I've heard he's a neonazi so probably. I'm not surprised that he's here arguing for racism to be allowed in chat lmao.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Question about Players
- Thread starter Lizard Wizard
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
I think people don't really understand the meaning of 'hate speech', here's a short definition:
'Public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.'
The definition is extremely clear and there's no room for 'interpretation by admins', any context regarding 'hate speech' is still hate speech as the administrators would have no idea who's behind the computer, even if it's a bunch of 'mates', that could ultimately upset someone else on the server, so it doesn't really matter. Hate speech has always had the same definition, but parts of it may have more leniency in countries than others, but that doesn't mean it's not hate speech, to make it easier, banning all of it means there's no room for interpretation.
Hate speech is NEVER subjective, if someone insults race, religion, sex or sexual orientation etc, just because it's illegal to be LGBTQ+ in that country, doesn't mean by definition he's not insulting, they're still insulting the person, it's just this insulting is classed as hate speech. Rules can be made, and rules can be followed, both NA, SA, OCE and EU share similar hatred surrounding hate speech (because we don't want to insult each other?), Asia will just have to adapt to the rules written (which should always be read before joining servers).
Why on earth would people defend hate speech, it blows my mind. It's no good saying 'just mute them', they actually have to provide an insult before you mute them, so the deed has already been done, so please don't suggest a 'mute' option as the solution to the problem (and an awful excuse to allow hate speech), they should get banned.
Last edited:
I agree. Implementing some kind of other rules to tk’ing will help as well. Maybe such as vote kick or something to auto kick the player if constantly tking
Thistle
Veteran
So hating the chinese government and the main landers would be hate speech?
Zoonanay
Knight
I do not recall advocating for discrimination, at any point, during my previous statement. Please, if you'd quote the segment in which I did I will attempt to correct the error as that was not the intent.
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. " This is the closest you'll find to a definition (from the UN SPAHS) but as the paper entails no such international definition is possible for clear cultural reasons among other problematic issues.
How do you define what communication is considered "attacking"? What language is just in-game **** talk and when does it cross to inflammatory behaviour? How do you determine intent? If someone says "they're feeling a bit gay today" are they referencing homosexuality or the word for "cheerful", "happy", what if they called someone else this? How do you determine what intent was made, beyond a reasonable doubt as should be required for any act of justice from an authority figure?
I think discriminatory behaviour is not only illogical, but repusilve. It's an inefficient use of human potential which wastes progress that could be made towards greater ambitions. But I cannot allow my hatred for discrimination to affect my logical judgement, particularly when considering what systems should be in place to stop it.
Yes, this is the entire basis of the legal appeal system, defence attorney, jury, mediators, and the many other legal requirements to reach conviction. False equivalence is my least favourite logical fallacy.
There's no easy fix for racism. If you ban them, they'll fester. If you ignore them, they'll grow frustrated and act worse. If you confront them, they'll enjoy it. Your best option is to talk to them like a human being, Daryl Davis is a personal hero of mine, he leads a great example on how to effectively dismantle racist stereotypes and schema's.
EDIT: Also, let's try to keep personal insult and rhetoric to a minimum. It's largely a waste of everyone's time, and will inevitably derail what is a pretty important discussion in my eyes.
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor. " This is the closest you'll find to a definition (from the UN SPAHS) but as the paper entails no such international definition is possible for clear cultural reasons among other problematic issues.
How do you define what communication is considered "attacking"? What language is just in-game **** talk and when does it cross to inflammatory behaviour? How do you determine intent? If someone says "they're feeling a bit gay today" are they referencing homosexuality or the word for "cheerful", "happy", what if they called someone else this? How do you determine what intent was made, beyond a reasonable doubt as should be required for any act of justice from an authority figure?
I think discriminatory behaviour is not only illogical, but repusilve. It's an inefficient use of human potential which wastes progress that could be made towards greater ambitions. But I cannot allow my hatred for discrimination to affect my logical judgement, particularly when considering what systems should be in place to stop it.
Yes, this is the entire basis of the legal appeal system, defence attorney, jury, mediators, and the many other legal requirements to reach conviction. False equivalence is my least favourite logical fallacy.
