Ban Ableist Terms

[block1]

I can't tell if this entire thread is trolling or serious, I think only "Gay" should be banned since thats the only real thing that could deeply offend someone, the rest of these are just silly.

[NTXUb]

 

I can't tell if this entire thread is trolling or serious, I think only "Gay" should be banned since thats the only real thing that could deeply offend someone, the rest of these are just silly.

 

If it's possible for a homosexual to get deeply offended by 'Gay', even if it's in a completely different context with a completely different meaning that has nothing to do with actual homosexuality, then it's just as possible for a cripple to be deeply offended by 'Lame', even if it's in a completely different context with a completely different meaning that has nothing to do with actual disabilities.

 

[Sheakhan]

 

I can't tell if this entire thread is trolling or serious, I think only "Gay" should be banned since thats the only real thing that could deeply offend someone, the rest of these are just silly.

 

Are you kidding?

"nigger" doesn't offend anyone?

"idiot" doesn't?

"fuckwit"? "cunt"? "fag"? How about "retard"?

 

This is exactly what our point was in this discussion. Individuals base the rules regarding banworthy language on OPINION instead of fairness and justice. I don't find ANY words offensive, but I still believe that intentionally offensive uses of words should be worthy of banning, as it indicates undersireable character traits in an individual.

 

Just because some other words don't seem offensive to you doesn't magically mean they aren't offensive.

 

As a matter of fact, words shouldn't be cause for ban PERIOD. It should solely be based on intent. I can hurt your feelings worse without using curses than most might be able to accomplish through slurs and hate speech alone.

 

I get the feeling you read the original post, then decided to spew some input without fully understanding the discussion at hand.

 

[block1]

 

I can't tell if this entire thread is trolling or serious, I think only "Gay" should be banned since thats the only real thing that could deeply offend someone, the rest of these are just silly.

 

Are you kidding?

"nigger" doesn't offend anyone?

"idiot" doesn't?

"fuckwit"? "cunt"? "fag"? How about "retard"?

 

This is exactly what our point was in this discussion. Individuals base the rules regarding banworthy language on OPINION instead of fairness and justice. I don't find ANY words offensive, but I still believe that intentionally offensive uses of words should be worthy of banning, as it indicates undersireable character traits in an individual.

 

Just because some other words don't seem offensive to you doesn't magically mean they aren't offensive.

 

As a matter of fact, words shouldn't be cause for ban PERIOD. It should solely be based on intent. I can hurt your feelings worse without using curses than most might be able to accomplish through slurs and hate speech alone.

 

I get the feeling you read the original post, then decided to spew some input without fully understanding the discussion at hand.

 

We could go down a list of all the words that could offend someone, which is probably in the hundreds and maybe thousands. Banning somebody over saying something is silly, if someone gets that deeply offended over the internet by being called a name than if anything that person needs to grow a pair and move on! If someone is specifically targeting a certain someone and intentionally harassing them than they should be banned. If someone gets caught calling someone a "faggot" or a "nigger" than they should get a warning and thats it since those two words are usually instantly thought as offensive. So on my part I apologize for my vague statement, the only thing I have to say is that its just a word and if the OP got his way than a percentage of the dictionary would probably be banned on the server.

 

[NTXUb]

 

We could go down a list of all the words that could offend someone, which is probably in the hundreds and maybe thousands. Banning somebody over saying something is silly, if someone gets that deeply offended over the internet by being called a name than if anything that person needs to grow a pair and move on!

 

That was kind of my point.

 

[Roland410]

This thing is kinda bullshit, so I didn't want to comment, but since we are speaking about the words nigger etc., my opinion is, if it's IC, and directed at the character, then it shouldn't have OOC punishments. Just because someone choose a black skin, and I call them nigger, I shouldn't be warned, banned or anything. If it's an OOC insult, then the admins could use punishments on them. Muting, kicking, warning, and if it's really bad then banning. At least that is my opinion on this topic. And yes, there are many swearwords but if one isn't offended by it, we shouldn't make such a huge thing out of it.

