Inapproriate Communication

Rules for playing on and using the site.
Forum rules
This section of the Forum is for the Site's rules.
If you have a question about how to play the game, please post in the RULES section of the Forum, not here. The site's rules for standard Dip do not substantially differ from published rules.

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby FloridaMan » 11 Jul 2020, 22:51

V wrote:
Poulp13 wrote:
V wrote:Must admit, I’ve seen worse. Disrespect & insults are quite common in Diplomacy.


You've seen worse? So that means it's acceptable to insult someone on this website?


Don’t know what a moderator will rule in this instance, but to answer your question yes it’s acceptable.
Insults are permissible & commonplace. It’s Diplomacy, not Monopoly. The language used in delivering the insult would be the dodgy aspect here. Let’s see what happens but I’ve seen lots worse (some directed at myself) & preferred to ignore it as an insignificant indiscretion.
It’s ineffective as a diplomatic tool, so usually the author meets a rapid demise. I was brought up in the “sticks & stones” era, which I know is no longer with us & folks are more sensitive. Whether that’s progress is another debate.

Best Regards V


V,

I think I want to be friends... :)
Check Out My Diplomacy YouTube Channel!

"I've been looking forward to this."
~ Count Dooku, Star Wars

"Our blades are sharp."
~ Words of House Bolton, A Song of Ice and Fire

Tied for 10th Position in the 2020 Liberty Cup
User avatar
FloridaMan
Premium Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 26 Mar 2014, 01:37
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1676
All-game rating: 1784
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Jul 2020, 22:44

V wrote:I was brought up in the “sticks & stones” era, which I know is no longer with us & folks are more sensitive. Whether that’s progress is another debate.

I have definitely found that people have grown more sensitive to slurs and/or bigoted insults and are more willing to speak out against them.

Generic insults like "asshole" or "dick" don't tend to hit the radar any more than they used to. In my opinion, I'd say that there's overall less sensitivity surrounding those (along with general profanity) than there was twenty years or so ago.

So I'm not sure it's accurate to say that people are more or less sensitive on the whole. General-use profanity has wider acceptance, but there is far less tolerance of words and behaviors that insult along lines of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

And I would absolutely call that progress.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby V » 15 Jul 2020, 00:25

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
V wrote:I was brought up in the “sticks & stones” era, which I know is no longer with us & folks are more sensitive. Whether that’s progress is another debate.

I have definitely found that people have grown more sensitive to slurs and/or bigoted insults and are more willing to speak out against them.

Generic insults like "asshole" or "dick" don't tend to hit the radar any more than they used to. In my opinion, I'd say that there's overall less sensitivity surrounding those (along with general profanity) than there was twenty years or so ago.

So I'm not sure it's accurate to say that people are more or less sensitive on the whole. General-use profanity has wider acceptance, but there is far less tolerance of words and behaviors that insult along lines of race, gender, sexuality, etc.

And I would absolutely call that progress.


Given your personal experience of life & the timespan/locations you remember, I guess all that could be true. However that’s what makes perceptions so interesting & varied.

Nothing in the original post referred to “race, gender, sexuality etc.” raised here by yourself, not Poulp13.
I certainly didn’t refer to any of those either. My comment solely addressed what Poulp13 introduced to the thread.
I consider that the original post occurring in the form it did, demonstrates a higher level of “sensitivity” than I remember from 50 years ago. It’s definitely debatable if that is progress.
Platinum Classicist
Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.
V
 
Posts: 751
Joined: 04 May 2014, 21:28
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1778
All-game rating: 1829
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 15 Jul 2020, 12:41

I agree that what was cited originally here is not what I’m describing, but I’m also not seeing that sort of complaint as often.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby Jack007 » 15 Jul 2020, 14:03

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." ~ Salman Rushdie
Jack007 (xxxx.) unbanned for dubious reasons
Member of the Honorables
There is no greater solitude than the samurai's,
unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
-bushido
User avatar
Jack007
 
Posts: 1034
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Apulia (Sta Maria di Leuca) ⛵ Instagram @jack060856
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1531
All-game rating: 1669
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby Poulp13 » 16 Jul 2020, 15:06

Fellow diplomats,

My thanks to all those who contributed to this thread, and answered my question in their own way.