There's no easy fix for racism. If you ban them, they'll fester. If you ignore them, they'll grow frustrated and act worse. If you confront them, they'll enjoy it. Your best option is to talk to them like a human being, Daryl Davis is a personal hero of mine, he leads a great example on how to effectively dismantle racist stereotypes and schema's.
EDIT: Also, let's try to keep personal insult and rhetoric to a minimum. It's largely a waste of everyone's time, and will inevitably derail what is a pretty important discussion in my eyes.
@Zoonanay quit being a pedant. You're arguing in bad faith, and it's exhausting to see you use fringe cases to defend open hatred and abuse. People who call for genocide should be banned outright. If that means that someone saying "I hate black people" might also get banned, even though it isn't *technically* hate speech, then so be it. I think most of the community would be fine with that -- just like how society accepts that there may be wrongful convictions when we make murder illegal. Banning abusive trash (and accidentally banning someone who toes the line) beats allowing abuse which harms our community.
Only partially correct. There is no legal definition of hate 'speech' in the US federally, though there are some, for lack of a more precise term, common law rulings regarding it (and state statutory laws), which pretty much means that when someone says 'hate speech' we all know what they are generally talking about, even if no one lists out race, religion, gender, orientation, etc etc. There are dictionary definitions, but no US federal one. Legally, they are referred to as protected classes. For example, every time someone calls someone a 'boomer' it is speech against a protected class. Just one no one cares about, so no one gets banned for it. This lack of legal bite regarding speech is one of the reasons why the westboro church is able to hold signage in public that 'f**s doom nations,' and the court upheld their right to do that. It is worth nothing that inciting violence, discrimination, and libel or slander are separate from speech; and that every federal law involves at one step past just using a socially unacceptable word.
That being said, TWs is within their rights (as far as I understand US law) to determine what they wish to constitute offensive, removable speech on their private platform, much as individuals and groups who run servers for the game add on to that. They are private spaces, same as any home or brick and mortar business are. Furthermore; as an admin for several servers for warband throughout the years, I have enforced these rules in the past and will continue to do so in the future; but I would like to state I'd much rather have a human element judging these situations then an automated process, with clearly listed rules for the server which also include ways to appeal actions taken by moderation teams, and at least some transparency in the process.
youcoolman69
Recruit
It's actually extremly simple; Bigots **** off.
Yeah this is true.. I would say that when most people complain that "hate speech" is not fostering a "comfortable" environment for new players they do not take in account that the game-play is a far greater factor in not fostering a comfortable environment. One day I decided to not attack at all and just directional block players, for a bit of fun and a bit of practice. How does the new player feel when this random dude successfully blocks his attacks for half a round straight without mistake? They feel helpless and stressed. It is far more uncomfortable for new players to be stomped without mercy than to see a few "no-no" words from laughable trolls which as gamers they have probably grown used to.
Zoonanay
Knight
I understand, racism is a misguided perspective on reality. What I am saying is banning those people outright is a poor solution, as categorizing them accurately is impossible, thus a permanent ban being the equivalent of capital punishment is not appropriate.
A persistant mute feature, in which toxic individuals can be reported and catalogued for a set period of time into a "Toxic Player" category. Other players will have the option to select "Toxicity Mute" in their game options, if they do so then all players in the "Toxic Player" category will be muted immediatley upon entering a game with them.
This maintains the integrity of the community, avoids unnecessary bans, and better yet uses the communities own judgement on who is and isn't toxic.
I understand tensions flare around hatespeech topics, but objectivity is paramount. There are better systems, there are better solutions, you're choosing to ignore them because of your emotions towards the topic.
I am sure there are a dozen different solutions to this problem that doesn't risk banning potentially innocent players, why don't we at least consider them first before whacking the ban hammer around?
This.
Thistle
Veteran
Hey I'd pay 200 pounds for a mute button irl.
Going to start off by saying Fietta, as a dedicated hairsplitter, makes good points in his post above.
