff get paid, and believe me, they [edited to add - the professionals] are much - much worse.

Quote from: Lizzie on June 17, 2017, 08:12:06 PM
hylomorphic - they ARE amateurs.  I'm guessing that not a single person on staff has ever been to "internet based game leadership" class. And none of them are, and probably have never, been paid for it. They're not professionals, and there is no professional standard that they can even live up to. I've played games where the staff get paid, and believe me, they [edited to add - the professionals] are much - much worse.

They have always been amateurs.  That does not prevent one administration to the next from being compared with ones that were smoother, more efficient, or more effective, nor does it earn confidence from the playerbase as we are repeatedly told to have via assurances of trust me, believe me, etc.

By your argument, you're basically saying anything goes because no one can be held accountable for anything anyway, so who cares, which can be realistically true and entirely unwise in terms of the game's survivability at the same time.

1. Both sides need to work on trying to understand the other's position before posting.

2. Both sides need to work on being more civil.

3. In this community, there are those who should say very little, but instead say the most. There are very vocal and frequent posters who ruin discussions because they are bad at having discussions and don't know it. They're frequently adversarial, illogical and confusing.

It's unfortunate, because their participation in discussion isn't ban-worthy, but the community would be better if these posters stopped vomiting their half-formed thoughts into every thread. They set the tone by posting early and often, and so many threads become toxic and derailed as a result.

This is a pretty mean post, but I'm also pretty tired of it. I rarely read or post on the GDB largely because I feel it's impossible to have a productive conversation with about four or five individuals, and they post multiple times in every thread.

This also isn't a constructive post; it won't help anything. I guess I'm just expressing frustration.

This thread isn't about staff's beavior. Please make a new thread if that is what you want to discuss. This thread isn't about whether or not staff should use DM Fiat. All good DMs do from time to time.

This thread is about whether staff overuse their DM Fiat ability. I think they do.

Good DMs will disagree with their players from to time. They don't poll their players and then disregard what their players say and do what they wanted in the first place. I feel that has happened at least once and is a good example of overreliance on DM Fiat.

I think the game would benefit by staff using their DM Fiat less.

Quote from: John on June 17, 2017, 08:32:34 PM
This thread isn't about staff's beavior. Please make a new thread if that is what you want to discuss.
[...]
I think the game would benefit by staff using their DM Fiat less.

Heheh, you said staff beaver.

I'm pretty sure staff have a DM Mini Cooper, because Fiats really do suck.

I contributed to the derail.  Roping it back in, I tie in 'decrees' with many of the problems I see happening.

My position on that is clear; It's what my posts on those threads is always directed against.  New rules just created out of nowhere to correct things that aren't actually problems, generally based on minorities stating they don't like something.

The undeserved and unjustified indignation here is rediculous; I am honestly okay with the way the hammer dropped in that thread. Just so we are clear: I do not support the banning of the word "nekker". I am just so against some the constant and whiney bitching I read on these boards...

We play a game for free and staff volunteer their time to make it happen, and then people get mad when ANY decisions are made. I could give examples, but randomly select any thread on this board and there's a good chance you'll find a plethora of whiney, self-absorbed, and entitled posts. Shit... This might even be one!! I can't honestly tell if people are trolling or if they are that damned delusional it's been getting so rediculous.

I am sure that staff have utilised DM Fiat inappropriately in the past. Sure. They're human. They aren't paid. And if you've worked a day in the real world, you know that douchebags and tyrants sometimes find their way into leadership positions. Shit... They often seek them out. But... I think that as a whole, staff don't abuse their power. I personally haven't had any bad interactions with staffers.  And ive been at this for over 10 years. Instituting a ban on the word "nekker" and then locking a thread where people talk themselves in circles doesn't constitute an abuse of power, IMO.

Quote from: Jo on July 02, 2017, 12:29:16 AM
The undeserved and unjustified indignation here is rediculous; I am honestly okay with the way the hammer dropped in that thread. Just so we are clear: I do not support the banning of the word "nekker". I am just so against some the constant and whiney bitching I read on these boards...

We play a game for free and staff volunteer their time to make it happen, and then people get mad when ANY decisions are made. I could give examples, but randomly select any thread on this board and there's a good chance you'll find a plethora of whiney, self-absorbed, and entitled posts. Shit... This might even be one!! I can't honestly tell if people are trolling or if they are that damned delusional it's been getting so rediculous.

I am sure that staff have utilised DM Fiat inappropriately in the past. Sure. They're human. They aren't paid. And if you've worked a day in the real world, you know that douchebags and tyrants sometimes find their way into leadership positions. Shit... They often seek them out. But... I think that as a whole, staff don't abuse their power. I personally haven't had any bad interactions with staffers.  And ive been at this for over 10 years. Instituting a ban on the word "nekker" and then locking a thread where people talk themselves in circles doesn't constitute an abuse of power, IMO.

Latest example of a staff decision is the Karma change over. Where in that thread is an example of what you speak of, Jo?


PS:On another hand. Why is this thread unlocked? The issue kind of died down. No need to bring it back up. Crap. Why am I typing this? I shouldnt be helping beat this horse. Okey. I'll stop typing after I write this ... and this, and this, and th .. an ... a

So is there now a list of Banned words we can't say IG?
(If there isn't a a list of banned words ignore the rest)

For a Roleplaying environment where you can use Murder, Corruption and Betrayal, to better yourself and get ahead
but can't toss out hateful racial slang about a group that is a staple of the game, this is starting to sound more and
more like Real Life.

1) This is a ROLEPLAYING game. :)
2) We need to rename the Pah to Neckerville. :)
3) If I am completely off base, it is because it's 2am where I am at, and I'm really tired.

In the end, the issue wasn't about "Necker". There were certainly some issues surrounding it, and there was a discussion to be opened about it, and some vocal people were on both sides.

The issue was that the discussion was asked for AS A DISCUSSION and then the thread got locked with a "I don't even care anymore, this is banned because I said so". It doesn't matter if you supported it or not, from the outside it looked like "We're only asking for your opinion because you complain when we don't, but the decision was already made".

In every single MUD I've ever played, it seems the administration tries to curb players aggressively rather than allow them to reach a point where they'd 'get bored' of playing by killing their characters off.
I've seen it multiple times, and the worst aggressor, being Armageddon.
I've seen points where I nearly lost a character to a game-breaking bug, that until I was nearly losing my mind, that they finally recinded and realized that it was, indeed, a gamebreaking bug. This led to the changing of the climbing system.
I've had a long-time character killed almost directly through admin intervention through spawning multiple AOE attacks on a group of characters through every single place they moved with little to no animations given.
I've bashed heads with the administration here despite having extremely little say or speak in the GDB as a whole. I was thinking about giving the game another try, a -real- try considering other muds have let me down again and again.
But when I heard that real world politics were leaking into a game about fucking cavemen elves, men, and dwarves, and that preceived IC racism was 'wah this word sounds too similar to another word', I was fucking shocked.
It may seem like a small thing, but the implications of it insist that even pretend racism against fucking elves using a word that is supposed to be in-characterly derogitory is not allowed because it sounds 'similar'?
You're seriously policing words?
People should be allowed to say what they want, despite your preconceived notions of flagellant racism against dark-skinned people, when in fact it's a referral to an actual fucking factual different race of demi-humans entirely during which racism is and should be a thing considering they're battling for survival of the fittest. Unlike human to human, where skin color doesn't matter because we're all human beings, elves are not fucking humans, and like the setting clearly defines, they should hate and distrust the other because they want their species to be the dominant one.

Racism in the real life variant shouldn't even be considered in a game like this. If you want to call an elf a necker, call them a fucking necker because they have long necks that you want to strangle. If you want to call them a sharp, then call them a fucking sharp because they have long pointed ears that you want to shove into their eye-holes.

And on the other hand, if you're an elf, look at those stupid little fucking men with their high-and-mighty attitude, their shitty little round ears. They're god damn morons. Their legs aren't even good enough to carry them across the desert, they're weak-ass punks that have to rely on animals to get them around??? They're about as lowly as beasts if they have to rely on them as such.

I mean, god damn, there's no real life racism in my god damn game about men, dwaves, and elves, so stop fucking pretending like there is. Don't ban words. Whoever thinks there's any link between 'necker' and 'n****r' (blocked to spare your compassionate eyes the strain of seeing an UGLY word that may hurt your fucking fee fees) is a god damn neanderthal subhuman, no matter your race, religion, creed, or culture, and should be fucking beaten over the head with hundreds of years of history and oppression that exists to give that word it's own offensive meaning.
Fuck.
Jesus christ.
God damn.
Stop bringing your politics into videogames, it's fucking stupid.

I don't agree with this change either, but if you equate referring to people by the N-word with "politics" then you have some messed up political views.

How many elves have you met with exceptionally long necks? It just doesn't make sense and frankly it's not a big deal we can no longer use the word Necker in the game. As Adhira said, it's also the only word you cannot use. Everything else is still fair game. Enjoy.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 11, 2017, 08:54:49 PM
I don't agree with this change either, but if you equate referring to people by the N-word with "politics" then you have some messed up political views.

Part of the general consensus of freedom, is of course, freedom of speech. This gives a voice to each and every person and allows them to speak their minds no matter their color, creed, or any other factors of their life. This includes people who would say unkind and unpleasant things.
In some public domains, some words find themselves censored, usually for morality reasons instanced. These are 'curse' words. 'Fuck, Shit, Cunt, Piss', ect.  You'll find that public media, at least in America and some other countries, take these words away simply because they are offensive. It is within the right to do so, because they are offensive to some people. I do not deny that the creators of Armageddon have the right to censor words as they see fit within it, but I do think it is an incredibly foolish and reactionary measure that does not fully understand itself in it's meaning.
What is the word 'Necker'? It means an elf, who is a 'neck taller' than an average man, also antiquated with hanging them by the neck for simply being elves. Is it a racist term? Yes, in game, it is racist, and as the setting confirms, racism is widespread.
But censoring a word that was used simply because it sounds like another word makes no sense. It would be like censoring 'heck, freaking' and 'darn' because they sound like hell, fucking, and damn.
In the actual, real world, 'necker' doesn't mean anything. It's the name of an island, an optical illusion, and a swiss banker, to name a few. If you called someone a 'necker' on the street, they would be confused, and ask if you meant 'rubbernecker', which means gawking at something awkwardly, usually on a freeway.

