Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

User avatar
Cody <3
Match Winner
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Indiana

Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Cody <3 »

Liz has came fourth to add a #13 rule under "Rules for Players"

Code: Select all

#13. No racist,  anti-semitism or other discriminating team and player names allowed.

Since this is a Rule for players and does not affect "Ladle Settings" This is then a tron community vote.

Discuss about the rule above(we can call for a revision of the proposed rule so its worded better)

I'm calling for a proposal to reword the rule as the following

Proposal .1 | Rule #13 edit - Cody <3

Code: Select all

#13. Team & Player names cannot not be discriminatory towards: racial/ethnicity, sexual orientation, Jews
NEW 1v1 Sumo SB Tournament SITE
http://1v1sb.weebly.com

Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Durf »

Gee, I wonder what Castro posted in this thread... >_>

@Cody, how's this:

Code: Select all

#13. Team & Player names may not be discriminatory towards: racial/ethnicity, sexual orientation, Sex/Gender
Corrections:
1) "cannot not" -> "may not"
2) "Jews" -> "Sex/Gender" (Jews are already covered by "racial/ethnicity" - sexism was left out)

Suggestions:
None at this time.


Though if "N4zi" is really an issue...then how it possessing the name discriminatory? "Death2Jews" would be discriminatory, "IH8N4zis" would be discriminatory...
Still not sure if this wording would make people happy.. :s

*16
Core Dumper
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by *16 »

Who decides what's racist/discriminating/... and what's not? Is there gonna be a committee looking up each teamname in a table which declares what is sexist and what's not? Or are we gonna have another 5 page discussion about what is and what's not?

Not that i'm not in favor of this rule. Just some random thoughts (and a bit making fun of it)...
Image

User avatar
Tank Program
Forum & Project Admin, PhD
Posts: 6709
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:03 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Tank Program »

I might also point out that there are other religions other than Judaism.
Image

Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Durf »

*16 wrote:Who decides what's racist/discriminating/... and what's not? Is there gonna be a committee looking up each teamname in a table which declares what is sexist and what's not? Or are we gonna have another 5 page discussion about what is and what's not?

Not that i'm not in favor of this rule. Just some random thoughts (and a bit making fun of it)...
What is racist, and what is discriminating is (well should be) common knowledge.
If you are unsure, check a dictionary.

As for who decides or looking up each team name...well regardless it's good to have a rule in place (because apparently team names are that big of a deal). I think this would depend on any one member of the community bringing up the issue regarding the rule (much like Cody did for that fake team).


@Tank Program, precisely why I reworded it.

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by takburger »

Rule should not be targeting any group, that would be itself discriminatory.

It should say : Players / Teams name cannot be discriminatory towards anybody or anything.
Image

Amaso.
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Amaso. »

Make a poll shall we?

User avatar
F0RC3
Core Dumper
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by F0RC3 »

I will also propose a rewording, this time removing the word discriminatory. IMO discriminatory is too vague, but then again so is my rewording, though I feel it is a little less vague. But the again, I'm probably not seeing all the possible ways my rewording can be misconstrued. This is probably a rule that we have to be fairly specific on, or we have to deal with on a case by case basis.

Code: Select all

#13. Team & Player names cannot have a negative connotation, that is held by the public, towards: racial/ethnicity, sexual orientation, Sex/Gender.
This would mean that a negative connotation held by the public towards a name or team name would not be allowed. Since the general public view is that Nazi's are bad, a Nazi related team/team names are banned. Something like "Death to Christians" would also be banned, as that would have a public negative connotation as murder is generally viewed as a bad thing through out the world. A team name called "Amazing Christians", would not be banned though because it does not have a negative public connotation. Something like that or something like "Super Gays" Would be viewed as a positive public connotation as one promotes a religion where people are supposed to be nice and the other promotes homosexuality (promotes might not be the best word for these examples, but I can't think of a better one).

Amaso.
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Amaso. »

F0RC3 wrote:I will also propose a rewording, this time removing the word discriminatory. IMO discriminatory is too vague, but then again so is my rewording, though I feel it is a little less vague. But the again, I'm probably not seeing all the possible ways my rewording can be misconstrued. This is probably a rule that we have to be fairly specific on, or we have to deal with on a case by case basis.

Code: Select all

#13. Team & Player names cannot have a negative connotation, that is held by the public, towards: racial/ethnicity, sexual orientation, Sex/Gender.
This would mean that a negative connotation held by the public towards a name or team name would not be allowed. Since the general public view is that Nazi's are bad, a Nazi related team/team names are banned. Something like "Death to Christians" would also be banned, as that would have a public negative connotation as murder is generally viewed as a bad thing through out the world. A team name called "Amazing Christians", would not be banned though because it does not have a negative public connotation. Something like that or something like "Super Gays" Would be viewed as a positive public connotation as one promotes a religion where people are supposed to be nice and the other promotes homosexuality (promotes might not be the best word for these examples, but I can't think of a better one).
An atheist could be annoyed by "Amazing Christians"

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Lucifer »

Amaso. wrote:An atheist could be annoyed by "Amazing Christians"
That would depend on the individual in question.

However, "Amazing Christians" is not derogatory to anybody, whereas "Death to Atheists" is. Allowing the latter to play would be tacitly agreeing with all who want atheists to die, whereas allowing the former to play is simply an acknowledgement of the individual rights of everybody here.

Likewise, the "Super Gays" are perfectly fine, but if they renamed themselves to "I hate heterosexuals", they wouldn't be allowed to play.

Then there's "White Boys with Guns". No reason they can't play. But "N4zis"? Yeah, no. Can't play. The former is merely a statement of ethnicity and property ownership, the latter also contains the intent to murder everyone who's not white, and many who are.

