Dangerous precedent you're setting by only addressing select cuts from my response, rather than the whole, by the way. I won't follow it for the sake of healthy discourse.
You do not need an anthropolgy department to know that calling turkish people cockroaches or saying the word n***** is racist.
Digression:
The concept of races and racism itself is a disputed point so yes, you would need experts of various fields to dissect the hypotheses property to begin with. Besides that, reaching the consensus that some words are derogatory is the easy bit, the question was actually whether it is right to, say whether humans of a particular skin colour or bone structure are of lesser worth than others with differing features, - it's easy to say these claims are wrong of course, because they are, as scientific consensus tells us. But more importantly it's the popular consensus, which is all TW needs to know in order to know what they need to say. It should've been clear enough, my point was basically that reciting second-hand knowledge & popular consensus doesn't exactly make an especially ideologically steadfast statement. Digression will continue:
What are you on about? Are you trying to turn this into sociology debate on changing morals in different societies throughout?
This is not a debate. TW adopts an anti-racism attitude because that's the rule, not because they have decided to by first-hand knowledge, meaning that they would just as easily adopt another mainstream idea even if it was for racism.
I told you that Taleworlds has a no racism policy and it is their server and they should enforce it.
...Which is why this statement is meaningless. No company has a "yes racism" policy
You respond by saying that game development company doesnt have the right to stop hate and racsism because they are not intellectuals???
Talk about having romantic delusions. And also reading comprehension.. ****ing hell. The discussion is NOT about stopping "hate and racism" (**** me, here again with the.. nvm). Who in their right mind would say "I want hate to live on"? It's about the sensibility of the suggested measures which are meant to supposedly stop hate and racism, but I argue they're not, that they're going overboard simply because some people are weak-willed and naive, that what minor benefit it may bring doesn't justify the drawbacks. This is literally the same point I made 2-3 comments before.
So I actively played in the compettive community for 2 years now. I have seen and heard it all.
The reason racsism is being called out here is because it is so blatantly obvious throughout the whole game. You can hear people saying racist stuff all day every day. The excuse usually is "There are no n****** here, so who cares."
Some Russians repeatedly called some turkish players cockroaches for months on end.
These things are worse than me calling you "Bastard" for example, because they include every single person that has those superficial attributes and it doesnt matter if people from these groups are present or not. Both, racsism and "normal" insults should be punished and repeat offenders should be ID banned.
Bunch of bogus points brought up, you're making this too easy for me.
So your arguments as to why racist insults are so much worse are:
A) blatantly obvious, heard everyday
B) insults every member of the offended group, rather than an individual
As for A, how are they more obvious than "bastard" or "retard"??? Insults aimed at wits or looks are far more common everywhere than insults based on ethnicity. Complete nonsense.
B) Could be the case, could be not. No different than any other insult. Calling someone a dimwit doesn't immediately make one genocidal to all people of sub-average intelligence. Again, there is no difference.
But apparently this doesn't matter to you since according to you ALL insults should be punished, regardless of severity or the context in which they were uttered. The insanity of the idea speaks for itself - as it takes a special sort of psychological complex to reject vulgarity as part of human communication and language - , but there's another point I also addressed previously:
hippocratic oath for "server moderators" to hold them accountable and enforce a certain integrity. It's easy for socially functional and cognisant people to recognise ill intent, however due perhaps to ill intent (or social ineptitude) on their own end, people of authority can easily artificially push the bounds of restrictions to misconstrue actions of people they personally dislike. Human behaviour and the judgement thereof is a delicate matter worst left to one anonymous narcissist or the other. What slight difference it makes for you to be saved from the bother of going through a few clicks does not justify handing power so easily abused - and it IS abused. It makes more readily for an environment of hostility when biased mods / admins pounce on the earliest opportunity to get back at someone as soon the slightest profanity is uttered.
The larger the scope of a rule, the more blurred the bounds, the more easily it is to be misconstrued and an improper sentence carried out. Take my previous comment getting "3 warning points" and the derogatory terms being "snipped". Not only were the meanings of the words acknowledged by me in the same text but it's clear as anything to anyone with the loosest grasp on the English language that the usage of the words themselves weren't intended to insult anyone. Was I then punished because a black person may be reminded of the dreaded n-word and burst into tears? Raise hands if that ever happened with a mentally stable person you know? Did the removal of the two words serve to combat racism in any way? Or was it because the unclear rules - that hand too much liberty to moderators in passing a verdict - stretched to such an extreme that in the end the action taken doesn't match the intent of the rule in the slightest; and one wonders why, as I outlined previously in quotes, either the moderator falsely interpreted the text significantly, meaning the moderator mucked up or is just incompetent, or despite knowing that a punishment in no way reflected the intended purpose of the rule, he carried it out anyway due to personal grievances, and because he could. I lean more towards one theory than the other, since others have used similar terms in similar contexts with no punishment nor warning so far. Take this example with the countless others, and with some luck, you'll get why the essence of my argument is "the problem is who decides". It goes deeper than whether I wish to smite hate or not.
But new players is what the MP desperately needs. Doesnt matter if they are casuals, teenagers or whatever. Heck 75 percent of the active players were teens when they played warband.
The damage from unchecked chat is minuscule compared to the players lost because the game is just simply bad and empty and it's not getting better.
I would beg to differ. People see and have seen Taleworlds games as a safe space to say these things for a decade now. Everytime people point it out on the forum there is somebody coming out of the woods and excusing the behaviour.
You tell that to people who are doing the excusing.
The bigger problem is that people learn really fast that they can do and say whatever they want. This leads to not only more toxic language but even toxic playstyle (i.e. leaving games, griefing, teamhitting).
No, what? You're calling my hypothesis a big assumption when you come up with this nonsense. Mine was argued with empirical and logical conjecture at least. This is just groundless.
Just because there are more toxic places we should keep this one going?
That's not an argument.
Oh I believe that wanting to have people punished for being insulting in game is very reasonable.
Wishes come easy. My problem is with the solution you propose.
And it is not a weakness wanting this to end,
I didn't say that. I said it's a weakness to be effected in any considerable degree by petty insults over the Internet.
the weakness is on your side by not drawing a clear line between you and the toxic players.
There isn't a clear line. Especially not according to your criteria. Is someone indisputably toxic trash because he called a corner-camping player a "****"?
To me it sounds like you romantice the "freedom" of the wild west internet and hide behind fancy arguements to essentially say that you think banning insults and racism is censorship
It is censorship. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. I'm not principally against censorship anyway, only that I know how it can easily go too far and be used to wrong ends. And I have good reason to believe those are going to be the consequences should these ridiculous suggestions be considered by TW.
banning insults and racism is censorship and people who dont want to deal with that while playing a video game should "grow some skin"
I didn't say that either. I said people who CAN'T deal with that should grow some skin. Who wouldn't rather be free of annoying, immature kids who mistake themselves for comedians?