Saying that my politics are 'flawed' because I think that associating 'necker' with the n-word as stupid, then by all means, call them flawed, that's your opinion, and your right to claim so. But it is also my right to call you a fucking idiot. Claiming that the word 'necker' is as severe as the 'n-word' and comparing them as such is not only offensive to people who have had the displeasure of being called that, it is laughably foolish to even give it the association and acknowledge it. By claiming that 'necker' = 'n-word', and then banning the word necker, you've given strength to the idea that it was racist as a 'n-word' equal, when in reality was literally just a word to describe elves in a fictional online game, a racial slur towards them.

People have been involving 'personal politics' into things by getting rid of something that could remotely offend anyone because they live in an incredibly sterile environment. They're so focused on living in their own bubble and hitting anyone who has a different opinion as their own with labels, in an attempt to ostracize them from society for having a different mindset. I've been called many bad things in my life by many bad people. I wish they wouldn't, but I understand it is their right to be bad, just as it is my right to be good, and rise above it. Through adversity, people become stronger for it.

I'm expecting a cherrypicked, strawman, likely one-line response, or an indepth extradition of every single one of my words. Save it. I'm done talking about it. I wanted to voice my opinion.

I'd like to know if there were any actual black folks who were legitimately concerned about the use of the word necker, or if this is just some kind of "look how ENLIGHTENED we are" virtue-signalling kind of thing.

Ultimately, though...if you're the kind of person who's going to get triggered by a word sounding like a word that has a history rooted in slavery and racism...a gameworld built around slavery and racism prooooobably isn't gonna be your cup of tea, man.  Just sayin'.  So, I mean...what's the target demographic here?  Appeasing players who are fine with roleplaying human supremacists (who also enslave other humans, by the way), but using anything close to "the N word" is just one step too far?  I mean...is this actually a thing?  It seems absurd.

I mean, come on.  I roleplayed cutting a dude's hands off with his own pickaxe once, then pissing on him...and staff are banning the word necker.  It's like...yeah, wow...you can mutilate and piss on me, but don't call me a necker...that's just going too far.

But...uh...yeah.  Next thing you know, we're going to have to have a consent rule for racism.

Personally, I am okay with the change, because I'm not staff, this is not my game, but in my honest opinion, it's a word which has been used for many years on Armageddon as I recall. It's basically taking a fair bit away from the IC culture. Now personally, I can see where some people can make that link between the words, however my issue is more 'is this all they do?' I'd like to hope this change is the only one that needs be made, because once you start doing things like this to specific words, sometimes it will eventually lead to other changes. So, do I agree with this move completely? No. But I wouldn't say that the topic is exactly right. I mean, 'overuse their DM fiat' is not something I've seen much of here except in few cases, but even then, I'd have to say they don't. I'd have to say. I am okay with this change to some extent. I'll leave out my personal views on the matter because I don't speak for people who might or might not actually be upset about the word.

Personally. If only a single person who is himself black would post and say that they feel offended by the use of that world, would be enough for me not to use it. Do we have 'anyone' here like that? Just a single person is enough.  Anyone?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means.  -this lawyer I know

I'm not going to wander down that particular rabbithole in this thread.  I am going to ask that you pack up your antiSJW bag, because you're missing the point.  Your premise that 'necker' is the only word that is disallowed in the game is flawed.  Plenty of words are not allowed in the game:

Clear counterexample 1) titling someone miss, mrs, or mr
* This has been stated as against inappropriate.  There was no clear pushback against it and presumably no failure to comply with it in game.

Clear counterexample 2) putting child, maiden, etc in your sdesc
* These have been stated as inappropriate for various reasons.  Maiden in particular was described as not appropriate to game-world concepts.

Less clear but equally applicable counterexample 3) the words steam, machine, waterfall, computer, etc. 
* These are not appropriate to the game world setting.  If you use them, someone will give you a talking-to.

Policing the gameworld is a function of staff and they decide what is and is not appropriate for the game world all the time.  'Necker' as a slur would make sense if elves were described as having particularly long necks.  They don't.  Therefore, it doesn't make sense for it to be a slur in the game world.  It has become a slur for some reason,* but REGARDLESS, it doesn't make sense as and IC slur and isn't appropriate to the game world. 

Their action with necker has been completely consistent with prior stances on anachronistic or inappropriate words.

*probably RL racism, and while in-game racism is appropriate, RL racism never has been

Bad boys, bad boys
Watcha gonna do
Watcha gonna do
When the word police
Come for you

Quote from: AdamBlue on July 12, 2017, 03:17:39 AM
I'm expecting a cherrypicked, strawman, likely one-line response, or an indepth extradition of every single one of my words. Save it. I'm done talking about it. I wanted to voice my opinion.

Godspeed to you, then.


Anyway, Valeria, the problem with your argument is that the staff didn't sell us this change as being about an anachronism.

QuoteStaff have made a decision to remove the usage of the word 'Necker' from the game.

This word comes with negative real world connotations and we do not wish to promote or see this in our game world.  Please refrain from using the slang word 'necker' in game.

Armageddon has always been billed as a "mature" MUD.  Our game depicts sexuality, violence, slavery, and yes, racism.  Maturity is being able to understand that these themes are limited to the game world and are not meant to be personally offensive.  People who cannot make that distinction probably shouldn't play here.

Also, elves ARE taller and more slender than other races.  Less muscular would mean smaller trapezius muscles, which would indeed give the appearance of a disproportionately longer neck.  Go look at pictures of tall, slender people in real life vs. shorter and/or more muscular ones.  I've always thought it was an appropriate description.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 12, 2017, 10:20:44 AM

Quote from: AdamBlue on July 12, 2017, 03:17:39 AM
I'm expecting a cherrypicked, strawman, likely one-line response, or an indepth extradition of every single one of my words. Save it. I'm done talking about it. I wanted to voice my opinion.

Godspeed to you, then.


Anyway, Valeria, the problem with your argument is that the staff didn't sell us this change as being about an anachronism.

QuoteStaff have made a decision to remove the usage of the word 'Necker' from the game.

This word comes with negative real world connotations and we do not wish to promote or see this in our game world.  Please refrain from using the slang word 'necker' in game.

Armageddon has always been billed as a "mature" MUD.  Our game depicts sexuality, violence, slavery, and yes, racism.  Maturity is being able to understand that these themes are limited to the game world and are not meant to be personally offensive.  People who cannot make that distinction probably shouldn't play here.

Also, elves ARE taller and more slender than other races.  Less muscular would mean smaller trapezius muscles, which would indeed give the appearance of a disproportionately longer neck.  Go look at pictures of tall, slender people in real life vs. shorter and/or more muscular ones.  I've always thought it was an appropriate description.

Yes, my issue with the words she stated were that I've seen elves with legitimate long necks with their desc. I mean even if I am ok with the change, I want to point out that there's IC basis for the word. I think the issue is more or less not that it's inaccurate IC, it's more that it has a direct correlation to a real life word.

What if we start calling them "peggers" instead? Because they sorta look like pegs and it's close enough to neckers in sound and insult, minus the perceived racism - I think that would be a fair compromise.

(http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aaxq_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TTSGroupE-commerceMaster/default/dw147e474b/images/hi-res/1008799_00_TE00821_1_large.jpg)

I'd like to call them "leggers" but I have a feeling that would be perceived similarly to "neckers."

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 12, 2017, 10:20:44 AM
Anyway, Valeria, the problem with your argument...

My argument was particularly a counter to point out the problems with the freespeach argument, not about the change in general.

You know what, I'll bite here because I'm getting just a touch irritated.

I don't think that my argument should bear any more or less weight that anyone else's because of the shade of my skin and it makes me intensely uncomfortable to bring up the fact of my heritage in any discussion unless it is in a chill, happy, or off-hand sense. I've watched this discussion play out on the forums and on Discord and spoken up a little, but some of the vitriol being spewed is breathtaking. I understood when there was outrage and confusion about how the situation was handled and unease about general censorship, but when it all settled down as we were asked to simply refrain from using this one word, I thought it was over.

I believe in letting people play how they wish for the most part. Pursue their own storylines and see what comes of them for good or ill and reach for the skies or wallow in the gutter. What I don't believe in is ripping each other apart as players or directing hate at the people who staff this game. If we play a mature game, then act like the adults you want to be treated like. Don't let discussions devolve into cesspools where people don't want to participate and feel like they are being attacked. Hiding behind the notion that other people are thin-skinned is a sign that some have little self control and cannot participate in calm discourse.

That said, I didn't have an issue with people using the word. I had heard that it was a stand in for the less pleasant word used in real life and though it disgusts me and made me think less of this community, I didn't make a fuss about it because I drew that IC/OOC line. No one was calling ME that, though I have been called that IN REAL LIFE. And that SUCKS. I have heard about other IG parallels to RL offensive terms that were clearly meant as such have made me pause and shake my head, but there are asshats in real life too and you can't escape them. So if I meet them, I avoid those folk and move on. Why let someone else ruin my fun? So, once I learned that folks were using 'necker' in a way I never agreed with, I used the word 'sharp' and carried on. It's a damned game.

The assertion that black people use the n-word freely with each other is widely untrue. Some do, yes, but it has never been a word spoken by or around people I know. I personally can't get it past my lips without discomfort, nor any other slur against another person.

The point of all this is, I know some people are going to jump on me and that's fine. I don't care. Call me oversensitive, say I have some huge political agenda, call me a moron for having an opinion. There is not a computer out there that can calculate the amount of fucks I don't give. I didn't really want to post anyway because I knew I was probably stepping into a hornet's nest from the first word. I don't believe that's right, though. I'm willing to TALK about my opinion, but I won't be ATTACKED for it. I doubt it was one person who complained about this and if they are choosing not to speak up about it, I don't blame them because some folk seem to be at 11 in here.

Again, probably a rambling and likely too long and serious post, but I tend to make those.

Quote from: Malken on July 12, 2017, 11:05:39 AM
What if we start calling them "peggers" instead? Because they sorta look like pegs and it's close enough to neckers in sound and insult, minus the perceived racism - I think that would be a fair compromise.

(http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aaxq_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-TTSGroupE-commerceMaster/default/dw147e474b/images/hi-res/1008799_00_TE00821_1_large.jpg)

If this was a joke...well played.

If it wasn't...don't google "pegging" at work, my man.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2017, 11:50:01 AM
If it wasn't...don't google "pegging" at work, my man.

The funny part is that the SFW urbandictionary version defines a pegger as a "person who runs around and robs underwear off peoples washing lines and wears them." <- Could make for a nice insulting slang for an elf!

But yeah, the NSFW version is uhh.. NSFW and also makes for a nice insulting slang for an elf.

.

