Sheakhan

Want boots and gloves? Don't play Tarjaran. If you want to be able to walk, you don't play a cripple. If you want to not die when you look at Plant-B-Gone crosseyed, you don't play a Diona. Each race has their pros and cons, Tarjaran's is the lack of hand and footwear.

While I agree for the near entirety of your statements, this one I find a bit troubling, as it is the actual core of this issue. As you stated (and thank you for doing so), your policies do not reflect maliciousness or entitlement/exclusion, and merely a lack of experience with certain groups and their sensitivities. However this particular statement inclines me to believe you may have missed our ultimate point. Allow me to offer a few minor alterations that present your statement as it might appear from another point of view. "I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a study of historical linguistics." -the original "I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without an alternative sexual preference." "I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a different country of origin." "I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a skin tone different than the offender." "I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a crippling mental disability." The real point behind this isn't that current policies haven't been effective in protecting specific players but rather that it has been much more effective in establishing a policy of banning for the mere possibility of offense, and specifically focusing on those statements which are found offensive to the admin staff. This is largely due to complaints reflecting certain words as negative, but it is also (insofar as I have seen) due to the prejudices and biases of the administration themselves, and a HUGE metagaming culture even amongst the admins and mods. To sum it up, here are my concerns and the true underlying issues I have, and what I, ultimately, think needs to be addressed as succinctly as possible: 1. Metagaming. I strongly believe that, so long as the action is not itself driven by metagaming, IC actions should not be bannable for being offensive with very few exceptions. If I wish to play a racist/sexist/homophobic character, it should be perfectly acceptable so long as that attitude never carries over to OOC. 2. Fairness and Victim Bias. These issues need to be addressed and eliminated. I play an AI who consistently offends EVERYONE deliberately. He is sexist, ableist, and any other sort of offensive prejudice I can get away with that won't result in a ban. This character receives complaints for calling players assholes, retards, fuckwits, and the like, but I have never received a ban, nor more than a warning (which was quickly disregarded). THIS IS NOT FAIR. If it were a matter of people getting bans for ANY offensive language that was complained about as you suggest, I'd be loitering in the ban appeals right now. So I am inclined to believe this policy based on whims alone, and not any sort of integrity. 3. Principle. There cannot be middle ground when determining which groups are worth protecting or not. You cannot reasonably assume to account for the variations in player complaints regarding insulting statements or slurs as you are not omniscient. A policy needs to be established that does not exclude those currently excluded, but at the same time including everyone would also present an issue. The simplest solution is to simply not make judgement calls as administrative staff, and only respond to those offensive statements that are reported by players. If you operate by banning those who offend you, you send a message that players needs come second, as some players very well might not feel comfortable reporting their issues, and you certainly didn't report anything yourself. This also would alleviate the growing trend of players being banned for saying something in jest that the administration found offensive and took upon themselves to punish/respond to. ...that wasn't succinct at all. Lets try this: tl;dr: IC insults shouldn't merit OOC punishment. Either all groups should be protected (regardless of importance) or only the groups who complain should be protected, to establish a degree of fairness not currently present. Admins/Mods should not be allowed to interpret the rules for their own benefit lest they compromise their integrity.

Are you kidding? "nigger" doesn't offend anyone? "idiot" doesn't? "fuckwit"? "cunt"? "fag"? How about "retard"? This is exactly what our point was in this discussion. Individuals base the rules regarding banworthy language on OPINION instead of fairness and justice. I don't find ANY words offensive, but I still believe that intentionally offensive uses of words should be worthy of banning, as it indicates undersireable character traits in an individual. Just because some other words don't seem offensive to you doesn't magically mean they aren't offensive. As a matter of fact, words shouldn't be cause for ban PERIOD. It should solely be based on intent. I can hurt your feelings worse without using curses than most might be able to accomplish through slurs and hate speech alone. I get the feeling you read the original post, then decided to spew some input without fully understanding the discussion at hand.

