Rule Change Request: Rp Entry and Personal Bias

[Subtle]

10. RP Makers have the right to refuse any character on any condition, so long as it isn't due to discrimination against the other member, themselves.

This is the rule in question that, with the help of the community, I intend to change. At first glance, with little deliberation, this appears to be a perfectly reasonable rule, however, the general consensus of the EAB seems to be that this should be changed.

Why, you ask? Why should people be allowed to discriminate? Well, one should look to the new trend of invite only RPs. Every triad member has said before, that these RPs are perfectly fine. Game Masters should be allowed to disallow people due to them not working correctly with the RP. They say that its fine to not want someone because their character dosen't fit the technical parameters, because they wouldn't fit the tone, or simply because their RP skill isn't up to par.

I would like to point out though, that really, every RP on the board, is by invitation only. No one is instantly accepted into any rp without first discussing it with its owner. _{( Barring a revival of the great experiment. Do it, Ninny!)} Admins have knowingly allowed personal bias in these past cases, and I think, that in the future, this should be reverse engineered to apply to every RP on the EAB.

I propose, that any RP creator should have sole discretion over who is allowed and who is not allowed in their RP. They decide who is in and who is not.

[Teh Donut]

I would love to support you, but Libertarianism only works in theory.

Yes, why should people be allowed to discriminate? We shouldn't, because by the very definition of "discrimination", there's no logical reason behind it; discrimination is making a decision based upon bias and preconceptions, rather than individual merits and facts. Discrimination is outlawed on the EAB because it's unfair.

We have this rule for a reason, and that is to keep roleplay fair. This rule makes it so Joe #1 cannot deny Joe #2 entrance to his roleplay, simply because they don't get along, or any other reason directed at a member, individually, rather than against the character the member is submitting. It keeps it so that any member can reasonably join any rp they choose. The only exception to this, as has been illustrated many times by RP creators, is if the chosen character does not fit the specific requirements of the rp or would not fit the feel of the rp (such as putting a humor character in a post-apocolyptic steampunk serious rp); if you look, you will see that this is the only power of the denial that roleplay creators have, and the only "discussion" that takes place.

The only other time an rp creator has ever been allowed to decline another member's activity within their roleplay is if the roleplayer is so poor at roleplaying, either on purpose or because he genuinely is inexperienced, that it becomes detrimental to the enjoyability and continuity of the roleplay.

No personal bias has ever been condoned by administrators in the past; all instances of denial have had perfectly legitimate claims against the character being submitted or the inability or unwillingness of the member in question to follow the obviously stated parameters for the rp. Blatant denial of the Board's general or the rp's specific rules, and subequent actain taken against the member, are solely the fault of the member in question.

A roleplay is only by "invitation only" if the members participating have been specifically asked by the rp creator to join. Thereby the whole point of the term "invite". Otherwise, they are open roleplays.

That being said, do invite-only roleplays violate the "no discrimination rule?" That depends; why is it invite-only? If it's being done because "zomg, I can't stand these certain people," then don't even bother starting it; it's based upon bias, and thus, discrimination.

I do invite-only roleplays for two reasons only: because the invited members have certain specific characters That I want to see within the roleplay, or because I know the invited members will bring a certain flair, style, tone, and feel to the roleplay that I want it to have. These reasons are perfectly legitimate and fine; they are based solely upon the merits of the characters or the proven ability of the roleplayer, not upon personal bias against certain "excluded" members (as said excluded members are still free to apply for admittance).

But what if we follow Subtle's suggestion? What if we allow all rp creators to discriminate as the see fit for any reason whatsoever?

"Oh, I don't want to allow him because he made fun of me in this thread..."
"I don't want you to enter because I disagree with your lifestyle."
"You can't enter because I thin you're stupid."
"You can't join becasue you can't spell 'becasue'."
"I don't want you to enter because I disagree with you all the time."

Subtle claims in IMs that sacking the anti-discrimination rule would increase the enjoyment and "fun" of members, because the Game Master is able to deny people of differing opinion admittance, but how fun is it to be declined, cast aside, turned away, simply because someone is too sensitive towards your opinions and beliefs?