Quote from: valeria on July 12, 2017, 07:47:26 AM
Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means.  -this lawyer I know

I'm not going to wander down that particular rabbithole in this thread.  I am going to ask that you pack up your antiSJW bag, because you're missing the point.  Your premise that 'necker' is the only word that is disallowed in the game is flawed.  Plenty of words are not allowed in the game:

AdamBlue specifically did not make a freedom of speech argument:

Quote from: AdamBlueI do not deny that the creators of Armageddon have the right to censor words as they see fit within it, but I do think it is an incredibly foolish and reactionary measure that does not fully understand itself in it's meaning.

...so leading your post with a snarky aside insinuating that he probably doesn't understand what free speech means makes me suspect that you didn't read the rest of his post, or you were just a little too ready to produce a straw man once you read "freedom of speech."

Also...listen...being anti-censorship in a private domain has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-SJW in general, except where the unreasonable aspects of each overlap, and it's a little condescending to libertarians, anarchists, et al. to imply that being against a particular implementation of censorship in a private domain that pertains to a RL term of racism entails being anti-SJW.  Maybe you're relying on a short-hand reference to the poster's prior history (I don't keep tabs on AdamBlue's post history, I admit) or something, but I'm not reading anything in particular in this thread that has anything to do with anti-SJWism.  Clearly, he makes a strong anti-censorship point that touches on particular types of censorship, but to me it seems more like that's merely aforementioned overlap.  That being said, I also don't agree with him that private-domain censorship is necessarily a bad thing.

I've stated elsewhere why I liked using the word and similar words.  To summarize:  I know that it sounded like the N word, and that resulted in a particular instant feeling that a) contributed to the realistic roleplayed feel of fantasy racism and b) isn't easily replaced.  If it offended people...that was kind of the point.  (That is:  being offended in a particular sort of way is good; being offended in other ways is not so good--cf rape, torture.)  I'm not particularly bent out of shape about the change, but thus far, the offered "acceptable replacement" words feel like the equivalent of calling someone a "cad" or something.  Rapscallion.  Offensive-Lite™.  However, as a generally utilitarian sort of person, I'm amenable to the argument that feelings of intense personal offense in a few people could outweigh the milder feelings of enjoyment in many, since hedons theoretically are a vector quantity.  I don't think enough of that sort of evidence has been produced at this point, but...that's just like, my opinion, man.

There are a number of slang words in game that are actual derogatory RL words.
Not words 'close to' other words, or words that 'sound like' other words. 
Should we ban those words too? 

Half-breed is a derogatory term for anyone of mixed race.  The next time someone calls my bree-- oops, I mean my half-elf a 'half-breed', should I put my complaint through the request tool or here on the GDB?

Skinny, round-eye, slant-eye are all words I've heard in game as racial slurs that are actually used in RL as racial slurs.

This is my issue with banning necker.  Where is the line drawn? 

You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

QuoteYou could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult.

As noted in one of my previous posts on the matter, 'necker' derived from an evolution of derogatory words, most directly from 'longneck'.

Also as noted, the problem I have with this issue is not this word in and of itself, but the fact that these sorts of actions keep on happening.  If something is truly having a negative impact on the game, then it requires action.  But a couple players drawing a false correlation between a word and a real life situation and then stating that it gives them discomfort is not suitable justification for over-control and modification of the roleplay atmosphere of the game, in my opinion.  It's highly relative, and sets precedent for a lot of other actions to take place in the future.  Which is exactly why I argued against the removal of Mister/Miss.  Not because I'm so attached to the words, but because it establishes a way of dealing with non-existent problems in the name of false protections of players.

This isn't protectionism.  It's micromanagement in the wrong places.  We should really be looking to relax the atmosphere rather than tighten it up, so that we can appeal to as many different kinds of player as possible; as noted, that correlation was only 'existing' for chosen few, and so while I'm not saying the loss of the word 'necker' will result in people playing less, what I -am- saying is that these sorts of actions reveal an undertone of the continued slide away from a roleplaying atmosphere that just about anyone can exist in freely, and contribute to, no matter what type of player they are in, as long as they are not in with active interest in going against the grain of the game world.

In essence:  These sorts of rules are based on protecting people who don't need protection, at the expense of making it okay to shut things down because some people don't like it on an OOC level even if it's completely fine IC.

"Longneck" is kind of a stupid insult too. It's like looking at a dwarf and thinking, "these hairless stubborn single-minded stumps of muscle don't have eyelashes, let's call them lashes!" Just kind of a nonsensical thing to focus on.

I do agree that is micromanagy, but overall I'm not ruffled by the removal of necker. I don't use the word much if at all myself (always preferred sharp) and doubt staff are going to react to the occasional use as I hope they have better more enjoyable things to do with their time. I wouldn't advise doing a recitation of "Necker necker necker, why does the Arm hate neckers?" in the Gaj anytime soon though.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

Edit: I always thought sharp was sort of stupid.  If sharp is a variation of 'sharpear', which I believe it is, why are dwarves and muls not called sharps?  They both have pointed ears.

Quote from: manipura on July 12, 2017, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

The real life word that it connotes has a particularly nasty history to it, at least in the United States of America, and by extension the culture secreted from the USA.  What bothered me was not just the word but also the use it was put to.  There's no slippery slope.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:02:48 PM
"Longneck" is kind of a stupid insult too. It's like looking at a dwarf and thinking, "these hairless stubborn single-minded stumps of muscle don't have eyelashes, let's call them lashes!" Just kind of a nonsensical thing to focus on.

I do agree that is micromanagy, but overall I'm not ruffled by the removal of necker. I don't use the word much if at all myself (always preferred sharp) and doubt staff are going to react to the occasional use as I hope they have better more enjoyable things to do with their time. I wouldn't advise doing a recitation of "Necker necker necker, why does the Arm hate neckers?" in the Gaj anytime soon though.

It doesn't have to be smart or naturally intuitive.  It came about and caught on in an IC manner without any OOC push for any of it.  People obviously liked it.  If someone started calling dwarves lashes, and another group of people caught it and started calling dwarves lashes, it wouldn't be removed for catching on without substantial basis.  At least not until we continue down this micro-managey path.

A lot of disapproval being voiced on the GDB is simply because criticisms via the correct channels are being ignored.  As I've noted, I'm now banned from discord for discussing this topic in a civil manner.  I didn't bring it up.  I responded to things being said.  I moved on to a new topic when asked.  I've had discussions surrounding resurrections that were given in instances where I, historically, have been denied the same action (and those are events noted in my account notes).  I've been banned for expressing displeasure with decisions made, where I'd previously gone...16 years or so with no such actions taken.  These, along with administrative actions taken by the staff, are all signs not of a new interaction from me, but of a new staff direction that is seemingly so set on it that it's willing to take disciplinary actions on those with disagreement and criticisms of the foundation being built upon.  That is not a healthy direction.

So no.  I don't draw some line in the sand over this word being removed.  Because it truly isn't that big of a deal.  But I -am- trying to put big flashing lights on things that I see that reinforce the criticisms that I've been voicing in hopes that at some point, someone will realize I'm not attacking their character; I'm pointing at instances of poor decisions that demonstrate the danger that I see as very real -and- progressing forward, before it progresses to a point that it damages the game to a point that can't really be mended.

Quote from: nauta on July 12, 2017, 02:07:26 PM
The real life word that it connotes has a particularly nasty history to it, at least in the United States of America, and by extension the culture secreted from the USA.  What bothered me was not just the word but also the use it was put to.  There's no slippery slope.

But it's ok that we keep allowing actual slavery and the slaves most often put upon are those of the same race this term referred to?  While the slaves of another race are "Actually treasured possessions"  That when the crowd cries for victims in the Arena, it's not just any victim's blood they want.  It's the blood of this race.  That the only acceptable places for those of this race to live are slums?  That the only thing they hold place of pride in is athleticism?  That there is an ever so subtle disgust with any breeding between the off-spring of the pure race and this other race?  That the race has a genetic and cultural predilection for thievery?  That every member of this race is actually given the Steal skill?  That when the Arm bustles into the Gaj and drags out a random victim... it's always an elf.  That the starving children chased away are always chased away because someone spawned with this race?  Not that the only truly prideful of this race are actually called Tribals?  That they practice animism and live on booze?  And you're worried about a word?

I'm at a loss here.  If you want to be offended by things in this grimdark reflecting the real world you have a LOT more to take offense at then a word folks have decided sounds too much like some other word.  There are -actual- direct parallels to horrible things in the real world that are the very fabric of this game's world.  Those are fine?

Quote from: nauta on July 12, 2017, 02:07:26 PM

Quote from: manipura on July 12, 2017, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

The real life word that it connotes has a particularly nasty history to it, at least in the United States of America, and by extension the culture secreted from the USA.  What bothered me was not just the word but also the use it was put to.  There's no slippery slope.

The words immediately coming to mind that are actual RL racial slurs are...actual RL racial slurs.  People of mixed race, anyone of mixed race but particularly people who are half-white and half-Native American are called half-breeds in a derogatory way.  I'm pretty sure the treatment of Native Americans and their ancestors (even the ones with just a bit of ancestry ;) ) was rather nasty.  Same with Asians.  Or is the history not nasty enough?  Is that where the line is drawn?  You can use RL racial slurs in game as long as the RL connotation isn't a certain level of nasty?  Does the slippery slope apply to some words but not others?  Some words come from a nasty history, but others aren't quite nasty enough so they're still fair game?

My point isn't to be argumentative or nit-picky, my point is that picking and choosing what words we're going to police, when others fit under the same reasoning, doesn't make sense. 

Quote from: whitt on July 12, 2017, 02:20:41 PM

Quote from: nauta on July 12, 2017, 02:07:26 PM
The real life word that it connotes has a particularly nasty history to it, at least in the United States of America, and by extension the culture secreted from the USA.  What bothered me was not just the word but also the use it was put to.  There's no slippery slope.

But it's ok that we keep allowing actual slavery and the slaves most often put upon are those of the same race this term referred to?  While the slaves of another race are "Actually treasured possessions"  That when the crowd cries for victims in the Arena, it's not just any victim's blood they want.  It's the blood of this race.  That the only acceptable places for those of this race to live are slums?  That the only thing they hold place of pride in is athleticism?  That there is an ever so subtle disgust with any breeding between the off-spring of the pure race and this other race?  That the race has a genetic and cultural predilection for thievery?  That every member of this race is actually given the Steal skill?  That when the Arm bustles into the Gaj and drags out a random victim... it's always an elf.  That the starving children chased away are always chased away because someone spawned with this race?  Not that the only truly prideful of this race are actually called Tribals?  That they practice animism and live on booze?  And you're worried about a word?