Really, it's not that hard. It's quite easy to tell if someone is being targeted by a name, and then if they are somehow being bullied. Considering the overall lack of rights to homosexuals, the name "Super Gays" can definitely be considered to be targeting homophobes and others who would keep gays and their rights separated. But there's no bullying involved, because it's pretty impossible for an oppressed class to bully the oppressors. Instead, that's generally referred to as "revolution".
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by blondie »

No need to write a rule. As Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography, "You know it when you see it."

Durf
Match Winner
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:35 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Durf »

Lucifer wrote:
Amaso. wrote:An atheist could be annoyed by "Amazing Christians"
That would depend on the individual in question.

However, "Amazing Christians" is not derogatory to anybody, whereas "Death to Atheists" is. Allowing the latter to play would be tacitly agreeing with all who want atheists to die, whereas allowing the former to play is simply an acknowledgement of the individual rights of everybody here.

Likewise, the "Super Gays" are perfectly fine, but if they renamed themselves to "I hate heterosexuals", they wouldn't be allowed to play.

Then there's "White Boys with Guns". No reason they can't play. But "N4zis"? Yeah, no. Can't play. The former is merely a statement of ethnicity and property ownership, the latter also contains the intent to murder everyone who's not white, and many who are.

Really, it's not that hard. It's quite easy to tell if someone is being targeted by a name, and then if they are somehow being bullied. Considering the overall lack of rights to homosexuals, the name "Super Gays" can definitely be considered to be targeting homophobes and others who would keep gays and their rights separated. But there's no bullying involved, because it's pretty impossible for an oppressed class to bully the oppressors. Instead, that's generally referred to as "revolution".
Just like the view on "N4zi" depends on the individual viewing it? Hypocrite. Nearly every one of your examples only supports the existing of "N4zi" as a team:
Yes, "Amazing Christians" is not derogatory to anyone in particular, BUT NEITHER IS "N4zi".
When you say that it "contains the intent to murder everyone who's not white, and many who are", that is just plain wrong. It would be like me saying that "Amazing Christians" is out to convert everyone to their religion. It could be JUST AS OFFENSIVE as "N4zi" is. Like you yourself said, it depends on the individual in question. Not everyone is like you, stop assuming that everyone believes what you believe.

Furthermore, no one is being targeted by the name "N4zi". You only feel that people are because of what YOU associate with Nazism. It would be the same as anyone being against "Super Gays" because they personally want to abolish homosexuality (assuming that was the intended use of the word "gay") and don't want to be surrounded by gays.

More specifically, like your example of "Death to Atheists", the team name isn't called "Death to everyone but the Aryan race". Just like "Amazing Christians" is not "Death to Atheists", neither is "N4zi" claiming 'death to..' anyone. You own examples show your prejudice.

The fact of the matter is, people should be able to play with each other no matter what their beliefs are. This is a game after all. Again, I'm not supporting hate or any offensive material; but don't get confused on what is actually offensive (rather don't be so narrow minded)


@blondie, ideally yes. But when a person is blind, how can they see? (in reference to the prejudice against Nazism; blind assumptions made against the team name and its players). A clearly defined rule eliminates the purpose of relative perspective. It would be absolute (no matter how you view it, the rule is the rule)




. . . . .

As for the rule:
I'm not sure "negative connotation that is held by the public" would be sufficient. I mean, that can be relative. Consider if the population was mostly comprised of Nazis...it wouldn't seem so negative then.
IMO, the rule should be clear and absolute. Words mean what they mean, and they should mean the same thing to everyone (not the majority rule - that's the entire reason why minority groups are supported.)
As a "minority" Nazis have a right to represent themselves without it being considered "offensive".
How would you feel being told that WHO YOU ARE is offensive to a bunch of people, so you're not allowed to be that...?
It's ridiculous how unwelcoming this community is to people who aren't just like them.
Everyone likes being accepted, no one likes being ostracized. Be a little more open minded I say...

User avatar
wap
Round Winner
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by wap »

Let's also not forget to not be racist towards serial killers and child rapists. They're in the minority after all

User avatar
F0RC3
Core Dumper
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:33 pm

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by F0RC3 »

Durf wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Amaso. wrote: . . . . .

As for the rule:
I'm not sure "negative connotation that is held by the public" would be sufficient. I mean, that can be relative. Consider if the population was mostly comprised of Nazis...it wouldn't seem so negative then.
IMO, the rule should be clear and absolute. Words mean what they mean, and they should mean the same thing to everyone (not the majority rule - that's the entire reason why minority groups are supported.)
As a "minority" Nazis have a right to represent themselves without it being considered "offensive".
How would you feel being told that WHO YOU ARE is offensive to a bunch of people, so you're not allowed to be that...?
It's ridiculous how unwelcoming this community is to people who aren't just like them.
Everyone likes being accepted, no one likes being ostracized. Be a little more open minded I say...
I Just figured that it is less vague than discriminatory. I also worded it on the view of the public so something like the view of one atheist against christianity or any other religion wouldn't matter.

Clearly it wouldn't be negative if the public was comprised of a Nazi majority, but that is a what if scenario. In reality, most people aren't Nazi's, and this rule would be based in reality. That being said I was only suggesting something for the actual rule, not showing my opinion on the matter. Regardless of my opinion on the matter which I have made clear in the other topic, I do think that a "negative connotation held by the public fits better than the word discriminatory as discriminatory is extremely vague and varies greatly from a person to person basis. I also did say that, even though i think what I suggested fits better than discriminatory, that the rule would either have to be worded extremely specific or would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis if it is left vague.

Olive
Match Winner
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Ladle Player Rule #13 Vote & Discussion

Post by Olive »

I really don't see why this has to be ironclad, isn't it common sense?
Olive a.k.a ZeMu, MoonFlower & chicken.

Post Reply