It's worse, I think, if nobody replies. There should be some private discussion to ensure a proper response of course, but the reply should still be timely. Unicorns, however, are the leading cause of delay.

Unfortunately, the only way to really know is through admins communicating on the subject (which they rarely do), or through implementation of the suggestions made herein (which has not yet been evidenced). So assuming they visit the forum is baseless speculation, there is no substantial proof that they have done so recently. In the past yes, but this thread in particular? No way of telling.

Holy mother of spellcheck.

I was under the impression that the administration's ultimate goal was to create a gaming environment that was enjoyable for their playerbase. If a rule or policy is offensive, obsolete, or negatively impacts the playerbase, a thoughtful and fair administration would acknowledge the concerns of the players and attempt to modify their policies or rules to fit their needs without compromising the environment at large. That being said, the suggestions forum exists in order to facilitate this EXACT sort of communication. Be it regarding policies and rules, or gameplay itself. In the past, these sorts of discussions have occured, and received admin responses. It is my hope, and likely that of NTX as well, that the same occurs this time around, ideally in a civil and intellectual way, as opposed to the highly offensive: "Nope, my server, fuck what you guys want.". Two way communication is the healthiest practice a server staff can engage in, as it strengthens both the bonds between player and staff, but also provides an open avenue for bettering the server at large. On the subject of discrimination and banning over what effectively boils down to words that someone happened to find offensive, I am strongly in favor of adjusting the policy currently in use. I am not offended by "gay", "fag", "whore", "mick", "cracker", "pansy" or any other potentially applicable slur or insult, though I understand some people may be. What offends me is people taking slurs or insults that were not intended for them, or not directed in an offensive way, and reacting with what I consider an abuse of positional authority. How you feel does not and should not have any effect on how you interpret or uphold the rules. This is, and has always been my opinion. Every time I see this being done, it offends me more than any sort of slur or insult could, as it implies that my favorite SS13 server is administrated by men and women who are less mature and psychologically stable than myself... Which implies that I am at the whim of individuals whom I cannot trust implicitly to behave rationally or justly in a given situation... Which further implies that I, or someone I enjoy playing with is at constant risk of being banned without actual valid cause. I hate to think that a person cannot play a game without fearing that someone might arbitrarily decide they can't any longer regardless of their adherence to the letter of the law.

More satire focused on a somewhat serious issue than joke. Read the unban appeal linked in the OP if you'd like context.

You would think, but as someone who reads and analyzes every ban appeal for shots and giggles, I can state with certainty that this is not, historically, the case. People are frequently banned for non-offenses alongside those who are intentionally derogatory. The fact that this persists is offensive to people who, like myself, believe in fairness and unbiased justice.

Which is why, in instances like the ban appeal NTX referenced, the ban policy seems a little less about fairness and protecting players/the server, and more about being offended and responding rashly. Think of it this way: Racist slurs are blue. Sexist slurs are green. Ponyist slurs are red. Ageist slurs are purple. Ableist slurs are yellow. Currently, only Blue and Green slurs, which offend Blue and Green people are bannable. Right now a Red slur has offended a Red person, and may result in a ban. But there is no representation for Purple or Yellow people or the slurs that affect them. The very act of ignoring these colors is fostering an evironment where people of some colors get less protection than others. This is unacceptable, as the color of the person shouldn't matter, they are all being offended by the slurs that affect them. The same model represents any sort of discrimination, be it color or belief. Excluding one group is discriminatory in the same exact fashion that insulting them would be. It indicates that some colors are more important than others (in this example). So either treat all insults equally, or step off the high horse and stop taking insults ICly negatively. OOC insults are different, and should ALWAYS result in repercussions. But Byond Keys and jests should not be treated as anything other than that.