I'm at a loss here.  If you want to be offended by things in this grimdark reflecting the real world you have a LOT more to take offense at then a word folks have decided sounds too much like some other word.  There are -actual- direct parallels to horrible things in the real world that are the very fabric of this game's world.  Those are fine?

whitt, all of that is just fine in this harsh, harsh world, as long as you refer to them as sharps and not neckers.

QuoteThere's no slippery slope.

The same action was made about non-offensive terms not long ago, with a similar reaction from the playerbase which is 'Not a big deal, but not a fan of the action.'  When actions repeat themselves, that is exactly where slippery slopes come into play.

That's if you keep it at surface value.  If we implant the implications of it, which is overmanagement (particularly in the wrong areas), and make note that it happens both IC and OOC, then I find slippery slopes very fitting for analysis right now.

Quote from: manipura on July 12, 2017, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

Edit: I always thought sharp was sort of stupid.  If sharp is a variation of 'sharpear', which I believe it is, why are dwarves and muls not called sharps?  They both have pointed ears.

I think it's a two-part argumenet that Staff should be making.

1) "Necker" is a stupid insult because it makes little in-character sense for that trait to be used as its basis. At least 'that other word' can be etymologically traced back to a major identifying feature of its targets.
2) Because "Necker" is a nonsensical insult, it comes across as a forced attempt to get a close analogue to a real life pejorative word in to the game. This may well have had something to do with its popularity.

(I acknowledge that a lot of you didn't seem to realize any relationship, to which I can only assume I live a life cloaked more in hatred and malice as I picked up on the analogue almost immediately. Far quicker than I figured out what a Breed was.)

Incidentally, "Sharp" can have some archaic connotations of swindler or cheat in English. I could buy that being the source of the word more than Elven physiology. It's also possible Sharp became attached to elves because Elves are about 1000% more common (virtually) than muls or dwarves. Or some combination of the two. (Also insulting either dwarves or muls is a kind of dumb idea.)

.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
Incidentally, "Sharp" can have some archaic connotations of swindler or cheat in English. I could buy that being the source of the word more than Elven physiology. It's also possible Sharp became attached to elves because Elves are about 1000% more common (virtually) than muls or dwarves. Or some combination of the two. (Also insulting either dwarves or muls is a kind of dumb idea.)

Well, except the fact that the helpfiles seem to imply that it comes from sharpear, not some other meaning.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2017, 12:39:33 PM

Quote from: valeria on July 12, 2017, 07:47:26 AM
Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means.  -this lawyer I know

I'm not going to wander down that particular rabbithole in this thread.  I am going to ask that you pack up your antiSJW bag, because you're missing the point.  Your premise that 'necker' is the only word that is disallowed in the game is flawed.  Plenty of words are not allowed in the game:

AdamBlue specifically did not make a freedom of speech argument:

Quote from: AdamBlueI do not deny that the creators of Armageddon have the right to censor words as they see fit within it, but I do think it is an incredibly foolish and reactionary measure that does not fully understand itself in it's meaning.

...so leading your post with a snarky aside insinuating that he probably doesn't understand what free speech means makes me suspect that you didn't read the rest of his post, or you were just a little too ready to produce a straw man once you read "freedom of speech."

My admittedly salty comment was referring to the paragraphs immediately before the one you quoted.

Also, anti-censorship and freedom of speech have nothing to do with the private sphere.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2017, 12:39:33 PM
Also...listen...being anti-censorship in a private domain has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-SJW in general, except where the unreasonable aspects of each overlap...

Censorship is a government function. There is literally no such thing as private censorship.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2017, 12:39:33 PM
... and it's a little condescending to libertarians, anarchists, et al. to imply that being against a particular implementation of censorship in a private domain that pertains to a RL term of racism entails being anti-SJW.  Maybe you're relying on a short-hand reference to the poster's prior history (I don't keep tabs on AdamBlue's post history, I admit) or something, but I'm not reading anything in particular in this thread that has anything to do with anti-SJWism.

Regardless of what you think it may have implied toward libertarians and anarchists, it was directed at this PARTICULAR person's statements. Ahem:

Quote from: AdamBlue on July 11, 2017, 08:42:34 PM
But when I heard that real world politics were leaking into a game about fucking cavemen elves, men, and dwarves, and that preceived IC racism was 'wah this word sounds too similar to another word', I was fucking shocked.
It may seem like a small thing, but the implications of it insist that even pretend racism against fucking elves using a word that is supposed to be in-characterly derogitory is not allowed because it sounds 'similar'?
You're seriously policing words?

***
Whoever thinks there's any link between 'necker' and 'n****r' (blocked to spare your compassionate eyes the strain of seeing an UGLY word that may hurt your fucking fee fees) is a god damn neanderthal subhuman, no matter your race, religion, creed, or culture, and should be fucking beaten over the head with hundreds of years of history and oppression that exists to give that word it's own offensive meaning.
Fuck.
Jesus christ.
God damn.
Stop bringing your politics into videogames, it's fucking stupid.

Quote from: AdamBlue on July 12, 2017, 03:17:39 AM.
People have been involving 'personal politics' into things by getting rid of something that could remotely offend anyone because they live in an incredibly sterile environment. They're so focused on living in their own bubble and hitting anyone who has a different opinion as their own with labels, in an attempt to ostracize them from society for having a different mindset

That last statement in particular is like straight out of the antiSJW talking point handbook.

Quote from: Synthesis on July 12, 2017, 12:39:33 PM
Clearly, he makes a strong anti-censorship point that touches on particular types of censorship, but to me it seems more like that's merely aforementioned overlap.

Clearly, I disagree, so I wouldn't say it's all that clear  ;)

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
I think it's a two-part argumenet that Staff should be making.

1) "Necker" is a stupid insult because it makes little in-character sense for that trait to be used as its basis. At least 'that other word' can be etymologically traced back to a major identifying feature of its targets.
2) Because "Necker" is a nonsensical insult, it comes across as a forced attempt to get a close analogue to a real life pejorative word in to the game. This may well have had something to do with its popularity.

(I acknowledge that a lot of you didn't seem to realize any relationship, to which I can only assume I live a life cloaked more in hatred and malice as I picked up on the analogue almost immediately. Far quicker than I figured out what a Breed was.)

This post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52594.msg989444.html#msg989444) is why I'm pretty sure you're correct that was part of the actual rationale.

There's no such thing as private censorship?

Okay, then.

https://www.google.com/#q=censorship+in+the+private+sector

From your own profession:  https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/15/winter-2015/chill-around-the-water-cooler.html

"In most circumstances, however, the average employee's speech poses little risk of harm to the employer. The harm to the employee created by an employer's ability to punish speech, by contrast, is significant. Particularly in times of economic insecurity, the threat of speech-related termination creates a powerful economic pressure for self-censorship. In the aggregate, this self-censorship compromises the free exchange of ideas necessary for a func­tional and inclusive democracy."

The idea that censorship is strictly a government function relies on a very particular strictly-legalastic definition that nobody here is using.  (And yes, I'm aware that almost the entire article explains how there is no -right- to free speech in the private sector.  The issue is not whether we have a strictly legal right to free speech in game or on the GDB [we don't], but whether perfectly legal restrictions are in fact a good idea or not.)

(http://i.imgur.com/zGHQb4O.gif)

Oh shit, this still a thing?

Hey, black guy here. I don't care. Use the word 'necker.' I probably will.

Quote from: valeria on July 12, 2017, 02:53:21 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
I think it's a two-part argumenet that Staff should be making.

1) "Necker" is a stupid insult because it makes little in-character sense for that trait to be used as its basis. At least 'that other word' can be etymologically traced back to a major identifying feature of its targets.
2) Because "Necker" is a nonsensical insult, it comes across as a forced attempt to get a close analogue to a real life pejorative word in to the game. This may well have had something to do with its popularity.

(I acknowledge that a lot of you didn't seem to realize any relationship, to which I can only assume I live a life cloaked more in hatred and malice as I picked up on the analogue almost immediately. Far quicker than I figured out what a Breed was.)

This post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52594.msg989444.html#msg989444) is why I'm pretty sure you're correct that was part of the actual rationale.

Longneck is clearly etymologically related to necker, and longneck has been in use on the GDB since at least 2003 (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,1440.msg11292.html#msg11292).  It is still in the help files.

Necker has been in use since at least 2004 (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,10317.msg101005.html#msg101005).

(I don't think the search function goes back into the great beyond that was before the current iteration of the GDB, which happened in what...2002?)

So...the idea that there's some sort of new cabal of secret RL racists trying to force in-game language for top keks isn't convincing at all, in the absence of other evidence.  I've used longneck and necker as derogatories for elves for as long as I can remember, and in 19 years, literally nobody has said anything about it until now.

I don't think there's some secret cabal of racists either. I think Staff perception is that necker has always been an allusion to that other word* for at least part of the playerbase. Don't know why it became an issue now, but it probably involved someone complaining.

The fact that anyone thought "longneck" was a good insult continues to baffle me.

.

I am baffled as to why anyone gives a shit. Staff dedicating the time and energy to make this a rule seems assinine. Players debating it for weeks seems equally ridiculous.

Moving on.

That's a completely different context (and is pretty ironic because it's talking about workplace policies that prohibit people from participating in the political process).  Just because it has become in vogue to misuse phrases "freedom of speech" and "censorship" wrong doesn't mean that they don't have very specific meanings.  Censorship, in the sense of don't censor my freedom of speech bro, is a strictly governmental thing.  I can't censor you, I can tell you to take your shitty speech off my lawn.  The article recognizes that your employer can't censor you.  Staff isn't censoring you when they say 'necker' is no longer an accepted slur, they're saying the pros of removing it from the game world outweigh the cons.

What people really mean when they are broflaking about other people "censoring" them or having to engage in "self-censorship" is that they want to be free to hurt other people without consequences and furthermore how dare you make them think about how something they have probably done unintentionally might hurt other people.  People might think they're a bad dood.

Nobody's saying there are a bunch of intentional racists here.  But if you've literally never thought about thing X before, it happens to not affect you, so welcome to being privileged enough not to have to worry about thing X.  That you're not hurt by thing X doesn't make you morally superior.  It just means that it doesn't affect you.

Things are changed and removed from the game all the time.  Some words already aren't allowed and other words probably won't be allowed in the future.  Switching to one of the existing other slurs for elves might take exactly one second.  And it also might make the game world more welcoming to some players.  So... why do people care about it so much again?