[Giant Brother]

I don't really think a change in the rule is necessary. Lessee, here...

10. RP Makers have the right to refuse any character on any condition, so long as it isn't due to discrimination against the other member, themselves.

In other words, if you REALLY don't like the person that much, you should be able to find some sort of excuse reason for them not to join. Plus, worst comes to worst, there's the invitation only loop hole. Quite frankly, if you don't have the creativity to utilize this rule without removing it, you really shouldn't be RPing...

[Subtle]

Mar 3, 2008 11:32:29 GMT -5 Giant Brother said:

In other words, if you REALLY don't like the person that much, you should be able to find some sort of excuse reason for them not to join. Plus, worst comes to worst, there's the invitation only loop hole. Quite frankly, if you don't have the creativity to utilize this rule without removing it, you really shouldn't be RPing...

One shouldn't need to utilize the rule loophole, thats why it should be changed.

Edit: I will respond to you when I have more time, Donut. You deserve more than a single sentance

[Teh Donut]

One shouldn't be using loopholes in the first place...

Quick question though; if we do away with #10, would you strike it and be done, or replace it with a line that reads, essentially, like the last line of your first post here?

[Ninmast]

I think my opinion on the matter has already been made clear while I was attempting to settle the matter in the appropriate thread so it didn't get out of hand. However, since it seems this thread on the issue has arisen, it's only proper that I recite my stance here.

Discrimination on any grounds, be they gender, race, disability, nationality, lifestyle or personal bias, is illegal in nearly every civilized country in the world. Why should it even be allowed to glance in here? And judging from what's been said so far (granted, it's only been three people), your concept of the "general consensus of the EAB" seems to be the "general consensus of Subtle and Friends," which has been increasingly argumentative and combative. I fear you'll find that, if your rule change does pass, which I severely, severely, SEVERELY doubt, you will be one of the ones to lose. Granted, no one will benefit, but those that regularly are argumentative and attempt to tell people how to think and feel and that the rules shouldn't apply to them are that much more likely to be discriminated against. This rule is not just for my own pleasure. It's for the benefit of everyone, to ensure that you still have the right to be ... yourself without having to worry about being jipped as a result.

Subtle claims in IMs that sacking the anti-discrimination rule would increase the enjoyment and "fun" of members, because the Game Master is able to deny people of differing opinion admittance, but how fun is it to be declined, cast aside, turned away, simply because someone is too sensitive towards your opinions and beliefs?

Donut makes an excellent point, and we have a rule covering that, too. General Rule #11 is to respect other people's opinions, all in capital letters. Why is it all in capital letters? Because it's one of our most important rules, and no rule should ever be instituted that allows it to be thrust to the wayside. Then, of course, there's

"The Golden Rule"

This community is meant to be a nice one for people of similar interests to hang out and converse freely. Though not everyone will have the same interests as one another, there is absolutely no reason to create any bad blood between friends. This is the internet. We respect the rights people receive as part of the United States Constitution, but we will NOT desist in creating order and enforcing these rules at all times. We expect them to be followed, and we expect the posters to make this forum a good place to post. If you do not agree with any of the rules aforementioned, then toughen yourself up and follow them, or don't bother posting in the forum at all.

So, yeah, you can see why I don't particularly expect this to go very far.

And, while GiantBrother is right, all it really takes is to come up with a decent reason to refuse a specific character, encouraging using the letter of the rules to your advantage and playing lawyer really isn't a tone a Moderator should be taking ...

[Giant Brother]

I suppose I should explain myself. I never meant for it to sound like I was encouraging fiddling around with the rule. I was merely pointing out that it was vague, and could easily be taken advantage of. Of course, my tone definitely came across as though I was encouraging it, sorry.

Rather than removing the rule, I actually think it should be added upon.

[Ninmast]

How so, GB?

[Giant Brother]

Well, I guess just not make it so open. As it is, all you have to say is "no, that character won't work" or "no, your RPing style wouldn't exactly work here" and be done with it. I suggest that we have to give formulated reasons as to why that is so. Even if in some cases that may only be an extra sentence, it may cut down on abuse of the rule's ambiguity.

[Ninmast]

Any standards that you would recommend for doing so?

[Son of Marth]

Here's a rule request for ya: Ignore any suggestions made by subtle.

[Teh Donut]

Now now, let's be gentle...Subtle has good ideas at times. I just don't feel this is one of them.

[Kainus Maximus]

Dont troll in an intelligent discussion thread please.

[Subtle]

Ninmast, I hate to be so direct, but your post is compromised entirely of false information, fallices and rhetoric

I think my opinion on the matter has already been made clear while I was attempting to settle the matter in the appropriate thread so it didn't get out of hand. However, since it seems this thread on the issue has arisen, it's only proper that I recite my stance here.

This statement is merely an intro, nothing to discet. It is important to note his unstated opinion, that the rule should not change.

Discrimination on any grounds, be they gender, race, disability, nationality, lifestyle or personal bias, is illegal in nearly every civilized country in the world. Why should it even be allowed to glance in here?

This is untrue. In the United States of America, discrimination as a legal definition dosen't include any amount of personal bias. Private enterprises have always been allowed to deny access and exclude the individual as long as it wasn't because of their race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion/class/ect. If Toys-R-Us wants to ban you from its locations because for fighting with employees, or if Gamestop wants to ban you because you've stolen in the past, this has always been allowed.

This is untrue
And judging from what's been said so far (granted, it's only been three people), your concept of the "general consensus of the EAB" seems to be the "general consensus of Subtle and Friends," which has been increasingly argumentative and combative.

When I referred to the "general consensus of the EAB" I was referring to Donut, Ninmast, Kainus, Myself, Lotus, True, Kagetsuki and Slywolf.

All of you in the past have condoned exclusion biased on personal bias in the form of invite only RPs. Kagetsuki and Sly both have openly stated that their Invite-only rps were made because they did not like specific members of the EAB, and the admins were all fine with this in the past.

I fear you'll find that, if your rule change does pass, which I severely, severely, SEVERELY doubt, you will be one of the ones to lose. Granted, no one will benefit, but those that regularly are argumentative and attempt to tell people how to think and feel and that the rules shouldn't apply to them are that much more likely to be discriminated against.

Now now, Ninmast. Common sense would show that I don't care about the implications of myself being excluded, or I wouldn't campaign for the rule to change.

The only other purpose for you to bring up such a point would be to try and cast doubt upon my character. Ad Hominem Abusive.

This rule is not just for my own pleasure.

This claim in particular should be heavily questioned. You cared not when Sly or Kagetsuki wanted to disclude on personal bias, but you care now that you are not being invited.

It's for the benefit of everyone, to ensure that you still have the right to be ... yourself without having to worry about being jipped as a result.

Finally, at the end of two paragraphs we come to a tiny shred of logic behind Ninmast's initial argument. Though its buried in fallices, false information and rhetoric, that dosen't give it any more or less weight. To restate it in a purer form:

" It ensures that one can be oneself without being treated poorly as a result"

I will address this and all other counter arguments in a coming post.

Quote:
Subtle claims in IMs that sacking the anti-discrimination rule would increase the enjoyment and "fun" of members, because the Game Master is able to deny people of differing opinion admittance, but how fun is it to be declined, cast aside, turned away, simply because someone is too sensitive towards your opinions and beliefs?


Donut makes an excellent point, and we have a rule covering that, too. General Rule #11 is to respect other people's opinions, all in capital letters. Why is it all in capital letters? Because it's one of our most important rules, and no rule should ever be instituted that allows it to be thrust to the wayside. Then, of course, there's

Appeal to Tradition. Just because it is in place dosen't mean its true or correct. Granted, I don't believe this rule should be torn down, but I think that it should apply differently to admittance into RPs ( The private sector) and in general boards ( The public sector).

I'd also like to thank you for padding your fallacy by mentioning the purpose of capital letters, I think we all get that.

Quote:
"The Golden Rule"

This community is meant to be a nice one for people of similar interests to hang out and converse freely. Though not everyone will have the same interests as one another, there is absolutely no reason to create any bad blood between friends. This is the internet. We respect the rights people receive as part of the United States Constitution, but we will NOT desist in creating order and enforcing these rules at all times. We expect them to be followed, and we expect the posters to make this forum a good place to post. If you do not agree with any of the rules aforementioned, then toughen yourself up and follow them, or don't bother posting in the forum at all.


So, yeah, you can see why I don't particularly expect this to go very far.

This rule applys to my stance just as much as the opposite. Member A and B do not get along, so when member A starts an RP, and member B forces his way in, that only causes more bad blood between members, giving them more to fight over and eventually upsetting them both.

And, while GiantBrother is right, all it really takes is to come up with a decent reason to refuse a specific character, encouraging using the letter of the rules to your advantage and playing lawyer really isn't a tone a Moderator should be taking ...

This statement contradicts your Argument, but agrees with the past viewpoints of the triad, that people should be allowed to deny entry to their RPs biased on personal bias. As the system stands now, invite only RPs allow bias with no consequences, but simply removing that meaningless label completely changes your stance.

Lawyering shouldn't be necessary, that is a very good point, and for that reason, that rule should be changed.

[Ninmast]

Subtle, I hate to be so direct, but you're not being intelligent. You're not being clever. You're not being witty. You are attempting to twist words, slander the character of those stating against you and pull people down into the dirt with you, and I won't allow it.

By wasting time pointing out such things as being introductions but stating points, you're only showing your own lacking. That is the traditional way to open such a response, with a clear introduction that describes the message that you intend to convey.

By inserting your own addition of "etcetera" to the end of the definition of discrimination, you allow for the addition of personal bias, which, by the way, is a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration. This means that examples of criminal activity in an employee's work history don't apply to the definition.

You do not have the authority to speak for the "general consensus of the EAB," Subtle, and so far, your stance on that consensus has been entirely incorrect. It is simply an attempt to pull us down with you by saying we must agree with you, or we wouldn't allow it (which we don't). Invitational RPs are almost always open to those who are also interested in it but weren't invited if they speak with the person running it, as Donut explained.

I was not attempting to cast doubt on your character, Subtle. That's what you've been trying to do to the entire rest of the board. Thus, it is not an ad hominem argument, merely you once again trying to find a way to ignore it. Proven when you turn around immediately after and try to tell me that it really is for my personal pleasure because I allow it, which I don't.

You continue to slander me, saying you "finally" found one "shred of logic" among all of my lies, rhetoric and fallacies. And personally, I should think ensuring that people get to be treated as equals is a good thing. But then, you've continually proven yourself to be an elitist, so that you disagree comes as no great surprise.

General Rule #11 is not appealing to tradition. You are correct, just because it is in place doesn't mean it is true or correct, but just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or false, either. And I mentioned the capital letters because they ARE important. It is not a part of all these mysterious and unmentioned fallacies that you continuously accuse me of.

The Golden Rule does not support your claim, Subtle. It shows that Member A has no right to treat Member B as a lesser being to him simply because he dislikes him, which is the core of the issue here.

Finally, the statement doesn't contradict my argument, doesn't agree with YOUR past viewpoints of the Triad, and does not represent a change in my stance. Nobody can write a document that exhaustively prevents any possibility of questioning or sneaking in through a back door, and nobody should have to. THAT was my point. It's not that lawyering shouldn't be necessary. It's that it shouldn't be done at all.

Now that I've finally sifted through all of that garbage, let me say one last thing. You've gone from having an intelligent discussion to trolling the entire forum. Shape up or ship out. It won't be tolerated. Do it again and you WILL (notice the caps?) receive a temporary ban. If you do it again after the temporary ban, you will receive a permanent ban. This is non-negotiable, so don't even bother trying to come up with one of your smart-mouthed arguments.