Amata

Add "Politics" to the Content Rules

Recommended Posts

Preface- this isn't a suggested "game feature" so if this topic needs to be moved somewhere more appropriate, that's cool. I simply couldn't figure out a more appropriate place to present this idea. 

 

Problem:

I recently discovered, to much surprise, that I mistakenly believed that "politics" had been listed in the game rules (chat & forum rules, specifically) - along with other similar concepts, as a discussion topic to avoid. I was even told at one point by a long-time player that maybe 'politics' used to be listed, but was removed more than a handful of years ago. 

 

Right now, if someone is using a public chat channel or forum post to espouse political views, and the discussion is troubling or upsetting to you, as a player you actually have very little you can do. The only sure-fire way to remove yourself from exposure to the bad situation is to log off and quit playing the game. Not a good solution for players or for Wurm, in general. 

 

Other, current, options that may or may not produce any results include
• rely on goodwill to motivate the discussion to move to a private option, upon request....
• flip to a different chat tab & spend a portion of your game time constantly checking to see "if it's over yet" and you can return to public chatting with Local or Kingdom, etc. ...
• appeal to a chat mod to assist by successfully making a case for Trolling, Harassment, or maaaaybe the "Play Nice" rule....
• /ignore otherwise good neighbors you normally like to interact with, further fracturing the Wurm community.

 

As it stands the enumerated taboo list in the "Content" section of both Chat and Forum rules includes the following: 
 

Quote

C ) You may not discuss, post items or links on religion, pornography, illegal drugs or the abuse of such drugs, game exploits, macros, or disallowed game practices as per the game rules.

 

Why is something of a political nature not already part of this list??

 

What is the Unholy Triumverate of Dinner Tables? The Dark Lords of Family Gatherings? The Taboo Trio devastating otherwise civil interactions all over the world?? 
(shout it out with me; I know y'all know this) ... Politics, Religion, and Sex!!!!! 

Why are two of the three listed in our ruleset,. but not the third?

 

 

Solution:

Let's cut to the chase:

Add something in the Content section of the Game / Chat / Forum rules to address discussions centered on (1) current, sensitive social issues, and (2) topics of a sociopolitical nature. 

 

I think this will help keep in-game and forum chat focused on topics and ideas that can be connected to Wurm in some actual way (Woodscraps, exempted). It will give chat mods and forum mods a break to focus on actual issues. And, let's face it, the vast majority of us already avoid this sort of topics because - as one moderator has recently told me - "it inevitably degenerates into trolling, shouting and general ill-feeling."

 

 

What About The Wurmians Who Want to talk Politics, and Aren't Actually Being Mean, Just Entertaining - 

(1) how are you absolutely certain that the conversation in the public channel is not currently disturbing any number of other Wurmians who simply don't want to engage / ask you to stop (because it inevitably degenerates into trolling, shouting and general ill-feeling)? Or are new, and don't know how to handle the situation? 

(2) it is incumbent on all of us to Play Nice and to Be Kind - not for others to have to repeatedly ask one or two players to be considerate. 

(3) You can hold sociopolitical conversations that don't inevitably degenerates into trolling, shouting and general ill-feeling... great! Gather up those who want to participate and host that discourse in private chat. Go to PMs, form a "We Think Amata is Super Annoying" alliance, meet up at a tavern or great hall in-game and have the conversation in Team chat, or give your friends links to a forum post somewhere on a forum where sociopolitical discourse is relevant

 

 

I am sure all of us, myself included, would really like this to be put to rest & get back to playing the game in a healthy, enjoyable, non-toxic environment. 

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. 

Here is your Potato. 🥔

Edited by Amata
typos and stuff
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics did used to be against the rules "You may not discuss topics which are likely to cause conflict. These include but are not limited to politics, religion, race, gender or sexual orientation."

 

dunno how long ago that was removed, probably close to a decade.

my personal opinion is that chat is over-moderated as it is but politic talk is usually very misinformed for lack of a better term so i probably wouldn't really care if it was banned again

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oblivionnreaver said:

my personal opinion is that chat is over-moderated

 

It is a cruel irony of the highest order that when you've got something good going on, you naturally want it to be bigger and better and have a ton of others to play with... but the bigger a group of people gets, the more layers and layers of rules start getting added. 

Anthropologists, Sociologists, Anarchists, and Libertarians have been trying for decades centuries to find a way to free us from the miserable chains of social compact

*shakes fist at Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke*

Edited by Amata
did I say decades? I meant "since the dawn of humanity"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

personally i think anyone who’s seriously aberse to politics should just /ignore people talking ablut politics or just kindly ask others not to and hope for the best

 

you know, similar to how it works for people who really dislike someone and can’t handle taking to them

 

the ability to talk about politics and religion and whatnot is more of a display of personal maturity than it is anything else half the time

 

 

whether a conversation is uncomfortable to anyone else really isn’t my problem, especially when they can choose to not partake

Edited by RainRain
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Amata, RL politics should never intrude on the Wurm experience. It is one of the reasons I chose to leave my large alliance and go be a hermit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would give this a "conditional +1" at the very least, based on two premises:

 

1) As Amata notes, the inclusion of religion on the no-fly-list seems to suggest that the point is to avoid topics that have the potential to get extremely ugly due to strong feelings and disagreements, and politics in our current era absolutely seems to apply if we're basing the decisions on that principle. I honestly don't see a good argument for making religion, but not politics, off-limits.