Oh right.  That good ol' slippery slope of censorship, where you might have to actually think about the consequences to other people of the things you do without thinking about them.   ::)

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM

Quote from: manipura on July 12, 2017, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

Edit: I always thought sharp was sort of stupid.  If sharp is a variation of 'sharpear', which I believe it is, why are dwarves and muls not called sharps?  They both have pointed ears.

I think it's a two-part argumenet that Staff should be making.

1) "Necker" is a stupid insult because it makes little in-character sense for that trait to be used as its basis. At least 'that other word' can be etymologically traced back to a major identifying feature of its targets.
2) Because "Necker" is a nonsensical insult, it comes across as a forced attempt to get a close analogue to a real life pejorative word in to the game. This may well have had something to do with its popularity.

(I acknowledge that a lot of you didn't seem to realize any relationship, to which I can only assume I live a life cloaked more in hatred and malice as I picked up on the analogue almost immediately. Far quicker than I figured out what a Breed was.)

Incidentally, "Sharp" can have some archaic connotations of swindler or cheat in English. I could buy that being the source of the word more than Elven physiology. It's also possible Sharp became attached to elves because Elves are about 1000% more common (virtually) than muls or dwarves. Or some combination of the two. (Also insulting either dwarves or muls is a kind of dumb idea.)

Agreed with this. Necker has a pretty suspect etymology and wasn't a very good Zalanthan slur in the first place. I'm fine with it being redacted just so that I wont have to run into another generic_rinthi_elf punctuating every sentence with necka like they just got off binge watching the Wire.

I think we can just draw the line there though.

Whoever was using Necker that way should've been stomped on hard and taught how to play the game right.  Maybe they were, I dunno.

That's what I think should've happened and nothing else.  But now we have a whole new idea.  That what we say in game, in roleplay, means something in RL.  It means something about us, it means something to someone else.

I'm not very happy about that.  I'm not comfortable with it.  I can't remember now what I'm allowed to say to someone in game.  I was in a confrontational conversation with a woman, I couldn't remember if I was allowed to call her a bitch or not and I didn't have time to look it up.  I'm worried I'll say the wrong thing now.  It throws me off.  It knocks me out of immersion.

Bah.  I guess because I'm "privileged" I don't count.  But now something that was just RP has touched the real world, been touched by the real world, and it's tainted.  Maybe forever.

Quote from: Yam on July 12, 2017, 08:04:51 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM

Quote from: manipura on July 12, 2017, 02:04:17 PM

Quote from: BadSkeelz on July 12, 2017, 01:40:33 PM
You could draw the line at necker with the argument that the word itself makes little sense as an insult. I find it questionable that the trait I would want to use as an insult towards elves would be their necks, however long they supposedly are.

I would be totally onboard with calling them Peggers except I wonder if clothes pins actually exist in Zalathans. Leggers would make the most sense to me as a replacement.

If staff had come out and said "Necker is now banned because not all elves are going to have that particular trait (longnecks)" then your argument of the line being drawn there makes some sense.  However "it doesn't make sense" wasn't the reason given, the reason given was "it comes with negative real world connotations."

So...why is the line drawn at necker and not all words that have negative real world connotations?  That's my issue, if you're going to start policing one negative word for whatever reason, then you really should be policing all the words that fall under the same reason.

Edit: I always thought sharp was sort of stupid.  If sharp is a variation of 'sharpear', which I believe it is, why are dwarves and muls not called sharps?  They both have pointed ears.

I think it's a two-part argumenet that Staff should be making.

1) "Necker" is a stupid insult because it makes little in-character sense for that trait to be used as its basis. At least 'that other word' can be etymologically traced back to a major identifying feature of its targets.
2) Because "Necker" is a nonsensical insult, it comes across as a forced attempt to get a close analogue to a real life pejorative word in to the game. This may well have had something to do with its popularity.

(I acknowledge that a lot of you didn't seem to realize any relationship, to which I can only assume I live a life cloaked more in hatred and malice as I picked up on the analogue almost immediately. Far quicker than I figured out what a Breed was.)

Incidentally, "Sharp" can have some archaic connotations of swindler or cheat in English. I could buy that being the source of the word more than Elven physiology. It's also possible Sharp became attached to elves because Elves are about 1000% more common (virtually) than muls or dwarves. Or some combination of the two. (Also insulting either dwarves or muls is a kind of dumb idea.)

Agreed with this. Necker has a pretty suspect etymology and wasn't a very good Zalanthan slur in the first place. I'm fine with it being redacted just so that I wont have to run into another generic_rinthi_elf punctuating every sentence with necka like they just got off binge watching the Wire.

I think we can just draw the line there though.

Yam. Does that truly happen?

This whole thread and the general concept is ridiculous. I've used long necks since the very first day of playing Arm. I believe 'sharp-ear/knife-ear/sharp' came much later then longneck and necker. But I'm not a native English speaker. Nor do I live in USA. I fail to see how not giving a shit about American History and it's heritage makes be privileged, or special. I dont need to be aware of any Political correctness rules that Americans invented, to be respectful to another human being.

While I dont really care. But I truly feel my immersion broken by having the word 'necker' removed from available names. I never even considered necker an actual insult if addressed to an elf. It's like calling gypsies a gyppo, or telling someone they've got gypped. It's also very racist, but ... we've got gypsies that tend to be thieves and swindlers by the very theme! (Used to, before we blew them up).

Removal of the word 'necker' IS bringing personal politics into the game. It simply is. Now am I really miffed about this to be outraged? Not really. I find it hilarious and a little weird. But I tend to find most people hilarious and a little weird anyway.  I agree that there is a strata of people in American society that can see a similarity of Necker to some other word (I never EVER did until this issue first came up) and their heritage was indeed deeply wounded by this word and it's connotations. If even a single individual of that strata is offended by this word, then by all means we should stop using it. Whether it's jarring, or not. Whether it makes sense, or not. Whether it breaks immersion down, or not. The idea that a real life human is somehow injured in real life due to some simple singular word in a game is unpleasant to me. But if the people who are being offended by this, never have been really injured by that word at all, and are doing this on an upswing of some personal political belief ...  well, fine. But dont say you're not bringing personal politics into a roleplaying game, because you 'are'.

Quote from: th3kaiser on July 11, 2017, 09:05:20 PM
How many elves have you met with exceptionally long necks? It just doesn't make sense and frankly it's not a big deal we can no longer use the word Necker in the game. As Adhira said, it's also the only word you cannot use. Everything else is still fair game. Enjoy.

Is it cool to call them Leggers? They DO have long legs, right?

Quote from: gotdamnmiracle on July 12, 2017, 09:44:41 PM

Quote from: th3kaiser on July 11, 2017, 09:05:20 PM
How many elves have you met with exceptionally long necks? It just doesn't make sense and frankly it's not a big deal we can no longer use the word Necker in the game. As Adhira said, it's also the only word you cannot use. Everything else is still fair game. Enjoy.

Is it cool to call them Leggers? The DO have long legs, right?

Nope it's racist and you're a bad player for suggesting such /s

Quote from: Jihelu on July 12, 2017, 09:45:26 PM

Quote from: gotdamnmiracle on July 12, 2017, 09:44:41 PM

Quote from: th3kaiser on July 11, 2017, 09:05:20 PM
How many elves have you met with exceptionally long necks? It just doesn't make sense and frankly it's not a big deal we can no longer use the word Necker in the game. As Adhira said, it's also the only word you cannot use. Everything else is still fair game. Enjoy.

Is it cool to call them Leggers? The DO have long legs, right?

Nope it's racist and you're a bad player for suggesting such /s

Fuck. You know, we won't have to deal with this when Tektolnes builds the wall and makes the elves pay for it.

Man, oh man. Just like when the public school system tried to turn the word retard into a bad word I can't wait to see what comes in to replace Necker. A lot of smart people play this game. I hope whatever it is puts a tear to my eye and makes my heart hurt.

Wikipedia disagrees that individuals can't engage in censorship.  But, for the sake of common language, how about we call it censureship (i.e. Official disapproval, not authoritative behavioral modification)?

The word "necker" doesn't bother me, but I'm not broken up about the loss of it.  I am likewise wary of changes that affect everyone to please the few, but in this case, I think A) the few are not being unreasonable in their request.  The words ARE similar.  The detriment of the word being used IC could be great to those few, and the loss of it does nothing more than inconvenience a few people who like to use it.  B) Removing this word from the game does nothing to change the actual game or its themes.  People could object to the violent themes in the game for a variety of totally reasonable reasons, but taking those out the game isn't really possible without changing the game itself.  But the game doesn't revolve around the word "necker".  It revolves around strife, both interpersonal, environmental, and internal.  None of that has changed.  C) I think we can do better in terms of insults.  We could use all this latent intelligence to generate some. I've proposed a few (https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52697.msg991625.html#msg991625).

I think it's hard to separate the unfortunate way this discussion began from how it has progressed, but I imagine the outcome is not necessarily a product of the path.  I censored a few of my own ideas in that list, not for comparability to real life prejudice, but because they were...visceral.  A little too vivid for my taste.  You want the person on the receiving end of the epithet to be able to shake their head and grin at the end of the day, after all.

Quote from: valeria on July 12, 2017, 07:15:09 PM
That's a completely different context (and is pretty ironic because it's talking about workplace policies that prohibit people from participating in the political process).  Just because it has become in vogue to misuse phrases "freedom of speech" and "censorship" wrong doesn't mean that they don't have very specific meanings.  Censorship, in the sense of don't censor my freedom of speech bro, is a strictly governmental thing.  I can't censor you, I can tell you to take your shitty speech off my lawn.  The article recognizes that your employer can't censor you.  Staff isn't censoring you when they say 'necker' is no longer an accepted slur, they're saying the pros of removing it from the game world outweigh the cons.

What people really mean when they are broflaking about other people "censoring" them or having to engage in "self-censorship" is that they want to be free to hurt other people without consequences and furthermore how dare you make them think about how something they have probably done unintentionally might hurt other people.  People might think they're a bad dood.

Nobody's saying there are a bunch of intentional racists here.  But if you've literally never thought about thing X before, it happens to not affect you, so welcome to being privileged enough not to have to worry about thing X.  That you're not hurt by thing X doesn't make you morally superior.  It just means that it doesn't affect you.

This is pretty much a fine example of what has been discussed, which is bringing real world politics into the fantasy game waving a banner of how harsh of injustice people who used this word in game were causing.  It's entirely tangential and relative, and forcefully inserted into a place where it doesn't exist, with plenty of gross mischaracterization of the opposing argument, to boot.  The difference is that the opposing argument is responding to an outright explanation of why, where you seem to be asserting that this is the only way someone could possibly be saying that censoring words for little to no game benefit is bad.

