Well, looks like DebateArt will be over-run by left wing censorship.

Author: triangle.128k

Posts

Total: 153
Topic's author
#1
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
This comment of yours is highly problematic: "Just include an option called 'other' for idiots who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol."
This comment could constitute "invective against an entire class of people," which is prohibited as hate speech under the COC.
The issue with your comment is not that you question whether that there are two or more genders--it's perfectly fine to argue that there are only two genders, though it might be anatomically incorrect in the case of intersex people.
What is problematic with your comment is that you suggest that gender non-binary individuals and trans individuals are "idiots." This disparages an entire group of people in a way which is, at the very least, troublesome. It is even more troublesome when placed in the context of your other remarks on the matter, which clearly mock gender non-binary and trans people.
This is not an official warning. But it is a reminder that language like this is not looked kindly upon by moderation, and that it is best to avoid comments which may be reasonably construed as hate speech.
Well, looks like "bsh1" is the moderator. Geez, I can't wait to have politically right-wing posts deleted left and right for "hate speech" so we can ensure this site is a safe space for minorities against bigots like me. 

I certainly hope the guy who creates this website doesn't endorse this action. A potentially great debating site, to fulfill the legacy of debate.org, is going to become a crappy place once we have morons like him censor posts left and right for "hate speech" because we insult groups a progressive moderator doesn't like. 

If he does, well you can surely insist that you'll have a flight of people from this already in-need-of-activity place. 
Topic's author
#2
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
This should be taken for granted:

If non-binary people can't be called idiots, this should essentially mean no group can be called "idiots."

If I say "rich white christian men are idiots," this should technically warrant a delete as should my previous statement. 

If it does not, then this is sheer hypocrisy and blatant bias among bsh1's moderation. 

Topic's author
#3
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Oh my gosh, I just read rule 4 of the COC:

4. Hate Speech
Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech.
Wow, so who else can not wait for criticism against "marginalized" groups such as LGBT or certain religions to be censored because of this "hate speech" clause?

If you want this site to become a liberal-bent echo chamber, by all means go ahead. But do not expect it to be anything other than an echo chamber. 
#4
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
In future, give moderation due notice that you are planning to disclose moderation PMs. This is non-negotiable.

Hate speech rules, in general, exist to protect historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups against invective or slurs; though, I don't see why invective against other groups cannot, in certain contexts, constitute hate speech. Your post was reported. Clearly, your post was not moderatable in the sense that it was not the case that you should be either warned or punished. That is because "idiot" likely does not rise to the threshold of "invective." I therefore reached out to you not to warn or punish, but to apprise you of the rules of the site in that regard and advise caution in the face of future actions which might conceivably and reasonably be construed as violating the COC. 

I have deleted just two posts by users while moderating this site, to my recollection. Only one of those posts could be construed as political in nature. I leave posts up--even posts which I believe violate the COC--precisely because it is not my aim to censor content. I could have just as easily deleted this thread before anyone saw it and banned you from the site; which I haven't done on the grounds that it would be obviously wrong to do so. The accusation that I am censoring anyone based on their political views is incorrect and presumptuous, and certainly not rooted in fact.

As I said in my remark to you in our PM: "our comment would have been entirely non-problematic had you simply said: 'Just include an option called 'other' for those who can't align with the binary. There's only two genders lol.' I am only contacting you because you chose to transform your comment into an insult by including a disparaging term--i.e. idiot. And, as I said earlier, this is not an official warning. But it is a reminder that language like this is not looked kindly upon by moderation."

My comment there emphasized two things: (a) that you were free to express your political views, and (b) that I was not taking any kind of official action against you, but instead merely emphasizing that insulting groups of people wholesale could--potentially--run you afoul of the COC. You'll notice, of course, that in my message I used phrases such as "could constitute" and "the issue with your comment is not that you question whether that there are two or more genders."

In essence, I think you have overreacted here to my message. I neither concluded that you broke the rules nor took any moderation action against you. Rather, fearing that your future conduct might veer towards a COC violation if left unremarked upon, I attempted to gently remind you that a COC does exist and will be enforced if necessary. I also clearly explained my objection to your post, and it had nothing to do with the political content of the post, but rather everything to do with your own choice of words. Your objections are noted, and perhaps I could make the purpose of such messages more clear in the future, but your objections are each unfounded.