[mkenner]

 

Thankyou for posting this thread. It's an interesting discussion. Ultimately I'm not sure whether it's serious or not since everything else I've seen NTXub post is trolling, but I think it is worth discussing. The only reason I hadn't responded to this earlier is that I hadn't known the thread was here since I don't read the suggestions forum very commonly myself (yes I know I should, but I rarely get involved in implementing these things so I usually leave it to the others. Outside of the ban appeals, I'm the least active admin).

 

There are too many threads for me to individually quote each person and respond, so I'll write a general response. Feel free to question me further though as I'll keep an eye on this thread. Apologies if this post is a little rambling as I'm covering responses to a lot of posts as the thoughts occur to me.

 

Honestly, I had never really considered ableist language and whether it might offend people within the game. This is partly because I haven't checked my own privilege on this issue, being healthy and well myself. It's not something I tend to consider frequently or part of my normal world-view. If that's resulted in me not showing empathy towards people on the server affected with these issues or allowing harassment to occur, then I do genuinely apologize for this. That's the result of thoughtlessness and not any deliberate desire to set people with disabilities aside from anyone else or make them feel unwelcome.

 

I have, from time to time, stepped in and taken a role in events where I've seen people take the in-game disabilities, to mock or parody these issues. Thankfully it's never needed to go past a simple request for them to stop via admin-help.

 

The other reason though that I've never taken action on this is that no one has ever reported this occurring or brought it to my attention. I would like to invite anyone who feels that our policy towards ableist terms needs to change to let us know. Feel free to contact me privately if you feel uncomfortable addressing it in public, because I would like to know how everyone feels on this issue. Conversely I have had contact from players regarding our anti-homophobic language policy who are very glad for our policy and appreciate our concern. The partial disparity between these two issues does come down, in part, to the amount it has been requested.

 

In regards to terms such as 'bad' deriving from Baedel or similar terms, although I am passionate about linguistics as a hobby, I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a study of historical linguistics. If I saw someone deliberately drawing upon that background of the word to insult someone though then I would A) be surprised and B) take action.

 

In regards to people with offensive Ckeys, it's honestly something that we haven't discussed yet as administration staff and have not yet drawn up a complete policy. It's a tricky issue because 90% of the time, a person's CKey is invisible to non-admins. However it does also show up when they're active on OOC chat. The elephant in the room of CastrateBronies' case, was admittedly a situation were a ban occurred in a grey area without any firm server policy and the appeal was decided before I got involved in the discussion. Although it's too late to do much about those events now, it's something we'll have to look into how we're handling for future cases and arrive at a consensus.

 

In my personal experience, the word crazy usually has little in common with actual DSMIV conditions and I haven't known any of my friends with mental illnesses to find it objectionable. However I am happy to reconsider if this is causing issues.

 

Regards,

M Kenner - Game Master

 

[mkenner]

 

I was under the impression that the administration's ultimate goal was to create a gaming environment that was enjoyable for their playerbase. If a rule or policy is offensive, obsolete, or negatively impacts the playerbase, a thoughtful and fair administration would acknowledge the concerns of the players and attempt to modify their policies or rules to fit their needs without compromising the environment at large.

 

That's mostly correct. Our goals include the server being enjoyable for our playerbase, however it must do so while fitting within the standards that we have decided upon as part of our offering. For example even if 90% of our players wanted this server to become an Ultima Online shard instead of a SS13 byond server, we wouldn't do it because we built this server to play SS13. We might consider such a suggestion, but we won't do it simply out of a democratic process.

 

Neca and I built this server to provide the kind of environment that we wanted. Before the server was donated to us, I paid for it myself out of my own bank-account. This server isn't democratic or public property. However we value immensely the time people have taken in building this community, the bonds they have formed to it and one another, the enjoyment that comes from interaction with the other players and the value that comes from listening to people's suggestions. I hope that we never take our playerbase for granted, nor close our ears to their suggestions and discussions.

 

Two way communication is the healthiest practice a server staff can engage in, as it strengthens both the bonds between player and staff, but also provides an open avenue for bettering the server at large.

 

I agree 100% with this.

 

How you feel does not and should not have any effect on how you interpret or uphold the rules. This is, and has always been my opinion. Every time I see this being done, it offends me more than any sort of slur or insult could, as it implies that my favorite SS13 server is administrated by men and women who are less mature and psychologically stable than myself... Which implies that I am at the whim of individuals whom I cannot trust implicitly to behave rationally or justly in a given situation... Which further implies that I, or someone I enjoy playing with is at constant risk of being banned without actual valid cause.