I'm curious to see how many players, long-term and short-term, have left because in-game language hits too close to home.  I'm also curious whether the response to that has ever been anything other than 'It's just a game, and if its contents are hitting you personally it may not be the best fit for you.'  Then lets compare that to how many players, long-term and short-term, have left because of feeling that situations were handled poorly when it comes to management of the game or its direction.  I think one warrants a lot more caution than the other, because you're addressing a very liberal, as a whole, group of players, who as you noted, are not racist; hence the attachment of real life racism to their role-playing habits and vision of the game and how it should be addressed is not only a stretch, but it's also kind of an 'injustice' of your own.

QuoteThings are changed and removed from the game all the time.  Some words already aren't allowed and other words probably won't be allowed in the future.  Switching to one of the existing other slurs for elves might take exactly one second.  And it also might make the game world more welcoming to some players.  So... why do people care about it so much again?

That's been outlined for the entirety of multiple threads.  Read them.

For emphasis:

QuoteOh right.  That good ol' slippery slope of censorship, where you might have to actually think about the consequences to other people of the things you do without thinking about them.   ::)

If behaving in the exact way that the game outlines in ways that have been in common practice for over a decade is something that we just now have to stop and give pause about and feel obligated to say 'Oh wait, some people said that hurts their RL sensibilities'...then I don't think you have a malicious growth in the playerbase filled with people who just don't care about other players.  I think you have some players who are taking some things in RL so seriously that it's now filtered into a game, where fantasy insults about a fantasy race in a fantasy world are suddenly abhorrent despite being in keeping with the themes that drew people into that game in the first place.  Not because they're racist, but because that world makes excellent stories.  And sometimes in those stories, people lose characters, or get ostracized from a place where they were really happy to play, or have their plans utterly smacked down.  None of those feel good.  There are feel goods and feel bads all over in this game, both for characters and players, and -that- is non-discriminatory.  Just because a feel-bad triggers someone on the social justice front doesn't warrant immediate and decisive action, because this place has nothing to do with real life social justice.

QuoteThe word "necker" doesn't bother me, but I'm not broken up about the loss of it.  I am likewise wary of changes that affect everyone to please the few, but in this case, I think A) the few are not being unreasonable in their request.  The words ARE similar.  The detriment of the word being used IC could be great to those few, and the loss of it does nothing more than inconvenience a few people who like to use it.  B) Removing this word from the game does nothing to change the actual game or its themes.  People could object to the violent themes in the game for a variety of totally reasonable reasons, but taking those out the game isn't really possible without changing the game itself.  But the game doesn't revolve around the word "necker".  It revolves around strife, both interpersonal, environmental, and internal.  None of that has changed.  C) I think we can do better in terms of insults.  We could use all this latent intelligence to generate some. I've proposed a few.

While this is true, it's also sidestepping the main reason people are against it; no one (or very few) are claiming that 'necker' is integral to the game.  But they are objecting to heavy handed policies based around controlling roleplay on fronts that are next-to-worthless to control.  The same as 'Mister' and 'Miss', removing 'Necker' from a vocabulary does nothing but move further into creation of a roleplaying game where OOC sensibilities control the IC world.  It doesn't remove the fact that you're going to get insulted.  It doesn't remove that people are going to say mean things.  It doesn't remove that people are going to use the next 'slang' word with the exact same context and usage.  And you'll be stuck, fighting this pointless little war against what words are and aren't appropriate in a fantasy setting...even if they evolved within that setting over time in the first place.

I'd rather staff involvement come in the form of consistent facilitation of roleplay rather than the constant regulation of it.  Regulation will push people away, and facilitation will bring people in.  We don't need an approval board.  We don't need all-seeing-all-watching eyes on players, making sure they conform to everyone's feel goods and never slip up and say something like 'goddamn' in game, breaking random person's immersion.  We don't need pointless rules that form divisions for no real game benefit. -That- is why I agree that this is silly, but from the other side of the debate.

I agree with pretty much everything Armaddict stated above. Too many policies doesn't help anyone. And constantly bending over backwards to be accommodating of minorities is actually condescending to the minorities you purport to be defending in the first place. I see this kind of virtue signalling from Americans a lot. There's like this obsessive need to crap on your own whiteness in order to show that you're a sympathetic ally or something. But the real irony to this is that most minorities could give a shit about any of that. The ban on the word necker literally helps no one. Not a single possible individual, no matter their genetic make up. I could be white saying this, I could be black saying this, I could be Asian, or whatever else, and the point still stands.

FYI I still see Miss and Mister used sometimes. Doesn't bother me in the least. Neither does/did necker. There are words in the English language which sound a million times more like what necker supposedly sounds like (even though that similarity is so off base it's like saying the words white and whale sound alike). I wonder how long before the words which truly sound similar are banned too. Whatever the case, there will be no backtracking on this particular policy. It's here to stay, sadly. That's just human nature and human pride at play right there. But I wonder if in the distant future players in support of this ban will look back on their lives and say "Okay, yeah I guess I was being a bit overly dramatic back then." Time has a way of allowing for better self-reflection.

So, here's my unsolicited two 'sid:
This rather uncreative slang for longneck caught on years ago and became habitual. (Personally I use skinny and sharp, or just say longneck, but more so because I found 'necker' to be boring and awkward as a term.) A small group of players began using the slang with the exact same connotation, intention and phrasing as the real-life racist term it phonetically resembles. There's no question that using it like that has no place in the game world, BUT the majority of players were certainly NOT using it like that. It was just habitual and a 'low-hanging fruit' derogatory slang for elves.

I think the current issue at hand comes from individuals who feel unjustly accused of an rl racist intention because their use of the word was simply habitual and the subtle accusation that if you didn't even realize the racist connection there is something wrong with you. So this discussion goes around in circles and becomes conceptual rather than practical. Are we being censored? No, we're being 'guided', just like the rest of the documentation attempts to do. The delivery of this guidance may have lacked a gentle hand but the necessity of it and the right of the Staff to implement it really aren't arguable.

Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt, staff and players alike: those that used the word regularly didn't have a racist rl intention and the staff who want it removed do not intend to blindly censor the game world. Let's just not say it anymore and move the fuck on. :)

Split & moderated the thread.  One topic per thread.

I get it that that things don't always turn out as we'd like - sometimes there's no purely 'good' solution on our side of things, either, and we have to go with least harm.  It's no excuse to derail other threads.

I don't want people using -Roundear- in game anymore. I'm round-earred in rl and this offends me.  :o ;)

Quote from: nessalin on July 13, 2017, 04:17:41 PM
Split & moderated the thread.  One topic per thread.

I get it that that things don't always turn out as we'd like - sometimes there's no purely 'good' solution on our side of things, either, and we have to go with least harm.  It's no excuse to derail other threads.

Considering the thread is about staff's actions, I maintain that it was on-topic. In fact, i would wager that if i were to post that again in its own thread, it would be moderated as well. Even if this thread is only about profanity IG, the first part of my post was regarding the word bitch. It doesn't seem to be off topic, merely inconvenient. Seems like more dishonesty, to me.

Quote from: Melkor on July 13, 2017, 07:16:08 PM

Quote from: nessalin on July 13, 2017, 04:17:41 PM
Split & moderated the thread.  One topic per thread.

I get it that that things don't always turn out as we'd like - sometimes there's no purely 'good' solution on our side of things, either, and we have to go with least harm.  It's no excuse to derail other threads.

Considering the thread is about staff's actions, I maintain that it was on-topic. In fact, i would wager that if i were to post that again in its own thread, it would be moderated as well. Even if this thread is only about profanity IG, the first part of my post was regarding the word bitch. It doesn't seem to be off topic, merely inconvenient. Seems like more dishonesty, to me.

I don't really post about anything other than clan check ins and pets, but I really can't stay quiet on this one. Regardless of why staff are saying they moderated your post (I suspect they were being nice), you posted something that is not something you should be discussing on the GDB. While parts of it were OOC, I agree, whoever you killed now knows who you play. That's IC info directly related to your character. If you have a problem with how staff handled your interaction, you need to talk to them. No one the GDB can do anything about it except whine with you.

Ultimately, how I see it, is if you don't like how the game is handled - Why are you playing? Staff are not out to get you. Staff are not your enemy. Staff are real people with real lives and an awesome desire to bring YOU interaction and fun through this game. This sort of attitude breeds the toxic atmosphere that pervades this forum. And the fact is, all it does is hurt the game and other players. Staff aren't taking time out of their days to be dishonest just so they can fuck with you.

Not playing anymore. Not IC. I dont think staff are dishonest to "fuck with" players; they have an agenda, and are willing to lie to players to achieve said agenda.
The entire profanity debacle is but one example of this behavior.
If you had seen my post before it was moderated, you would know that i had discussed the incident at length with staff. The GDB is the perfect venue to bring up the OOC decision because such decisions effect all players. Having a pertinent discussion does not equate to "whining."

Quote from: Pico de Gato on July 13, 2017, 07:58:09 PM
Ultimately, how I see it, is if you don't like how the game is handled - Why are you playing? Staff are not out to get you. Staff are not your enemy. Staff are real people with real lives and an awesome desire to bring YOU interaction and fun through this game. This sort of attitude breeds the toxic atmosphere that pervades this forum. And the fact is, all it does is hurt the game and other players. Staff aren't taking time out of their days to be dishonest just so they can fuck with you.

For the record, I don't like how the US Government is handled. But I live here. I think its a great country, has great potential, but I happen to currently not agree with how some things are handled.

In Arm, sometimes I disagree with how situations are handled. I can't speak for everyone, but it feels that sometimes staff are just like middle management. They were good at being players, they were trustworthy, but some just aren't cut out to be managers and "storytellers". Sometimes I disagree with the direction the Admins+ take the game, and have felt like they were "out to get me" simply because I was friends with someone they considered troublesome. But I still play, because its a great game, and you won't find better roleplay, with this many people all GENERALLY following the rules of roleplaying, anywhere else.

Don't give the "If you don't like it, don't play". We're allowed to disagree, and we SHOULD be allowed to disagree vehemently so long as we follow some basic rules. So far as the OP is concerned, the staff can tell us what the rules are, whenever they want. Its their game. But without the players, they're just dicking around, and I HONESTLY sometimes wonder how many of them play the game, and how many just perform routine maintenance and pay less attention than they used to.

Quoteif you don't like how the game is handled - Why are you playing?