TLDR: No moderation action was ever taken. I never concluded that you broke the rules. I took preemptive steps to alert you to behavior which could metamorphose into actual COC violations in the future. No content was censored for political reasons; your post was only troublesome to the extent that your word choice was troublesome.
Topic's author
#5
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
Hate speech rules, in general, exist to protect historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups against invective or slurs; though, I don't see why invective against other groups cannot, in certain contexts, constitute hate speech. Your post was reported. Clearly, your post was not moderatable in the sense that it was not the case that you should be either warned or punished. That is because "idiot" likely does not rise to the threshold of "invective." I therefore reached out to you not to warn or punish, but to apprise you of the rules of the site in that regard and advise caution in the face of future actions which might conceivably and reasonably be construed as violating the COC. 
This is quite obviously political in nature. The question of minority groups and their treatment is a controversial subject in itself, and is best left to political discourse. 

And tell me, what counts as "invective?" If "invective" against minority groups is prohibited, does that note essentially descend into violating the free expression of political ideas here? "Invective" is defined as "highly critical language." If someone is to oppose ideas possesed by LGBT and would say, advocate for something like sodomy laws, would that be classified as "invective?" 

The old Debate.org rulebook had nothing against criticizing "marginalized" groups.

Would it count as hate speech to advocate for sodomy laws and/or restrict LGBTQ+ rights?

Essentially, you're restricting a free and open online debate discourse and are trying to align it to be politically correct. If that's your goal, so be it. 

In essence, I think you have overreacted here to my message. I neither concluded that you broke the rules nor took any moderation action against you. Rather, fearing that your future conduct might veer towards a COC violation if left unremarked upon, I attempted to gently remind you that a COC does exist and will be enforced if necessary. I also clearly explained my objection to your post, and it had nothing to do with the political content of the post, but rather everything to do with your own choice of words. Your objections are noted, and perhaps I could make the purpose of such messages more clear in the future, but your objections are each unfounded.
I didn't break the rules, yet the post warranted a delete? That's the issue, my post was censored. 


And as I said, if I can't call non-binary genders "idiots," then this means one should have their posts deleted for practically calling any group an idiot. Unless this protection is specifically in place for "marginalized" groups. In other words, this website would then restrict free expression by stating that you can not criticize or advocate against certain marginalized groups - thus enforcing political correctness on what is supposed to be a free debate site. 

Many people in the political forum coin terms like "trumpanzees" or "liberal butterflies." If these insults aren't allowed, why are LGBTQ+ groups protected? 
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I find it really amusing when right-wing nutjobs who preach so fervently about private property and the right to do what you want with it come to a privately owned website and... 

Yep, you got the joke.
Topic's author
#7
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not one of those right wingers.

I want this website to carry the legacy of Debate.org and be better. This means, it should have similar rules on speech restrictions. Advocating for fringe positions should not be restricted by the mere bias of a left wing moderator that wants to curtail it under the name of "hate speech."


This isn't an echo chamber. Fringe-leaning ideologues such as communists and fascists should be able to both freely express their opinions on here. 

Topic's author
#8
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
And if you can not either insult other groups by calling them idiots, that is fine. That being said, I am worried about this stupid rule of #4. What constitues as "hate speech?" If it is "hate speech" to explain why certain "marginalized" groups are harmful to society and should face some sort of state restrictions, then you are essentially enforcing your own political correctness on this site and restricting certain political positions.

#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@triangle.128k
You do realise that this is what Fascism feels like... Except 200x more tyrannical yeah?

You're a Fascist, no?
#10
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
This is actually about as lax as the "code of conduct" under the New Member Read Me thread on DDO. The following regulations are listed in the thread:

"Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."


"Fighting words" are posts intended solely to provoke or belittle. They're essentially a form of bullying. Even if you've avoided the specific use of an insult, if you post a diatribe intended solely to make someone feel bad, you're going against the goal of the site. If you're getting in the way of that goal, even if you're technically keeping your hands clean, expect to have a conversation on the subject with airmax."