In a rare case study not entirely applicable to TW, I'd like to delve into the manner in which GK handled hate speech/bigotry etc. The GK community underwent multiple different approaches to handling it, to varying levels of success. Initially (I say because I was a newb and not super informed) in the 2010-2012 range, there was widespread admin discretion on GK servers (predominantly Siege). If an admin had a problem with what you were saying, they took actions ranging from a warning to a kick to a ban etc.
This led to issues with banned players arguing on the GK forums/servers over disproportionate punishment ( I.e."he was warned for saying the n word but i got banned for saying it twice"). In the 2012-2016 range GK leadership developed a charter document outlining the rules of the server, which would be publically available on the forums and a short "no-no" list included in the welcome message upon joining the server.
These rules clearly defined what GK considered to be hate speech, and the range of punishment for breaking the rule. GK as a private entity owned the server, and so "freedom of speech" was not an applicable defense.
GK admins continued to exercise their own discretion when it came to speech on the server. By and large, most admins during this period would answer hate speech with a kick, followed by a ban (I.e. person with n word in their name joins server, gets told by an admin to change their name and is then kicked. If the person returns with the same name, they get a 1 hour ban). People with non hate speech specific names, such as Hitler, were permitted to play on the server, but closer attention was paid to them.
In the rare case a person recieved a permanent ban (in which GK had 3 stages, first perm ban was automatically lifted after a week, 2nd after a month, 3rd was forever unless reversed on appeal), GK kept a ban appeals section on their forums which was regularly visited by senior admins who would investigate claims of admin misconduct using chat logs, admin reports, etc.
Once the NA scene started to stagnate post 2016, newer/younger admins began to take a kinder approach to hate speech, oftentimes filing it alongside 'spamming' as a rule violation. A person who said the n word once would likely not receive punishment, but a person who incited the server to start a conversation over the n word would be punished.
While this system was an incredibly effective way of balancing the rights of players, authority of admins, and sovereignty of GK over the server, there were issues. Notably, hate speech featuring the n word/homosexuality was pretty recognizable, but oftentimes speech regarding Chinese (c word) Italians (d word) etc would not be as heavily policed.
TL DR:
I think its perfectly acceptable for TW to punish for hate speech, provided they develop a clear definition of what it is. That being said, the punishment shouldn't be incredibly severe until private servers come out, because right now were TW to ban someone over hate speech from one server, they'd effectively be unable to play multiplayer at all.
Keep in mind folks, the MnB MP is a place for us all to savagely disembowel one another ad infinitum. Its primary purpose is not a chat room, its a game. If you die, you are permitted to scream the n word at the top of your lungs irl (just try not to piss off your parents). Keep it off the server and you won't have to worry about being punished for it.
In a rare case study not entirely applicable to TW, I'd like to delve into the manner in which GK handled hate speech/bigotry etc. The GK community underwent multiple different approaches to handling it, to varying levels of success. Initially (I say because I was a newb and not super informed) in the 2010-2012 range, there was widespread admin discretion on GK servers (predominantly Siege). If an admin had a problem with what you were saying, they took actions ranging from a warning to a kick to a ban etc.
This led to issues with banned players arguing on the GK forums/servers over disproportionate punishment ( I.e."he was warned for saying the n word but i got banned for saying it twice"). In the 2012-2016 range GK leadership developed a charter document outlining the rules of the server, which would be publically available on the forums and a short "no-no" list included in the welcome message upon joining the server.
These rules clearly defined what GK considered to be hate speech, and the range of punishment for breaking the rule. GK as a private entity owned the server, and so "freedom of speech" was not an applicable defense.
GK admins continued to exercise their own discretion when it came to speech on the server. By and large, most admins during this period would answer hate speech with a kick, followed by a ban (I.e. person with n word in their name joins server, gets told by an admin to change their name and is then kicked. If the person returns with the same name, they get a 1 hour ban). People with non hate speech specific names, such as Hitler, were permitted to play on the server, but closer attention was paid to them.
In the rare case a person recieved a permanent ban (in which GK had 3 stages, first perm ban was automatically lifted after a week, 2nd after a month, 3rd was forever unless reversed on appeal), GK kept a ban appeals section on their forums which was regularly visited by senior admins who would investigate claims of admin misconduct using chat logs, admin reports, etc.