We can enjoy the game and not agree with the direction of it at the same time.  We can be invested in trying to improve the game with our feedback in ways we think the game should be improved based off experiences in it.

It's a great game.  That doesn't mean it's perfect or perfectly handled.  Honestly, the fact you voiced this is a great way to lose players, because even those who played for a long time already -have- voted with their feet.  Visibly, loudly.  So I'd impart on you the wisdom that you may not want to use this rationale unless you really like playing with less people, in which case...I'm guessing you'd be pretty loud about it, if it was now or in the future necessary to your continued enjoyment.

The scale ...

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10

1-3 I say screw it and quit playing.

10 I'm enjoying myself immensely.

I'm at about a 6 most of the time, which gives me the right to bitch about the things that keep me from being 7-10 and also to bitch about the proposed implementation of things that will take me closer to 3.

I can point you to about 50 GREAT muds where there's an active, engaged staff of 3-5 people sitting around wishing they had some players. Why? Because at some point one or more of those 3-5 staff pissed off the majority of the playerbase with statements (and actions) that more or less said "If you don't like it, don't play here."

Melkor is a good roleplayer and a decent fellow. I can go to browse that Shadowboard thing and see about 20 people who any mud is probably better off with, but if you've lost Melkor? That ought to make you wonder what shit is going down that you're not aware of, not immediately knee-jerk jump to the defense of staff/game.

It would be like Nauta suddenly posting that they're sick of this game's shit. You KNOW you would wonder then what the heck is happening that you're oblivious to.

The point I was trying to make, and maybe I did it poorly, was that it feels like no matter what happens everyone jumps to STAFF IS WRONG THOSE ASSHOLES.

The conversation that got moderated wasn't a discussion. It was OMG HOW COULD THEY THOSE BASTARDS. Everyone is always a victim. Staff is always wrong. And that's seriously not how I see it. I've been playing 10+ years and never experienced that. I've disagreed with a decision from time to time, sure, but I talked it through with staff.

It's that mindset that the player is always right and staff is always wrong that really tarnishes this forum.

Quote from: Pico de Gato on July 14, 2017, 08:49:02 PM
The point I was trying to make, and maybe I did it poorly, was that it feels like no matter what happens everyone jumps to STAFF IS WRONG THOSE ASSHOLES.

The conversation that got moderated wasn't a discussion. It was OMG HOW COULD THEY THOSE BASTARDS. Everyone is always a victim. Staff is always wrong. And that's seriously not how I see it. I've been playing 10+ years and never experienced that. I've disagreed with a decision from time to time, sure, but I talked it through with staff.

It's that mindset that the player is always right and staff is always wrong that really tarnishes this forum.

I don't think that's the mindset, though. There are people like who almost always stick up for staff, there are people who blame staff for everything that goes wrong, there are plenty of people in the middle who have nuanced opinions of staff, and then there are people who post on the GDB but never participate in any such discussions. I think it is a good mix and about what you'd expect when staff does some things wrong and some things right.

When you have people saying "what's up my neckas" and "necka please" then I think the blame for this lies on those players.  I think it's possible that those players could've been personally addressed, but if it spreads beyond just a few players and infects areas of the game, I guess this is what it came down to.  Be mad at those people, though.

I'm glad the staff stopped there.  The other suggested words really felt like an agenda.  I'm glad it was not.

If it "stopped there," at the word necker, then why was bitch - defined as a female gortok for over 10 years - removed from the help files?

It did not stop there, and it will not stop here.

It will not be long before it is questioned why every ruler of a large settlement is male.

"I find that fact to be problematic, offensive, and blatantly sexist. Tek has a vagina, get over it."

Or something equally ridiculous.

Quote from: Melkor on July 14, 2017, 10:38:46 PM
If it "stopped there," at the word necker, then why was bitch - defined as a female gortok for over 10 years - removed from the help files?

I think that's pretty easy to understand.  Someone had access, removed it.

Then a week or two goes by, and "official word happens", and nobody bothered to re-add it.  Maybe because nobody realized it was gone?

It happens a lot when you deal with information and you have multiple authors.

If you're gonna ragequit at least have the decency to stop posting.

Quote from: Yam on July 14, 2017, 10:48:31 PM
If you're gonna ragequit at least have the decency to stop posting.

If you're going to post, please have the decency to keep it on topic.

This is an obvious attempt at goading someone into a flame war. Please cut it out.

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52703.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52703.0.html)

Thanks Vox. Can we move on?

Quote from: th3kaiser on July 15, 2017, 12:37:40 AM
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52703.0.html (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52703.0.html)

Thanks Vox. Can we move on?

https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Curses

This is excellent. One small step in the right direction.

I don't jump straight to staff are wrong and players are right.  I just think restricting language in a game that a lot of people use as a medium for creating stories is appalling.  Its like saying we shouldn't tell history because its offensive.   I don't mind not using the word so much as the principle behind it. 

Sometimes the stories with uncomfortable concepts are the best stories because you get to see the motivations for blind hatred, racism or a psychological disorder. 

I'm not saying people don't have the right to be offended about it, but I am saying it gives you something to get offended about.  Its actually humanizing as opposed to removing vocabulary which is dehumanizing.  We play characters not our selves. 

I don't rob people IRL, or white night out to save people the same as I don't act like a racist IRL.   If I play a human that hates elves, my character should be able say what ever they want to that elf, its supposed to be offensive, that is the point.

We are being told to hold back and it takes away from the story.

We keep going back to a topic that doesn't need any further discussion, the whole curse word thing.

Guys, let me help you be aware of a little public secret. The bad words don't get "banned" because of a desire to control RP content. They are banned to empower any players who feel personally offended or uncomfortable about the way certain words are used to file a player complaint about it and have staff justifcation for some form of action. That is how rules work; in some US states hate speech is a crime but police aren't actively moderating people's free speech, they are waiting for someone to report incidents where the use of hate speech made someone feel unsafe, targeted, etc.

So, in other words, unless staff observe something that makes them uncomfortable, or a player reports it, this rule is not likely to be enforced much. If players are mature and cordial with other players, then nasty, thematic RP of a dark fantasy nature will be free to happen IC. Consent rules should be followed. Maybe an 'ooc Consent to use adult language, please ooc to pause the scene if you get uncomfortable and I can scale it back' first before something really brutal like a hateful mugging of an elf is done. Then that player of said elf will be more likely to object and handle speech that crosses the line in the moment with the other player. If hateful language is used without consent it might blur the third wall for a newer player or for someone with serious and important personal experiences and they may not be able to address it via a quick ooc message. I am not keen on censorship either, but this is how I see these rules being useful to the playerbase, and it is just my two cents. The way it was announced was not in any way ideal, but that doesn't change the fact that the intent of the rule is really only meant to protect our players' enjoyment and some folks really need to move on and realize we all want to just get back to enjoying our virtual post-apocalyptic dark fantasy desert world.

Quote from: Harmless on July 15, 2017, 09:06:27 AM
Consent rules should be followed. Maybe an 'ooc Consent to use adult language, please ooc to pause the scene if you get uncomfortable and I can scale it back' first before something really brutal like a hateful mugging of an elf is done.

???

This is an adult MUD.  Logging in should be construed as consent to be exposed to adult language.

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 15, 2017, 03:52:54 PM
This is an adult MUD.  Logging in should be construed as consent to be exposed to adult language.

You do have to love American sensitivities.  Harsh language?  Nope... right out.  Hack someone with a bone sword for looking at you wrong?  Perfect!

We'll need to change our tag-line to "Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but harsh language requires consent."

Quote from: Marauder Moe on July 15, 2017, 03:52:54 PM
This is an adult MUD.  Logging in should be construed as consent to be exposed to adult language.

Of the friends I've brought in or met here who have now mostly all left, none of them have left because they saw the word 'necker' misused, or the game was too hard, or adult language was used.

They are leaving because the community (read that as the GDB) is toxic and/or the imms were rude to them.

That's your bleeding hole in the game population. It's not code, or the reductionism of the campaign setting, or even anything related to roleplay. Those are almost always selling points.

It's the OOC elements driving them away.

I've gotten to the point to where I don't even WANT to go look at a rolecall or anything. Why? Because while I may get along (or tolerate) the characters I run into in-game, I lose all interest in playing in a clan when I log on and see a couple of known caustic people reporting in and realize that THAT is who I am going to be interacting with.

The actual player base is part of the problem, but a small part. If you don't like someone you can just avoid them. But the imms being either unfair or rude ... that's not going to go away. That's going to follow you clan from clan or character to character, and even if you get left alone you're still going to know that (should you become big enough to hit their radar), some nasty shit is going to go down.

I don't vote because I don't recommend this game anymore. I don't invite my friends to come play anymore because I don't want yet another situation where someone I invited runs into a caustic response to a request or an in-game event and decides to leave.

Damn, I probably trigger people when I post in role call threads. I guess I'll stop using alts, now.

All of ... uhh 'this' aside, are you guys familiar with the concept of 'self-perpetual negativity' ? Basically it's when there 'are' reasons to feel shitty/upset/bad/ill/spited about, but at some point the negativity the "real" causes brought takes a life of it's own and it begins growing and continuing itself, regardless of the original causes. This whole thread is kind of like what that concept is about. Yeah, there are things that make you 'and' me feel iffy about regarding this MUD. As a guy who recently left the game in 'protest' to some of the staff activity, I 'am' the one to talk. But ... not everything is so bad. There "is" real effort being made to be better. Is it excellent now? I dooooont think so. But once again, the effort "is" being made.

At some point, if you truly wish the better of the game, a person shooould sort of give the game a try. Set aside the sketchy parts, hope for the better, and ... play with a slate clean-ish. Will everything be perfect? Heh. Umh. No. But ... this whole thing cannot be fully be fixed and improved on by staff alone. Maybe all this talk of toxicity and all that should be taken to heart and maybe each player should give it at least a few months of a positive outlook. When next you're beset by 10+ spiders, 'don't' immediately consider a staff hating on you and loading them up. Maybe it's just part of the game. Sometimes dumb moves on staff side will be made and I believe they 'should' be discussed on GDB, or in private, or whatever. They should be discussed in my opinion. But truly, I think each player should find some line within themselves when each person is there arguing their point, or ... are they just exercising self-perpetual hatred.  Giiiive peeeeaaaace a chaaaaaaance? I 'am' drunk right now. But that hardly makes my point wrong. Eh? eh?

Give me your keys, Dar.

Eh, Hippie-Dar for the win on this one.