 

I do agree that our rules need to be shown in advance and then enforced fairly, without personal favour or emotion influencing these decisions. For the most part I think this is something that we succeed at, although I will admit that there have been times when I have seen us fall a little short of this standard. I can't promise that we will always behave as paragons on virtue, rationality and justice. We're all human here, we all make mistakes and ultimately we're all just volunteers.

 

What I can guarantee is that we do care about this and do want to do the best that we can. We are looking into ways of ensuring that these mistakes occur less frequently or ideally can be stopped completely.

 

[Redtape]

[tumblr intensifies]

[mkenner]

 

[tumblr intensifies]

 

There are times when I'm so grateful for know your meme.

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/intensifies

 

Otherwise I don't think I'd understand half of what the "kids these days" are talking about.

 

[Sheakhan]

 

In regards to terms such as 'bad' deriving from Baedel or similar terms, although I am passionate about linguistics as a hobby, I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a study of historical linguistics. If I saw someone deliberately drawing upon that background of the word to insult someone though then I would A) be surprised and B) take action.

 

While I agree for the near entirety of your statements, this one I find a bit troubling, as it is the actual core of this issue.

As you stated (and thank you for doing so), your policies do not reflect maliciousness or entitlement/exclusion, and merely a lack of experience with certain groups and their sensitivities. However this particular statement inclines me to believe you may have missed our ultimate point. Allow me to offer a few minor alterations that present your statement as it might appear from another point of view.

 

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a study of historical linguistics." -the original

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without an alternative sexual preference."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a different country of origin."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a skin tone different than the offender."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a crippling mental disability."

 

The real point behind this isn't that current policies haven't been effective in protecting specific players but rather that it has been much more effective in establishing a policy of banning for the mere possibility of offense, and specifically focusing on those statements which are found offensive to the admin staff.

This is largely due to complaints reflecting certain words as negative, but it is also (insofar as I have seen) due to the prejudices and biases of the administration themselves, and a HUGE metagaming culture even amongst the admins and mods.

 

To sum it up, here are my concerns and the true underlying issues I have, and what I, ultimately, think needs to be addressed as succinctly as possible:

 

1. Metagaming. I strongly believe that, so long as the action is not itself driven by metagaming, IC actions should not be bannable for being offensive with very few exceptions. If I wish to play a racist/sexist/homophobic character, it should be perfectly acceptable so long as that attitude never carries over to OOC.

 

2. Fairness and Victim Bias. These issues need to be addressed and eliminated. I play an AI who consistently offends EVERYONE deliberately. He is sexist, ableist, and any other sort of offensive prejudice I can get away with that won't result in a ban. This character receives complaints for calling players assholes, retards, fuckwits, and the like, but I have never received a ban, nor more than a warning (which was quickly disregarded). THIS IS NOT FAIR. If it were a matter of people getting bans for ANY offensive language that was complained about as you suggest, I'd be loitering in the ban appeals right now. So I am inclined to believe this policy based on whims alone, and not any sort of integrity.

 

3. Principle. There cannot be middle ground when determining which groups are worth protecting or not. You cannot reasonably assume to account for the variations in player complaints regarding insulting statements or slurs as you are not omniscient. A policy needs to be established that does not exclude those currently excluded, but at the same time including everyone would also present an issue. The simplest solution is to simply not make judgement calls as administrative staff, and only respond to those offensive statements that are reported by players. If you operate by banning those who offend you, you send a message that players needs come second, as some players very well might not feel comfortable reporting their issues, and you certainly didn't report anything yourself. This also would alleviate the growing trend of players being banned for saying something in jest that the administration found offensive and took upon themselves to punish/respond to.

 

...that wasn't succinct at all. Lets try this:

 

tl;dr: IC insults shouldn't merit OOC punishment. Either all groups should be protected (regardless of importance) or only the groups who complain should be protected, to establish a degree of fairness not currently present. Admins/Mods should not be allowed to interpret the rules for their own benefit lest they compromise their integrity.