This was under the Terms of Service:
"No use of profanities or swear words.
No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
No threats or implications thereof."

Much of the cited text is up to interpretation, and does not always warrant a literal reading. I could argue that targeting a group of people, (minority or not,) would constitute a slur. (Merriam-Webster defines a slur as "an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo.") Some might consider such language to be a provocation, which might be considered "fighting words" as well. Regardless, DDO is not a free-speech haven as evident by the many threads that were taken down due to trolling or personal attacks.

This is not to say that you do or do not have legitimate concerns (I am not going down that rabbit hole), or that I find your post unacceptable, but the comparison to DDO seems faulty. I think DDO was laissez-faire in the moderation of user's content resulting in certain rules were not heavily as enforced. Although there were legitimate action taken on certain DDO users who used hate speech.


#11
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@triangle.128k
If non-binary people can't be called idiots, this should essentially mean no group can be called "idiots."
That is what a reasonable person would think.

If I say "rich white christian men are idiots," this should technically warrant a delete as should my previous statement.
Nooo. Christians and rich white men cannot be slighted according to the actions of our social justice warrior mod. Notice that the comment "right-wing but jobs" passes the CoC test.

If it does not, then this is sheer hypocrisy and blatant bias among bsh1's moderation. 
It's even deeper than that. It's built into the system. He can call anything a CoC violation, you cannot expose it, and you have no recourse. You either take his abuse in silence, or get banned for showing his abuse. Either way, you lose, and his right to abuse is total and final.

...you are essentially enforcing your own political correctness on this site and restricting certain political positions.
He knows, and that is his aim. That is why it is ok when he and others rain down invective on the actual person Trump, but is not ok if anyone says anything non-complimentary about the nebulous group of non-binary gender "persons" somewhere in the world.

Welcome to the sanctuary of dartangeles. Your safe space.
Topic's author
#12
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@blamonkey
I'm not against the principle of preventing inflammatory speech. DDO certainly did have its limits, which are fair and understandable.

That being said, DDO's enforcement was much more lax. For instance, you could say the n word in the right context (not calling someone else it or saying "I fkin hate nggrs!" Along with other slurs.

Nevertheless, that is not relevant to this case. Here we are discussing the term "idiots." You have people using insults against other groups occasionally in the religious and politics section, though it seemed like a lot of that passed... 

My concern here is that certain minority groups, precisely those defended by left wingers, are recieving special protections that other groups will not get. DDO never had this.


Moreover, I have a larger concern regarding the "hate speech clause." DDO never had any such thing that specifically called out "hate speech." The use of progressive buzzwords such as "islamophobe" or "transphobe" is worrying to me. What constitutes as hate speech? Would this mean calling LGBTQ+ groups harmful to society is hate speech? Would advocating for legal restrictions against LGBTQ+ groups constitute hate speech?
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@triangle.128k
I agree, I dislike Islam immensely because I am pro LGBT
#14
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@triangle.128k
A word of caution in PMing with bsh1: don't. He can and will use the content in the PM to direct other mods to take action against you.
#15
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@triangle.128k
drafterman causing defamation of bsh1 when drafterman's the site's most twofaced member. If it suits him he is social justice warrior, next minute ambivalent sociopath.
#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@triangle.128k
They are just asking you to be nicer about it.


Calling people idiots is not helpful. You really think you are going to convince someone who thinks they are a pangendered purple giraffe by calling them an idiot? 

It's hard sometimes, but one thing that makes it easier is thinking about it like you are dealing with children. Your own kids even. That helps me a bit, because sometimes it is really hard to not resort to mockery. 

Since you are Catholic, you should recognize the importance of charity. Think of it as an exercise in charity. It'll be good for you in the end.
#17
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
Fair enough. I do think that DDO was more lax regarding these rules. If people want to engage in vitriolic conversation, that would be none of my concern, inflammatory or not. Such threads could dissuade people from engaging in the forums. Although some people, (including yours truly,) avoid the forum sections anyway.