I agree that everyone needs to take a good sized step back from themselves, but thats my arguement for everything is to just relax and take it at face value. Oh you dont like it? Spend time being excellent and become staff so you can dick other people around if thats what you want. Or be that super nice staff guy that does all the right things because you are capable of being a solid internet person.

Dar is right, tho. The dramatics y'all get into look crazy af from the perspective of someone who's been here a few months.

This is a game, right?

The way some people talk about it is as if we're all in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Now that I'm sober. I change my mind. Let's capture all staff and use their body fat for soap!

Quote from: Veselka on July 16, 2017, 02:09:03 PM
This is a game, right?

The way some people talk about it is as if we're all in the Stanford Prison Experiment.

When you step back and realize the game has around 200 active players at any given time (active being... logging in during a week in this case), and then check to see the conversations on the GDB, you begin to recognize that less than 10% of the playerbase tend to be the most vocal about situations.

A lot of times, its players that have been at the brunt end of an angry or obtuse staff, or victim of a decision they believed was going to go their way.

I know its taking me some time and effort to come to terms that staff believe their role is to give us roadblocks, or difficulties to pass, so that our achievements mean more. Well intentioned, but when you've spent 2 RL months roleplaying an idea, and a staff member says no, or that its "not likely to happen", or even animates a roadblock that you had no chance of forseeing and little chance of stopping, it can bring out the worst in the player. Of late (the past few years) we've seen a LOT of additions to the game, and a bunch of sweeping removals decided on by people we aren't allowed to know or be friends with.

Its not the Stanford Prison Experiment, but you could certainly draw parallels to it with people SEEMINGLY AT RANDOM (not really) chosen to be staff (guards), who then must exercise their new found power over the players (prisoners) while they are put into this world they are attached to (jail).

Riev, let's just assume your 10% statistic is true. I don't know if it is or not, but let's just pretend, since you have taken that assumptive leap.

This means that 90% of the playerbase either:
1. Is happy that the game is however it is, and not only has no problem with it, but is glad of it.
2. Has no problem, but is neither happy nor unhappy with the staff.
3. Doesn't care enough to post one way or another, they're just content to play the game, and not the GDB.

I'm not seeing a problem here. If 90% of the playerbase is any of the above 3 things, that reinforces the fact that the game is successful enough to attract 200+ active players, and has done so for the past 20+ years.

Also consider that among that 10% of vocal players, some percentage of that are posting satisfaction, not dissatisfaction. So that 90% of "I'm glad to play OR happy OR both" is actually higher than 90%.

Quote from: Lizzie on July 16, 2017, 06:14:31 PM
3. Doesn't care enough to post one way or another, they're just content to play the game, and not the GDB.

I still care, but I don't post on the IC sections of the forum anymore because I don't expect to turn back into an active player anytime soon. I suspect the same applies to many, many others. Sure, everyone who's still around is mostly content. Makes sense. But they're not 90% of the entire playerbase.

Just my 2 'sid. Back to writing.

Quote from: Akaramu on July 16, 2017, 06:20:15 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on July 16, 2017, 06:14:31 PM
3. Doesn't care enough to post one way or another, they're just content to play the game, and not the GDB.

I still care, but I don't post on the IC sections of the forum anymore because I don't expect to turn back into an active player anytime soon. I suspect the same applies to many, many others. Sure, everyone who's still around is mostly content. Makes sense. But they're not 90% of the entire playerbase.

Just my 2 'sid. Back to writing.

If you're not playing, you're not a part of the 200-300 players who log into the game a week and therefore not a part of the 90% Riev and Lizzie were talking about.

http://www.armageddon.org/updates/index.php?week=28&year=2017

The numbers are updated weekly, so if you haven't logged in in the last week you are not a unique login for that week. Unique logins mean that that every login is a different player. So yes, it is 90% of the entire playerbase - actually, more if you count the number of posters like yourself who don't actually play the game but post your opinions about it.

300 is a bit... overinflating, I should say. I've never seen it go above 270 in the "Golden" years.

I may also be inaccurate about it being ~20 people who are the most vocal.
Many of those unique logins may not be actively playing (does anyone know if its logins, or characters entering the world?)
Staff have multiple accounts/multiple characters, if those are tracked as different accounts, that could be inflated.


The numbers aren't 100%, but as Lizzie states, if the numbers are generally accurate, it means that a majority of players don't post for one reason or another. However, the issue of whether staff overuse their DM fiat being the main topic, whether there are 10 players or 100, it doesn't matter. The relating to the Stanford Prison Experiment, I think, still stands. People in power that weren't democratically chosen, whose primary position is to enforce rules and keep order, over people who "just want to live their life". Its not a perfect parallel, but I think its a perspective to look at.

That's why I've mapped ascii character code 7 to an electric shocker on my computer chair.

Re: the data] This is something that affects teacher-student evaluations as well, e.g., ratemyprofessor.  You will tend to get a very small subsection of the class, and those are the ones that feel very strongly about something, either positive or negative.  (Then, on discussion boards, you get people who feel neutral, but feel that someone's argument is not sound in some way, either because it is not valid or one of its premises is false.  And trolls.)

Overall, however, the gdb is a forum that, despite the claims of toxicity that pop up now and then, is a palpably positive resource in maintaining a community.

Quote from: nauta on July 17, 2017, 10:41:09 AM
That's why I've mapped ascii character code 7 to an electric shocker on my computer chair.

That was the Milgram experiments. Get out.


Also, on the forums, I agree. For the MOST part we're helpful and positive. There aren't nearly as many discussions as there used to be, but when someone has a question its answered within HOURS, which is pretty good for a "dying MUD".

I still, on topic, worry about Staff and their iron fists (however necessary). It may just be projecting, but I wonder about the staff that have been around a while (Adhira, Nessalin ..... maybe Rath?) who have seen the toxicity of some players and let it color their attitudes, or are in positions where they don't really play or interact with the world, but just act as Final Decision Makers in a universe they only barely share.

Its not a condemnation, but I know it used to be that Muk Utep would be animated at times, but ONLY by Adhira (or Sanvean maybe, when she was around) just for fun, but even THAT isn't an option anymore. I hope that the staff that stick around, do so both because they're good, AND because they like to play this game WITH us.

Quote from: Akaramu on July 16, 2017, 06:20:15 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on July 16, 2017, 06:14:31 PM
3. Doesn't care enough to post one way or another, they're just content to play the game, and not the GDB.

I still care, but I don't post on the IC sections of the forum anymore because I don't expect to turn back into an active player anytime soon. I suspect the same applies to many, many others. Sure, everyone who's still around is mostly content. Makes sense. But they're not 90% of the entire playerbase.

Just my 2 'sid. Back to writing.

You are not among the 200+ active players, so you don't count in that 90% of "active players who don't post on the GDB." You also don't count in the 10% of "active players who do post on the GDB."

And yes - get back to writing dammit, I'm waiting for the third book in your series!

Quote from: Riev on July 17, 2017, 11:13:49 AM

Quote from: nauta on July 17, 2017, 10:41:09 AM
That's why I've mapped ascii character code 7 to an electric shocker on my computer chair.

I still, on topic, worry about Staff and their iron fists (however necessary). It may just be projecting, but I wonder about the staff that have been around a while (Adhira, Nessalin ..... maybe Rath?) who have seen the toxicity of some players and let it color their attitudes, or are in positions where they don't really play or interact with the world, but just act as Final Decision Makers in a universe they only barely share.

Its not a condemnation, but I know it used to be that Muk Utep would be animated at times, but ONLY by Adhira (or Sanvean maybe, when she was around) just for fun, but even THAT isn't an option anymore. I hope that the staff that stick around, do so both because they're good, AND because they like to play this game WITH us.

This is a real concern in any medium. That exposure over multiple years will cause a persons outlook to become coloured by their experiences of the past. I do not believe it is possible for that not to occur. I do believe it is possible for a person to be self-aware and realize their limitations, their areas of aggravation. I think it's also possible for people to put in place mechanisms to assist with this. For instance I recently took a break of more than 6 months from the game. Additionally being open and receptive to other opinions on staff, valuing their input and perspectives, and yes, doing the same for player perspectives is another way to try and keep a more open mind.

So yes, I do agree, this is a concern. However, I do not believe it is a fatal flaw.  There are advantages to experience and knowledge, to having 'seen it before'. There are advantages for having worked through something and come up with solutions that will help others when experiencing the same thing.  Essentially I believe that 'Age' whether in years or in a role is not hinderance. What is a hinderance is attitude, an unwillingness to learn and an unwillingness to listen to others and try new things.

As to staff playing the mud I will say this:  Staff are limited to one PC at a time, just like players. Also, I have played a PC within the last 2 months, and I've had a great time in the role and interacting with everyone.  While I don't play every day as players might, I do make sure that I play a PC on a semi-regular basis so that I can experience a real role. My hardest challenge when playing is to stop myself joining the byn every time. 

As to barely sharing the universe - well, I guess that is your perspective but I will say that I feel very invested in Armageddon, in the world of Zalanthas, and in this game.

That's really good to hear, Adhira. Obviously, as players, we never know if staff ARE or AREN'T playing, because you are given the choice. Maybe its just easier to believe the decisions you make, that I disagree with, are because you are removed from the game and not because you have a better overarching plan I'm not allowed to know about.

I know it always sounds like complaining, and it always will, but its nice to know that even one of the heads of the game still plays.

Quote from: Adhira on July 17, 2017, 12:27:37 PMWhat is a hinderance is attitude, an unwillingness to learn and an unwillingness to listen to others and try new things.

I appreciate and agree with Adhira's post, with this one snippet above that I feel I'd like to address.

I want to emphasize that there is a difference between "unwillingness to listen to others and try new things," and "lack of interest in the subject and the new things that could be tried."

In particular - the magick subguilds; I have no interest in trying them. It's not that I'm unwilling, it's that I'm not interested. Why would I try something that doesn't interest me? I'm not interested in playing a half-giant or a mul, either. And so - I don't.

That's totally fine LIzzie :)  I was coming at it from the perspective of myself.  In terms of being 'management' for the game. If I am totally intractable and never listen to others, never consider other viewpoints or let people try things that I might personally not wish to try - then I'm being a hinderance.  I'm not saying I'm perfect, I'm also not saying that sometimes, in certain areas I have firm beliefs and sticking points.  I'm expressing that I endeavor to at least be self-aware and realize when I am doing this, as well as purposefully make sure that I give other staff their own room to try out those things they are passionate about and have belief in.

Oh that's great then! I was interpreting it wrong (personalizing it, heh). Thanks for the clarification!   ;D