 

[necaladun]

 

A few things to clarify -

 

I do not think all groups need to be protected, or deserve protection.

 

If a Nazi is offended we allow Jews to play, that doesn't matter. If a homophobe is offended that we allow gays to play, I don't care.

 

These rules are not about preventing offense.

 

They're about creating an environment I wish to play in. I don't want to play on one where faggot is routinely used as an insult.

 

This is bias, and I won't pretend otherwise. The rules reflect my bias in many ways, from my bias against excessive violence, to my

 

As for banning -

 

When terms like faggot are used, a warning is usually given to the player. Sometimes we get "fuck u faget" in return, which results in a ban. Mostly, we get an apology and nothing further happens. Some people disagree with us, and a ban only results if they do not agree to follow the rules. They can disagree on the policy - as people are doing here - which is fine, as long as they follow it in game.

 

[mkenner]

 

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a study of historical linguistics." -the original

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without an alternative sexual preference."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a different country of origin."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a skin tone different than the offender."

"I don't think it's worth enforcing laws regarding terms that aren't offensive to anyone without a crippling mental disability."

 

My phrasing was poorly chosen, if something was genuinely offensive to anyone with a study of historical linguistics then that would be worth enforcing. (Hard to imagine what that would be but perhaps an OOC chat comment of "anyone who spends their time studying historical linguistic patterns is a complete moron" would qualify). What I was attempting to communicate is that terms that were historically offensive and now unknown are matters of academic interest and not genuinely offensive. The lens of academia tends to rob things of their sting. If you read it in context the very next sentence was that if someone managed to make it offensive that it would be actionable.

 

For example the phrase "Good Samaritan" in its original meaning two thousand years ago would be offensive to modern sensibilities being a racist backhanded compliment. However a millenia or so of idiomatic expression has robbed it of that meaning and is now perceived purely as someone helping a person in need. However anyone insulting the modern Samerim population living in Israel (not that I consider that likely) would attract action.

 

1. Metagaming. I strongly believe that, so long as the action is not itself driven by metagaming, IC actions should not be bannable for being offensive with very few exceptions. If I wish to play a racist/sexist/homophobic character, it should be perfectly acceptable so long as that attitude never carries over to OOC.

 

Your desire to play a character so strongly prejudiced that it's discovered within a two hour time period, conflicts with the in universe assumption that you have remained employed in an equal-opportunity employer like Nanotrasen for the years of training required to be dispatched to an important plasma research facility without being fired. This prioritizing of your out of game preference for character type over in-universe reality is a form of metagaming and bad roleplaying. It is analogous to playing as a 5th century mongol raider, something which by all in-universe logic should not be found on the NSS Cyberiad.

 

While our method of dealing with this is metagame, this is based on the "theory of the second best". This principle, described by the economists Richard Lipsey and Kelvin Lancaster, explains how in a situation where there is an enduring sub-optimal conditional the most effective solution often also violates the same ideal criteria. Like many economic models, this can be generalized to other fields through game-theory (at least in my opinion).

 

Handling this through IC methods, will purely result in the player creating a different character the next shift to do the same thing. This would not resolve the situation and is not a practical workable solution. Handling it through OOC methods, does however result in creating a more realistic corporate environment IC.

 

2. Fairness and Victim Bias. These issues need to be addressed and eliminated. I play an AI who consistently offends EVERYONE deliberately. He is sexist, ableist, and any other sort of offensive prejudice I can get away with that won't result in a ban. This character receives complaints for calling players assholes, retards, fuckwits, and the like, but I have never received a ban, nor more than a warning (which was quickly disregarded).

 

I can't speak for other admins here, since I've never been online while you've played this AI character you're describing. However I would recommend that you not play this character in future as based on your description above it violates our server rules. Alternatively find a way to play this character concept without drawing upon prejudicial or insulting language. I draw your attention to the following rule.

 

1. Maintain a friendly and welcoming environment:

 

Hate speech, bigoted language, discrimination or harassment will not be tolerated at all and may at admins discretion be considered grounds for immediate banning.

OOC Profanity should be kept to a minimum and must be stopped if directed to do so by a member of staff, or if it appears that it is upsetting other players.

Some people are going to be new to the game. If you teach them and make them feel welcome, then you’ll still have other people to game with down the line.