The COC indicates that slurs and invective against a class of people would constitute as hate speech. This indicates that harsh, critical language when referring to a certain group would necessitate mod action. While the word "idiot" could be a form of invective, it does not seem too harsh. 

In regards to religious and trans-phobic language, there were rules against both in the DDO COC. Although, again, it was not as well enforced to our knowledge. Although, it is just as likely that mod action has been taken regarding some users that we are unaware of at this moment.

Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults.
Mere insult of ideas is allowed--mere insult of people is not.

I am curious what type of legal restrictions against LGBT people you would advocate for, but that seems to be a discussion for another day, and with another person. 

Given the COC, the lack of significant action taken after your initial comment was removed, and the fact that you are still able to post, I would say that you can probably dodge punishment and still post relatively similar comments. I do not think that people would care too much about the objections to LGBT or Muslim people insofar as the language used is docile and not overly-visceral. Perhaps some are concerned about the possibility of a Muslim of LGBT person from coming across the comment, but I do not think we need to cater to them or anyone else. Perhaps I am a misanthrope for suggesting this, but the people on this site are usually wannabe political scientists, faux intellectuals, people trying to post inflammatory content to "trigger" others in the name of anti-PC culture, and, of course, an equal amount of PC culture. So catering to/caring about anyone here seems ridiculous. 

Although there is a rule against PM Doxxing, in which people are not allowed to share details of PMs unless both the sender and the receiver of said message agree to have it displayed.

Posting the contents, in part or in whole, of private messages (PMs) in a public venue without the consent of all parties to the PM is strictly prohibited.
#18
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
This is quite obviously political in nature. The question of minority groups and their treatment is a controversial subject in itself, and is best left to political discourse. 
I disagree. Basic respect for the human dignity of others is not a political issue, though it has become politicized.

And tell me, what counts as "invective?"
That's a good question, and something I can use this thread to more clearly explicate. As you'll note in my reply, I said "'idiot' likely does not rise to the threshold of 'invective.'" I take invective to mean particularly vicious criticism. Of course, that is itself open to interpretation, but were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult, if that makes sense.

The old Debate.org rulebook had nothing against criticizing "marginalized" groups.
In fact, it did. Quoted from the site conduct policy on DDO: "Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."

Would it count as hate speech to advocate for sodomy laws and/or restrict LGBTQ+ rights?
No it would not. As I have said repeatedly to you in private and in public, it is not against the rules to argue that gender is binary. It is not the argument that was the problem, it was the inclusion of the term "idiot" to describe gender non-binary people. You are free to debate whether sodomy laws should be repealed, but you are not free to call gay people "f**gots. In this sense, it is not my goal or my intention to enforce political correctness; it is merely my goal to enforce the COC as it currently exists.

I believe in hindsight that I should not have deleted your post, insofar as it did not rise to the level of invective. For that, I apologize and agree that I was mistaken. I do not believe, however, my PM to you was uncalled for or inappropriate in anyway, and I stand by those remarks.
#19
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@blamonkey
The COC indicates that slurs and invective against a class of people would constitute as hate speech. This indicates that harsh, critical language when referring to a certain group would necessitate mod action. While the word "idiot" could be a form of invective, it does not seem too harsh.
See my posts above. I do not believe "idiot" rises to the level of invective. My post was not meant as an official warning or official moderator action. It was, as Mopac says, just asking him to be nicer about it. Put another, I was indicating that triangle might eventually violate the COC if he continued down the trajectory of insulting marginalized groups or classes of people.



#20
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bsh1
Oh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 

#21
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@blamonkey
No, it's not your fault or anything. I think I will need to be clearer about those kinds of messages moving forward.
#22
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@bsh1
but 'sociopath' does LOL
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bsh1
Keep up the good work BSH
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,973
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@triangle.128k
Can you get banned for calling the Antifa group idiots?
#25
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@blamonkey
I think DDO was laissez-faire in the moderation of user's content resulting in certain rules were not heavily as enforced. Although there were legitimate action taken on certain DDO users who used hate speech.
And absolutely nothing was done about certain DDO users who used the most violent hate speech. Were you also only on the debate forums on DDO?
Topic's author
#26
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
That's a good question, and something I can use this thread to more clearly explicate. As you'll note in my reply, I said "'idiot' likely does not rise to the threshold of 'invective.'" I take invective to mean particularly vicious criticism. Of course, that is itself open to interpretation, but were you to say something like "gay people are f**king bastards who deserve to be sodomized at the stake," I would take that as invective. Invective is a degree of harshness above mere insult, if that makes sense.
I can see the issue in that statement. However, what about this:

