NEW POLICIES FOR 2014: A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

If you can't think of a way to express your opinion that doesn't involve slurs, maybe you should hold off on expressing your opinion for a while.

I mean, here are some examples of language you could use to describe your opinion of this obscure indie game maker WITHOUT just going for the low-hanging 8chan manbaby fruit:

mercenary
unethical
amoral
unscrupulous
avaricious
grasping
corrupt
money-grubbing
unprincipled
crooked
fraudulent
rotten
shady
two-faced
underhanded
covetous
grabby
selfish

And here is a list you could have used instead of conflating "attracted to the same gender" (or, more archaically, "merry") with "stupid and/or bad"

stupid
ridiculous
risible
ill-advised
ludicrous
senseless
dopey
idiotic
mindless
nonsensical
absurd
ludicrous
preposterous
asinine

The English language is full of all sorts of words to describe terrible behavior and character. If you find yourself going straight for the words that are like 90% applied to one gender or to minorities, you need to invest in a thesaurus and probably rethink the way you communicate with people who aren't chan addicts.

author=kentona
Just because we had to take extra measures to point out "stop being a misogynistic asshole" doesn't mean that "stop being a general asshole" is no longer in effect.

No, but it can certainly be taken to imply that "stop being a misogynsitic asshole" is a more serious offense, as you went out of your way to point it out extra-hard. Is it? If so, that is sexist.

The answer is it's not. We both know it's not. Being an asshole is just as bad regardless of who the victim is. But the message you're conveying is that it's taken more seriously, treated differently, when the person is female. That obviously isn't the message you want to convey, as you've repeatedly stated here in this thread. But the language you're using does convey that, at least to people who have had the kinds of life experiences which have caused them to be hurt by those types of policies in the past.

So if you're not actually trying to convey that, then to prevent conflict, I really think it would help if you could please reword the rule to more accurately convey a non-sexist policy.

Jesuschrist, Max, It's not difficult. Just avoid calling anyone in particular a 'bitch' or a 'prick', at least when done with palpable contempt. Yes, I suposse that goes against the principle of Freedom of speech, if you insist looking at it that way. In a perfect world we could say virtually anything to anyone, anywhere; but we're not quite there yet. And that probably applies to you as well. If I were to send a barrage of insults your way, I doubt you'd take that in stride. You would lash out back at me and nothing productive would ever come from that interaction...

And that's the point. In the very post that (most likely) got you banned, you quoted one Jerry Holkins, saying that there are forms of speech that invalidates anything that you or anyone around you is trying to say. He was talking about death threats specifically, and I agree, that's SRS BSNS. But at the same time, it sort of makes sense that lesser kinds of 'transgressions' invalidates what you have to say to a lesser degree, don't you think? But the problem is, that you keep adding to it every time that you engage in petty name-calling and it builds up.

What I'm really trying to say is. If you care for rmn remaining a site where different opinions can have a place, then is in your best interest to learn to pick your battles and your arguments a bit more carefully. Every time a person on either side of the discussion flies off the handle, it only makes people on the other side be less open towards those and similar ideas. In one hand, they begin policing people's behavior more and more closely, and in the other you leave with your tail between your legs to who knows what dark corners of the internet. In the end everyone ends up in their own echo-chambers, and that's the opposite of what a pluralist society should be like.

Think about it in this way. A rift between gamers is what the SJWs want. Do you want the SJWs to win, Max?? DO YOU!!!?? xD

LockeZ, this topic is not the policy. I pointed out the exact wording of the site's policy last page, which doesn't even say the word women:

author=slash
from the Terms of Service:
"You are specifically forbidden from harassing other users"

from the Code of Conduct:
"If you disagree with users, aim your rebuttals and comments at their ideas and points, and not the people themselves. In other words, don't be a dick. Name-calling, slander/libel, and other forms of personal attacks are off limits in our community. Retaliating in kind should be kept to personal forms of communication, if done at all."

This topic is addressing a specific incident and explaining why harassment against women is against the ToS and Code of Conduct. Go read 'em! You can see that there's not any exclusionary language in there.

author=Sailerius
My point is that when the rules are specifically written in an exclusionary way, it implies that protection is only afforded to specifically enumerated groups and that anyone not mentioned isn't deemed worthy of protection. Why not instead say that degrading gendered language isn't acceptable?

^This^

Let's leave anything degrading out regardless of the person or situation. I think the rules could be simplified as such to say that anything degrading regardless of race, sex, politics, or religion will not be allowed. Make it bold font so it stands out. We don't need a multiple set of rules for different genders...

Edit:

In regards to concerns of Free Speech, I'm surprised this still comes up. Freedom of Speech generally applies to government persecution. But it still doesn't guard you from consequences, and there are still restrictions in place.

You can't shout bomb on a plane or fire in a crowded theater. Going on to social media and making terroristic threats will probably get you arrested.

Privately owned sites like RMW can still ban you for certain lines of speech, you can still be fired from your job, etc.

he was violating the "don't be a dick" rule pretty hard

Sooz, I think you would make a great History teacher.

I'm imagining Sooz's script being acted out by Punch and Judy puppets in a park somewhere.

How is criticizing a public figure (however poorly) grounds for banning based on the terms of service? If the terms of service is about protecting users from being harassed, and the first post in this thread is designed to highlight that aspect of the terms of service, then citing this rule for Max's ban is wrong. It's a miscategorization.

If Max was banned based on him being a dick and derailing a thread with constant gamer gate horseshit, that's totally understandable, and I think if you told him that in the first place then he wouldn't have posted in this thread. I know that not expressing the exact reason for his ban seems like a silly point of contention, but, to Max, he's feeling like one of his core values is against the terms of service, so it's no wonder that he's flipping his shit.