Terms like faggot, nigger, and the variations on them, are neither acceptable IC or OOC.

This does not apply to discrimination against non-existent species. Discrimination against non-existent species (or humans as a whole) is an IC matter.

 

THIS IS NOT FAIR. If it were a matter of people getting bans for ANY offensive language that was complained about as you suggest, I'd be loitering in the ban appeals right now. So I am inclined to believe this policy based on whims alone, and not any sort of integrity.

 

I'm sorry that the rules were unevenly enforced in the cases that you describe. We'll attempt to keep a closer eye on this in future.

 

The simplest solution is to simply not make judgement calls as administrative staff, and only respond to those offensive statements that are reported by players.

 

Our administration staff are players of the game. If you're offending our staff then that's a statement reported by a player.

 

as some players very well might not feel comfortable reporting their issues

 

This appears to contradict your earlier argument. Players being uncomfortable reporting their issues is a reason the administration staff need to act without player reports.

 

This also would alleviate the growing trend of players being banned for saying something in jest that the administration found offensive and took upon themselves to punish/respond to.

 

Precisely because administration staff are not omniscient (as you pointed out earlier), we are often forced to ban all usage of this language regardless of intent to prevent this being an unjust case of selective enforcement based on admin perception.

 

IC insults shouldn't merit OOC punishment.

 

I disagree with this argument for the reasons I've gone into above.

 

Either all groups should be protected (regardless of importance) or only the groups who complain should be protected, to establish a degree of fairness not currently present.

 

It's a sad truth of the world that any attempt to provide law requires a balance between Justice and Praxis (the legal concept of what can practically be done).

 

While all use of prejudicial language is banned by our rules (as I've quoted above), our administration staff perceive the game in a way no player realizes. When Aghosting, the text-box on a server of 50-60 players displays all conversation and emotes. This is something you can see when observing and it's already a chaotic mess. Combine in the attack logs, administration messages, discussion about the round on Msay and Asay (admin/mod OOC chat), viewing all of deadchat and adminhelps it becomes even worse. The entire chat window fills up and scrolls within 1-2 seconds. For approximately half of our administration staff english is a second language.

 

Expecting us to be able to speed-read every line of conversation and to perceive every possible use of prejudicial language is unrealistic. Particularly while we're busy responding to adminhelps, watching action occurring in the game-window or potentially leaving the screen minimized while working on mapping/code updates and waiting for adminhelp burps.

 

As such we can only act on things we notice ourself (which are usually issues we're biased towards because the emotional reaction draws the attention of our conscious mind more quickly) or things which are reported to us.

 

Regards,

M Kenner

 

[Sheakhan]

I'll have a more thorough response to follow, but at the moment my largest concern having read your post is this: Is there a way to segment the information fed through chat so that not all admins/mods are being bombarded with all of the information at once? Perhaps sending attack logs to one mod, chat in one area to another, another area being sent to another, so that instead of all admins having to wade through everything, each one has a section to moderate independently? This seems like it would make your jobs infinitely easier, and reduce the occurance of heat-of-the-moment bans.

[necaladun]

 

Not easily by far. And if we could, they'd have to differ as to who is online at the time.

 

But being on invisible and not having huge amounts of players is making it much easier, and multiple rounds are going by without a single ban or even PM to tell people to knock it off.

 

If there's any heat of the moment bans you think are wrong, I'd especially like to know, PM me about them please. I'll investigate them and it'll be taken confidentially if you wish.

 

[Snake2512]

 

I find it interesting how heavily someone's feelings affect the rules, though I suppose paradise can employ this due to their large size.

 

All I can say is free speech always has hate speech and I suppose the admins of paradise just have to figure out which means more to their playerbase. I find it difficult to gauge the general opinion of large playerbases, so no matter what they decide on someone will be offended.

 

So it then essentially boils down to what makes the most sense for the server.

 

[Jazzenstein]

 

TL;DR: Taoism intensifies.

 

In life, everything is a choice, even if it's a choice you don't like. Taking offense is a choice. Using words to incite offense is also a choice. I've made these choices several times in my life, I'm ashamed to admit. Ultimately, though, words are imperfect things that we've created to try and place names on concepts that don't have names. To create distinctions. They can't be named, in truth, because everything is the same.