Once the NA scene started to stagnate post 2016, newer/younger admins began to take a kinder approach to hate speech, oftentimes filing it alongside 'spamming' as a rule violation. A person who said the n word once would likely not receive punishment, but a person who incited the server to start a conversation over the n word would be punished.
While this system was an incredibly effective way of balancing the rights of players, authority of admins, and sovereignty of GK over the server, there were issues. Notably, hate speech featuring the n word/homosexuality was pretty recognizable, but oftentimes speech regarding Chinese (c word) Italians (d word) etc would not be as heavily policed.
TL DR:
I think its perfectly acceptable for TW to punish for hate speech, provided they develop a clear definition of what it is. That being said, the punishment shouldn't be incredibly severe until private servers come out, because right now were TW to ban someone over hate speech from one server, they'd effectively be unable to play multiplayer at all.
Keep in mind folks, the MnB MP is a place for us all to savagely disembowel one another ad infinitum. Its primary purpose is not a chat room, its a game. If you die, you are permitted to scream the n word at the top of your lungs irl (just try not to piss off your parents). Keep it off the server and you won't have to worry about being punished for it.
And that is the main issue imo, there is no code of conduct for multiplayer yet. Which gives way for people to start being lawyers and philosophers about what should and shouldn't be allowed.
I find it hilarious myself that some people here are arguing that banning Adolf Titler and the likes is against "freedom of speech". They would be banned in 0.1 seconds on this forum, I don't see why it should be any different in game.
Also Warband was not a good precedent for moderation. Taleworlds put the bare minimum of effort into maintaining it.
Free speech advocacy is genuinely damaged by people hijacking it to mean "People can be as edgy as they want". The director of notorious KKK film Birth of a Nation used the exact same argument.
The problem with edginess is that it sets an atmosphere which makes the majority of people just want to log off. There is a reason only a specific kind of attention-seeking, bullied-at-school weirdo can bear to log into 4chan anymore. Seeing people openly calling for you to be genocided and not being able to effectively challenge them is genuinely exhausting. It's like if you're being harrassed at work and your employer says "just ignore them". Even if you can completely block them out, the very fact that they're still there and nothing actually gets done about it would make most people not want to be there at all.
Racist / Sexist humour can be funny, but absolutely not when it's just a bunch of internet Nazis spamming the same pol memes which were never even intended to be funny when they were cooked up back in 2015.
Free speech advocacy is genuinely damaged by people hijacking it to mean "People can be as edgy as they want". The director of notorious KKK film Birth of a Nation used the exact same argument.
The problem with edginess is that it sets an atmosphere which makes the majority of people just want to log off. There is a reason only a specific kind of attention-seeking, bullied-at-school weirdo can bear to log into 4chan anymore. Seeing people openly calling for you to be genocided and not being able to effectively challenge them is genuinely exhausting. It's like if you're being harrassed at work and your employer says "just ignore them". Even if you can completely block them out, the very fact that they're still there and nothing actually gets done about it would make most people not want to be there at all.
Racist / Sexist humour can be funny, but absolutely not when it's just a bunch of internet Nazis spamming the same pol memes which were never even intended to be funny when they were cooked up back in 2015.
The NA NW community has a huge problem with edge teens or just plain racists. I never allowed it in my regiment for the most part(when a black dude says the N word what are you going to do) but other groups let it go, the main server for NA BBG banned racist speech and stuff but kids try to find out how close they get to the line before they get banned saying edgy stuff and the like.Regiment event chat gets really toxic and racist still and I guess this will become a problem in bannerlord too where the public chats may be cleaner but bannerlord clans will be really toxic withen the event community thats just my 2 cents though.
Well if we use the US precedent for "Freedom of Speech" then yes, banning an "Adolf Titler" is against "Freedom of Speech".
Case in point, the US Army formed an esports team and began banning internet trolls from posting to their twitter/twitch chat similar to the type of trolls people encounter in Warband. Due to warnings about how this violated the First Amendment from many legal foundations such as the ACLU, I believe they have stopped streaming until they form a more coherent policy on how to deal with such trolls. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ting-first-amendment-offering-fake-giveaways/
Enforce the rules equally without giving people a pass for race. God forbid.
- Status