I second this motion, and submit the following terms which should be ban-worthy based on the same criteria as the currently bannable racist/sexist terms: -Jerk (offensive to those suffering from narcissistic tendencies mainly, though other psychological disorders are also applicable. Psychist.) -Sucker (offends the gullible. Psychist.) -Dick (implies that the male anatomy, genitalia in specific, is offensive. Offensive in use to men in general. Anatomist, Biologicalist.) -Woman, Man, Guy, Girl (used frequently to subtly imply some defect in gender, also implies a negative distinction between one gender and the next. By exclusion, minimalizes the importance of transgender persons. Sexist.) -Ass (used in a derogatory manner, implies a portion of the human anatomy possesed by well over 99.9% of the population is something to be considered in a negative connotation. Anatomist, Biologicalist.) -Loser, Lazy (offensive to those who may have difficulty achieving or following through with ambition. A large portion of the gaming community. Occupationalist, Psychist, Ableist.) -Drunk (offensive to individuals suffering alcoholism. Psychist.) -Shitcurity (implies defecation to be negative, offensive to all humans capable of such. Biologicalist.) -Clown (when used in junction with an insult, offensive to individuals who are in fact professional entertainers in this particular sub-section of the craft. Occupationist.) -Whore (offensive to those who may themselves, or be acquainted with those who sell their bodies for profit or favor. Occupationist.) -Kid, Child, Baby. (offensive to those who have not yet reached adulthood, implying age based maturity model in a negative connotation. Ageist.) This list can easily be expanded upon. I think NTX's point here is that words are words. They are only offensive if you personally choose to interpret them as such, and banning the use of certain words just because they offend you or others is foolish, as it simultaneously implies a lack of respect for a person's ability to express themselves in a way they feel to be necessary, as well as implying that other non-banworthy words are somehow less offensive simply because they do not apply to you. This issue persists in contemporary society, racist and sexist terms as well as general "curses" receive negative responses, and the common belief is that this response is due to the negativity of the word, rather than the inability of the responder to acknowledge their choice to find such a word offensive. There are no bad words, only bad intentions. If you're going to continue to respond negatively to the use of racial or homophobic slurs, the only FAIR way to do so is to either learn to interpret intention and only punish the deliberately homophobic or racial uses of such terms, or to also ban ANY potentially offensive use of language, regardless of intent. Currently this server only punishes racist and homophobic language (and more recently, Ponyist terms have caught flak), and in doing so is giving a huge flaming middle finger to any other group that may or may not be offended by other categories of hate.

A few: -Have it do minor cold damage to the user as well. -Give the person with this power blue/icy skin or glowing blue eyes. -Surround a person using the power with fog. -Leave an icy trail between the user and the target. -Have the user leave icy/blue footprints behind after using it (or always).

These two things only become an issue when you A) decide it's genius to enter the church. Why do you even need to be in the chapel at all? B) Decide to space walk... which again, is entirely unnecessary.

Depends on how they upload it. If it's loaded in as law number 4 of 4... Well, ignore it at your leisure. If I were playing R.O.G.U.E., I would interpret that specific law as invalid, seeing as the AI cannot actually kill anyone, only create or alter aspects of the station in such a way as to cause a death. But that AI is a cunt, so, hey.

I read this, and my brain made this translation: "This game is fun, but what would make it more fun in every conceivable way, is if you could put things in your ass. That's what this game is truly missing." Which was funny to me.

I can't tell if you're being serious, or if this is a terrible attempt at satire. This in mind, I've formulated two responses. 1. (You're serious). This is retarded. Vampires have ridiculous abilities, their entire function is to commit atrocious acts and get away with it. They are traitors who are given more frequent murder missions on top of missions to drain blood from crewmembers. You are aware that vampire blood-drain inflicts genetic damage on top of potentially killing the target, correct? You may as well have written: "LOL Me like antag, but me wuld like betrar if antag did not get ded so me can smash more, okay?! I are griffon." Let's get these couple points out of the way: First, in THIS game, vampires are unholy creatures. Undead or not, the sanctity of the church repels them, harms them, etc. Second, vampires are not harmed by sunlight. They are harmed by STARlight, which makes more sense considering that every sun IS in fact, a star. This game takes place in SPACE... Are you aware how many stars there might possibly be in such a place? So in short, your first point is moot, as you don't understand the concept apparently. Your second point is a personal opinion, but based on a lack of understanding regarding game balance and how to properly proceed as a vampire during a round. now... 2.(You're not at all serious). LOL THERE ARE NO SUNS IN SPACE LOL, YOU ARE FUNNY AHAHAHAA... MAKE VAMPIRES INVINCIBLE! LOLZ