"Homosexuality is inherently harmful to society. For this reason, legal repression in the form of sodomy laws should exist to lessen the influence of homosexuality on society." Or,

"Transgenderism is not an identity, but a mental illness and should be treated as such. Gender reversal surgery should be outlawed, and self-identifying transgenders should be treated legitimately rather than aiding to their mental illness."

And if "Islamophobic" is included under hate speech, I can see the issue where saying "all muslims are sand****** camel jockey terrorists." However, what about general criticism of Islam and Muslims as a group?


In fact, it did. Quoted from the site conduct policy on DDO: "Slurs against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are mere insults. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse for mere insult. Mere insults are personal attacks. They are not tolerated."
This isn't in the ToS at all? This is the COC of DebateArt (that you likely wrote unless I am mistaking)). 

Self admittedly I should have clarified, however, I am taking into regard the de-facto DDO rules along with the de-jure DDO rules. Airmax allowed for racial slurs in the right context, such as discussing its implications in say, "Should the word nlgger be allowed?" Moreover, it was perfectly fine on Debate.org to criticize certain minority groups.


No it would not. As I have said repeatedly to you in private and in public, it is not against the rules to argue that gender is binary. It is not the argument that was the problem, it was the inclusion of the term "idiot" to describe gender non-binary people. You are free to debate whether sodomy laws should be repealed, but you are not free to call gay people "f**gots. In this sense, it is not my goal or my intention to enforce political correctness; it is merely my goal to enforce the COC as it currently exists.

I believe in hindsight that I should not have deleted your post, insofar as it did not rise to the level of invective. For that, I apologize and agree that I was mistaken. I do not believe, however, my PM to you was uncalled for or inappropriate in anyway, and I stand by those remarks.
Fair enough. I can admit that this thread may have been wrong to post without permission.
Topic's author
#27
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 502
3
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
3
2
6
-->
@bsh1
And as I was saying, I do have concerns with the general implications of listing "hate speech" as a rule. As I mentioned earlier, would it count as hate speech to necessarily criticize certain minority groups and/or advocate for legal repression against them?

If it isn't, then this is something that Debate.org allowed, which you are now restricting as the head moderator of DebateArt.com. It would be in twisting the original rules we ran by in order to enforce your politics by excluding the other end of a political spectrum. Which is, quite frankly, a poor and stupid tactic on your end and an abuse of your power as moderator of a site specifically for debating different viewpoints.

#28
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@bsh1
I appreciate that you are taking time to write out these messages with other members and willing to converse with them.  Are you able to further clarify if there is or is not standardization for what constitutes invective language, differentiating it from brazen noninvective language? 

You include the descriptor "marginalized" on this subject such as in post 19 and I find myself wondering if maybe you mean as in 'your' reference of choice to classification of groups that are marginalized, or if you mean in respective context of this website such as an "attempt", for lack of a better word, to classify people/members into a group or class and marginalizing it.
#29
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@Greyparrot
No, you can't. First, it's not invective. Second, such a mild violation would not be grounds for a ban unless you had a very long history of COC-violating conduct.
#30
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@triangle.128k
I can see the issue in that statement. However, what about this:
Your examples re: sodomy and "transgenderism" would not be prohibited, as they do not constitute invective, though you should be prepared to support them with arguments if challenged.

Attacking Islam as a theology would likely not constitute hate speech, as it is an ideology not a group of people. However, I will add the caveat that if you are attacking Islam in order to show that Muslims are, for instance, "f**king retards," then you might run afoul of the COC.

This isn't in the ToS at all?
Yes, it is. The extended code of conduct, as authored by Max, is a treatise defining the TOS. Insofar as that quote is used to define the TOS, it is part of the TOS. It certainly was enforceable on DDO, and was occasionally enforced.