Diversity of perspectives is always a good thing - it broadens our scope and questions our certainties.
I needed that, and past the initial sense of outrage over what clearly was lack of self-control (as opposed to a purposeful attempt to diminish my diplomatic prospects), I came to realise that my foe's outburst of verbal abuse was a sign of... weakness.
I made him loose his cool, and that's victory. Two game-years down the line, he's on the brink of collapse.

I still believe that profanity should be discouraged, as there are plenty of ways to be provocative/aggressive without using foul language, and because this is meant to be a friendly place where we share a common hobby. So I stand by the fact that I believe this type of behaviour should be reported and trigger at least a "fair play warning".

But I've learnt my lesson, and won't take it personal next time.

Happy flaming stabbing to you all,

Regards,
Poulp
Poulp13
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 29 May 2017, 11:08
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1161
All-game rating: 1221
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby hsiale » 28 Jul 2020, 18:10

NoPunIn10Did wrote:But we're also not going to punish every player who insults another player or uses a bit of mild profanity. Start by contacting the mods and see what they say, but understand that part of Diplomacy's own definition of sportsmanship is going to be quite different from what is used in most other contexts.

And as long as this continues, Diplomacy is going to remain a club for older, mostly white males. While so many people who could have been good players don't join because they cannot feel comfortable here. I would say a good line should be: it is fine when you insult the game actions (e.g. by calling someone a traitor), it is not fine when you insult the player themselves. Do you all really think that it's better to be able to call your opponent names than to have twice as many possible opponents?

Also, if we are happy with mild profanity, I think the Terms of Use should mention that the website is intended for 18+, or maybe at least 13+.
hsiale
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 12:17
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: 1021
All-game rating: 1021
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby Strategus » 28 Jul 2020, 18:21

hsiale wrote:
NoPunIn10Did wrote:But we're also not going to punish every player who insults another player or uses a bit of mild profanity. Start by contacting the mods and see what they say, but understand that part of Diplomacy's own definition of sportsmanship is going to be quite different from what is used in most other contexts.

And as long as this continues, Diplomacy is going to remain a club for older, mostly white males. While so many people who could have been good players don't join because they cannot feel comfortable here. I would say a good line should be: it is fine when you insult the game actions (e.g. by calling someone a traitor), it is not fine when you insult the player themselves. Do you all really think that it's better to be able to call your opponent names than to have twice as many possible opponents?

Also, if we are happy with mild profanity, I think the Terms of Use should mention that the website is intended for 18+, or maybe at least 13+.

This is an online anonymous forum, so why would anyone feel uncomfortable? They can stay anon, and pretend they are older white males. And profanity is a part of the English language, included in the dictionary, so people need to know these words for future reference. Maybe PG? It's a learning experience.
The Devil makes work for idle forces

Better to have fought and lost, than never to have fought at all
Actual Platinum Classicist
I did WDC 2017

UK f2f Champion 2019
Just say "NO!" To carebears and kittens
User avatar
Strategus
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: 30 May 2015, 14:30
Location: England
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1546
All-game rating: 1625
Timezone: GMT

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 29 Jul 2020, 19:38

hsiale wrote:
NoPunIn10Did wrote:But we're also not going to punish every player who insults another player or uses a bit of mild profanity. Start by contacting the mods and see what they say, but understand that part of Diplomacy's own definition of sportsmanship is going to be quite different from what is used in most other contexts.