honk

Alright brah, heres the deal. 1. In response to the request for more miners, plasma researchers and the like... NT is notorious for being a SHITTY business. They are at the top of the food chain because nobody else can compete due to circumstance, not entirely skill and ability. The station does pull in plasma, but it is primarily a research station, hence virology, xenobiology, R&D, science, genetics, and medbay (those fuckers ARE the experiment). 2. It is widely known that NT hires shit workers to work a shit station for shit pay. Why would they care overly much about security? The point of SS13 is to revel in gross incompetence and the fun that arises, not to streamline it so everyone is immaculate and perfect at their jobs. Fuck ups are funny! 3. I forgot 3.

Game mode! Stats: Everyone is syndicate antagonists! Wooot! Other stats: Except for one or two "non traitors". Goals: Syndies: The syndicate crew must accomplish nefarious tasks, like subverting the AI, killing eachother, destroying sections of the station, keeping power offline, etc. Non-Syndie: Stop those fuckers! Keep the engine online, protect or download the AI, stay alive, call the shuttle. Bonuses: Give the NT crew some cool gear to offset the imbalance of facing an entire traitor crew. ALTERNATE VERSION: Everyone is syndicate. Instead of antags, some players are chosen from the start to join the ERT team. Syndies have finished fucking shit up and are trying to get cleaned up and ready to escape. ERT has to fix their damages and kill/capture the bastards. Win conditions: ERT/NT/SYNDICATE members all dead. One team or the other escapes. All members of one team are imprisoned. Everyone defects to one side or the other.

How did I miss that?!

Yea, you fucking heard me. Bonus points if it counts as robes for wizard spells, but perhaps increases the cooldowns. OP? Don't care. Awesome factor overrules sensibility.

Don't bitch about servers on reddit either, or I'll downvote your ass.

Goon players don't often equate "Not antagging as a non-antag" to common sense.

Games with a community have rules because communities have rules, and different communities have different rules, simple as that. Just because I can drink at 18 in my country doesn't mean I can go and start drinking in countries where drinking is not even allowed. Rules aren't there to be "boring", rules are there to teach you what not to do and how to avoid trouble. The more rules a game has, the stronger the community becomes. It makes idiots that like to ruin everything stay away and those who really want to try stay. Of course we can't expect everyone to read all the rules before trying a new server, which (after a few threads in the unban requests) obviously didn't work out for some people and they had to read them anyway. I don't think a harsh punishment for not reading the rules is the solution honestly. It's been working fine so far, they get banned, they read the rules. If they get into trouble again, they get banned again and can't use the "didn't read rules" excuse. Some people might not even understand the rules in some parts. Or people that play in many different servers, might sometimes forget you can't do Y in paradise. The reason for I suggest punishments for not reading the rules isn't because I expect that everyone who does is a model citizen, or that the rules are all encompassing or provide a filter for the malcontents. I suggest it partly because it will alleviate the occurance of "Oh, I didn't realize that was against the rules" offenses, saving players and moderators/admins time and energy dealing with easily avoidable issues. I also suggest punishment for not reading the rules because I believe, as a player, you have an obligation to understand the rules and guidelines that the server staff, who are supplying YOU with a place to enjoy the game on their own backs, took the time and energy to concoct. Not reading the rules, in my opinion, shows a lack of respect for the game, the concept of rules at large, the staff, and the effort invested. It's rude, it takes a couple minutes to read the rules, and the amount of timed saved when you're not being an ass and breaking them ignorantly is immeasurable.

So, uliks, you're saying you haven't read Paradise Server's rules?