 

Words are like a hammer. To the universe at large, it's just minerals and materials given a certain shape. Words, respectively, are just letters combined to make a sound. You can use a hammer to drive a nail or to pry it out. You can also use a hammer to break your own fingers, or to break your neighbor's fingers.

 

When someone tries to hurt another with words, it's a bad thing--not because the words have any meaning, but because the aggressor knows his victim will take meaning from them and decides to do it anyway. It's hard not to take offense, but again, taking offense is a choice. But that's just my personal philosophy. Let me get to the crux of the matter.

 

Punishment should be based on intent. You can't pick and choose what's offensive and what isn't. Where does it end? Really, where does it end?Someone in the very beginning of this post made a very effective satire of the OP. You can construe anything to be offensive. People have, too. When I was young, my neighbors wouldn't allow their children to watch the Pokemon cartoon, because to them, it was sacrilegious.

 

That leaves you with two equally unsavory options: ban any word which might possibly ever in any way be considered offensive, or allow every word.

 

The first of those creates a stilted environment in which people are so worried about what might possibly offend someone that it takes them two or three times as long to communicate. If you want to create a comfortable environment, that's not the way to do it, because it's only a matter of time before one of the people you're trying to protect misspeaks and offends another group you're trying to offend. And that doesn't even begin to speak of what it would do for people who thrive on crucifying others for verbal blunders.

 

The second option opens the flood gates to all manner of people who act and speak without thinking. As a man who prefers the company of other men, I choose not to be offended by people who use the word 'faggot' for anything that's unsavory to them. I also know that people who do so in my presence tend to be the same sort of people who get caught as an Assistant breaking into EVA; people who don't think before they do something. In short, the second option would turn this place into /tg/station.

 

The only reasonable option is to consider intent. A hammer is not a weapon unless you make it into one.

 

[mkenner]

 

I find it a little hard to understand the general level of doom and gloom statements I've seen on this thread. These are the same rules we've enforced since the first day of Paradise station. Back when we founded this server, Kodos, Neca, Fox, Diabl0 and Myself all came from being admins on Abby Riley's best RP server where we followed the same standard, albeit with a less formal code of conduct.

 

Throughout this time the servers we've run have been consistently at the top of the list. I find it hard to believe that the playerbase who have consistently come back to Paradise as their primary server, even continuing to log in directly when the server is removed from public listing, are doing so despite a constant fear and paranoia about being banned.

 

Of those people who have used derogatory language on our server, they have received a simple PM from the admin saying the following:

"racist (or homophobic or whatever) language is not permitted on this server". The vast majority then acknowledge the message and carry on about their business, with the issue never coming up again.

 

We only ban those who ignore this contact or actively reject our server rules. Once a ban occurs sometimes people decide this server isn't for them and never come back, which is their free choice to do. Others post an unban appeal on our forum, where somewhere between 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the appeals are approved and that person is reinstated.

 

I've had Russian players who barely speak English as a second language, who have avoided all use of derogatory terms after a single message. I haven't seen this form of self-censorship inhibit people's ability to communicate on this server or significantly slow their responses.

 

We do understand that some people's speech patterns tend strongly to the vernacular. One of our players explained to us that they were used to using derogatory language within their home due to their family background, in this person's case we asked them to do their best with self-censorship and they managed it with only needing the occasional reminder every few weeks. They were never banned, just reminded when they slipped up and it wasn't long before we stopped needing to do this.

 

Since this thread brought it to my attention, I have more carefully watched for ableist language on the server. This too has been responded to well by our population here, who have for the most part avoided using this sort of language after it was brought to their attention. We've had one ban for ableist language which you'll see in our appeals thread has been successfully appealed and that person has come back with a less offensive ckey.

 

I certainly hope that no one is playing this game in a constant state of fear and apprehension, because that really doesn't sound like much fun. However I have confidence in the people who play here that they can moderate themselves and deal with others politely. Confidence that is constantly rewarded by people demonstrating exactly this sort of self-control. For anyone who is playing this game afraid of being banned, take a look through the track history I have covered above and see for yourself.

 

Regards,

M Kenner.