And as long as this continues, Diplomacy is going to remain a club for older, mostly white males. While so many people who could have been good players don't join because they cannot feel comfortable here. I would say a good line should be: it is fine when you insult the game actions (e.g. by calling someone a traitor), it is not fine when you insult the player themselves. Do you all really think that it's better to be able to call your opponent names than to have twice as many possible opponents?

Also, if we are happy with mild profanity, I think the Terms of Use should mention that the website is intended for 18+, or maybe at least 13+.

The 13+ is probably a good designation, at least for the general userbase. Schools games (whose players can't directly interact with normal players) are moderated by teachers and can hypothetically support younger players.

Again though: mild profanity. Start throwing in a bunch of racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise bigoted insults, and you're moving away from that territory, IMO; you're much more likely to see mod action once the incident is reported.

As to the problem of Diplomacy being a "club for older, mostly white males," that is absolutely something that the hobby as a whole should work toward correcting. Having a more diverse playerbase will give the game a better chance for a thriving future. However, I don't think a game whose very essence is manipulation, negotiation, and betrayal is a good match for a setting that bans all profanity.* Diplomacy is not a game suited for social norms about good sportsmanship, and that can easily be one of the reasons why people who play it specifically enjoy it. Making it a more restricted, polite space undercuts that selling point and very likely would not bring about "twice as many possible opponents."

I'm also not sure any Diplomacy site regulates communication to the extent that all profanity is verboten. Outside of video games that specifically cater to kids, I'm not aware of other online games that do that either (including games with much more diverse communities), particularly not for games that allow in-game communication at all. And per playing face-to-face, I'm not convinced the non-white and non-male players have a bias against profanity in general, though they absolutely (and rightfully) are more likely to call people out on bigotry.

*If anything, the concept of politeness in society tends to slightly favor populations that already hold social power, so I'm not convinced that banning profanity would actually make the table a more equal one. The most polite players, who discuss things "rationally" and rarely (if ever) curse, are just as often likely to hold more bigoted views than the average willing-to-curse person. That's a tangent, though, and less applicable to Diplomacy specifically.
Forum Admin & New Variant Development Assistant

Variant GM & Designer
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
 
Posts: 2781
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (1466)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Inapproriate Communication

Postby FloridaMan » 31 Jul 2020, 00:45

NoPunIn10Did wrote:As to the problem of Diplomacy being a "club for older, mostly white males," that is absolutely something that the hobby as a whole should work toward correcting. Having a more diverse playerbase will give the game a better chance for a thriving future. However, I don't think a game whose very essence is manipulation, negotiation, and betrayal is a good match for a setting that bans all profanity.* Diplomacy is not a game suited for social norms about good sportsmanship, and that can easily be one of the reasons why people who play it specifically enjoy it. Making it a more restricted, polite space undercuts that selling point and very likely would not bring about "twice as many possible opponents."

I would just like to note that as a younger (under 30) Black male player, I myself have used profanity in heated in-person Dip situations (though only very rarely online).

I do not think making Diplomacy sites free of naughty words is a good goal. I am all for keeping ethnic, gender, religious, etc. slurs out of the game, but in my 100-something or 200-something games on this site, no one has ever used any of those (aside perhaps from "bitch") in any game I've been a player in. People have certainly said things that bothered me, but one grows a thicker skin.

Conflict is an important part of life, and it's an absolutely essential and unavoidable part of Diplomacy. Some conflicts are profane. And that's okay.

Anyway, perhaps I've just been lucky, but I don't think the site's culture is unwelcoming.
Check Out My Diplomacy YouTube Channel!

"I've been looking forward to this."
~ Count Dooku, Star Wars

"Our blades are sharp."
~ Words of House Bolton, A Song of Ice and Fire

Tied for 10th Position in the 2020 Liberty Cup
User avatar
FloridaMan
Premium Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: 26 Mar 2014, 01:37
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1676
All-game rating: 1784
Timezone: GMT-5

Previous

Return to Rules for Fair Play and Fair Use

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest