What's new

Public comment: RMB regulation

Imperium Anglorum

Tinpot Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
234
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
I want to ask for public comment on four matters:
  1. Should the region ban the use of swear words directed to other players on the RMB?
  2. Should the region ban jokes on the RMB relating to pandemic disease or natural disasters?
  3. Should the region relax defamation rules?
  4. Should the region include a rule against unwanted tagging?
 

Imperium Anglorum

Tinpot Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
234
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
I don't want to put a poll here because there are too many questions to ask in a straightforward way.

On the matters—

1. My own opinion is that the region shouldn't ban the use of swear words on the RMB. First, NationStates already has an obscenity filter. While it is almost trivial to get around it (e.g. replace "fuck" with "fu*k"), there does not appear to have been much action by moderators on that historically. Second, directing such a word to another player seems to me a blanket prohibition which we cannot adequately enforce: there are lots of words that could cause offence and it would be difficult to keep perfect track of which ones count. Third, these is already regulated by the moderators and also factual claims are regulated by the existing defamation rules.

2. I think it ought to be enacted. Large numbers of deaths is not something that we ought to be be taking too lightly. However, I would also draw a distinction between people dying and jokes about actions related to it. For example, in the present Covid-19 crisis, jokes about social distancing, I feel, are separate from jokes about the disease itself or its direct mortality.

3. I think the region ought to relax defamation rules. Under current regulations, claiming "Jim the Baptist" also owns "Unpopular People" and "The Popular Populace" is defamation under current law. I don't think it ought to be. The ability to prove or disprove that statement is beyond any regional court to determine and could only be done with moderator intervention, which will not come. The claim also should be able to be presented. The person accused would then be able to offer a response.

4. While I appreciate why people want a rule which would ban someone from repeatedly tagging someone else during or after a heated quarrel, I think it could also easily be applied by someone to shut down discussion of their political record. I think that would be a bad thing that harms the ability for Europeans to select for themselves their best representatives. To me, the solution here is that people ought to understand that a response is not always warranted and that speaking last is not an 'auto-win'.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
16
Location
Italy
Capital
Roma
Nick
Regy
1) No. I agree with your comment.
2) Unsure. Jokes on disasters and diseases may be useful to lighten the situation, although I agree a joke too lighthearted may do more harm than good.
3) Yes. Again, I totally agree with your comment.
4) No. I see no reason to enforce such a provision. It's just an etiquette problem a not matter for the ModCom.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
4
1. no
2. Uuuuhhh... yeah? Maybe? idk, I feel it should be more case-by-case than that - some peeps make jokes about that sort of thing as a coping mechanism
3. y e s
4. No. If it's really spammy, then sure, but that's a different thing than a blanket ban. Dunno if there's already something about spam, but if not, then multiple pings one after the other for no good reason shouldn't be allowed, unless the recipient's fine with it
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
9
Location
Canada
Capital
Kraków
Nick
PoLiet
1. No, given that it's already 'banned' by NationStates I don't think it's necessary. It's very easy to get around, like you said, "f*ck" instead of "fuck", but I would argue that the former isn't all that bad anyway. I have and will continue to let self-censoring slide, so long as it doesn't become a problem.

2. I think it should depend. Jokes about the Black Plague shouldn't be treated the same as jokes about COVID-19, given the Black Plague hit Europe in the 1300s (ie, no one alive today has been affected by it). At the same time, I think some jokes targeted at the disease itself should be permitted, but jokes targeted at the victims? Well, that should be a fairly firm no. I think the same should apply to natural disasters. I also agree with Nov though, it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

3. Yes. For the love of god yes. For the same reasons you mentioned, yes.

4. The problem would be defining "Unwanted tagging". Nation A might tag Nation B in a post with something A thinks B might find funny, but B might define that as 'unwanted tagging'. The term is too loose.
 

Imperium Anglorum

Tinpot Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
234
Capital
Londinium
Nick
IA
Jokes about the Black Plague shouldn't be treated the same as jokes about COVID-19, given the Black Plague hit Europe in the 1300s (ie, no one alive today has been affected by it). At the same time, I think some jokes targeted at the disease itself should be permitted, but jokes targeted at the victims? Well, that should be a fairly firm no. I think the same should apply to natural disasters. I also agree with Nov though, it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
I think that this is a reasonable position: a rule that protects victims of natural disasters etc from mockery could work. Do you have a proposed wording or something of the sort? (Also tagging @Novgorod-Pskov).
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Messages
13
Location
The Netherlands
Capital
Utrecht
Nick
Riv
1. No, because swearing is a thing that all humans do and sometimes it's not even serious but a joke.
2. No, because some diseases are longer ago than others and are too long ago for anyone to still have bad memories about. Although a disease like COVID-19 is a serious matter and shouldn't necessarily be joked about (especially if you intend to make racist jokes towarded to the Chinese), who knows if in the future, humans will also joke about the ongoing pandemic like we make jokes about the bubonic plague (f.e).
3. Yes, because now, making allegations that someone here is also someone else (*cough* Jim the Baptist and Deng *cough*) is considered defamation and serves you at risk of having to deal with the Moderation-Committee. Seriously, calm down! It's not like he received a threat, someone just thought he was someone else.
4. No. We have better things to worry about than this.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
1
1. No. If it gets out of hand, current rules apply and are sufficient.
2. Yes. I agree with Poliet on the specifics.
3. Yes.
4. No.
 
Top