 

2) My understanding is that, generally speaking, "chat moderation" is confined to the public server-wide channels; so long as no one reports harassment or bullying, people are permitted to discuss whatever they like in their local or private channels. If people really want to discuss politics so badly, they can arrange for it in-game or out-of-game; no one is arguing for an active clamp-down on every single conversation, just putting restraints on the channels that everyone on one or more servers across the game can see. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me when we're talking about places where 12-year-olds might be reading what's said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a channel "Whatever" or "Flames" or "IRL BS" and forbid discussing controversial topics anywhere else.

 

I am afraid no politics etc. will be a dead rule, we don't see people muted for saying "Jesus Christ" despite no religion, or discussing some returning seasonal topics...like I don't know "the importance of Christmas". 

 

I understand the need to maintain peace and I also bickered about being tired of IRL stuff, but I don't like censorship and Index Topicum Prohibitorum. :D 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all y'all for responses so far.... In truth, I put this "suggestion" out there because - more than I want "politics" banned - I really want to "talk about talking about politics" ... If you see what I'm saying. I want to know where everyone stands, what people think, and what sort of conditionals would safeguard the most amount of people for the most amount of play time. 

 

@KharnovKrow - yeah, that's kinda about where my head was going. Generally, if conversation is going smoothly in the public channels, seems like topics can come and go without much fuss. I have no problem with that. @Platyna- actually, Yes, Exactly. I would like to have "politics" banned just as much as "religion" is banned. I think Wurmians should be allowed to wish each other a Happy Halloween (my religion, btw), and a Merry Christmas, and Eid, and Rosh Hashanah, and any number of other positive community interactions. I think politics and religion (and sex, for that matter) should be open for mature, intellectual, curious, and supportive discussions. I think that when something political in nature causes enough distress to warrant asking for a moderator, that - like religion - that distress should be taken seriously & the discussion retired.... I spent the evening brainstorming the different chat & forum experiences I've had since joining Wurm, and the ways in which I would categorize them. Here's some of what I thought about; 

 

The Good Scenario
When contention arises I've seen plenty of Wurm topics have someone say, "oh hey, um, that was kinda mean spirited for reason X"  and the ready response is, "oh, sorry about that, moving on..." That's the "Good Scenario" (or the scenario that @RainRaindiscussed above, I believe). Nobody, and certainly not me, is suggesting that there's anything that needs to be "fixed" or changed about this sort of Wurmian interaction. But what is it like when the "Good Scenario" does not progress with mutual accord?

 

In the Land of the Equal, Who Has the Right-of-Way? 
Players might be discussing something political in nature, and when asked by another in the channel to change topic, essentially "outvote" the request and carry on. Many people including moderators will say to use /ignore to remove the conversation from sight. That's absolutely one possible solution; another equally quick and easy solution is for the uncomfortable conversation to move to PM, or some other private channel (like alliance or team chat). Since all players have equal right to access the public chat channels while playing the game, I am uncertain why it seems that "/ignore" is frequently the solution given preference. That is something I would like for Wurmians to think about a little more. 

 

Unfortunately, there is also a "Other Scenario" that plays out - and this is the scenario that I think needs the most amount of consideration. 
 

The Other Scenario

So far everyone who has responded to this suggestion post have framed their responses on the assumption that there is a discussion about something political going on. Rainrain spoke about discourse as a sign of maturity, as well as the appropriate adult response to an uncomfortable conversation. KharnovKrow brought up discussion in private channels and conversations in public chat. And Platyna considered discussions in relation to censorship.

 

But, especially with current sociopolitical context, sometimes we see on public chat something that is not exactly a discussion, but is also not exactly against the rules. The "Other Scenario" is when one or more people use a public chat channel to make political comments akin to pronouncements, and then wait for reactions to fly. How many of these sorts of comments does it take before it might be trolling? If the comments are made in a general sense and not directed at any specific player, could it still be considered harassment? Using the public chat in this way might not exactly be trolling, or harassment, or spam - and the topic of the running comments is not strictly against the rules - but to me it seems clear that the actions are in bad faith and are not meant to engage the Wurm community in honest discussion

 

This scenario puts everyone into an ambiguous situation. If a Wurmian finds the comments distressing or uncomfortable - do you call a mod for harassment? For trolling? For the "Play Nice" rule? What happens when one player says they have been perfectly civil, while another player says they have been spoken to disrespectfully? Trolling is defined in the rules as "Inflammatory or off-topic messages intended to provoke other members into a desired emotional response or to otherwise disrupt chat"... does that mean that we expect our moderators to be able to judge intent at a moment's notice? What is the definition of "disruptive" - if one player has become uncomfortable enough to call for a moderator, does that automatically qualify as "disrupting" a player's experience of public chat? 

 

Additional instructions for "trolling" honestly make the scenario even more murky - "You may not post with the sole intent of upsetting other players or staff, or to cause unrest." If another player is upset, but the comment was not meant to upset that player specifically - only to be provocative in a general way - is that somehow more acceptable? If a chat comment is knowingly made with the intent of taking a stance on a controversial or sensitive issue, and the IRL political context is already causing unrest - and the comment in chat escalates that sense of unrest instead of diffusing the situation, does that mean the comment could not have honestly been intended for anything other than feeding the known situation of political unrest? 

 

And what about harassment?

Quote

Harassment
Definition: Systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions, including threats and demands.

A ) You may not harass (sexually or otherwise), verbally abuse, threaten, berate, flame, or cause unwanted distress to anyone.

 

Take everything that was already unclear because maybe this is an issue of trolling - and throw it out the window, because maybe it's actually causing "unwanted distress." TO ANYONE. Does that actually mean that any, single, one player can demonstrate distress at a conversation in a public channel that is continued after requests to change the topic? Do we expect our moderators to be able to correctly identify all the myriad forms of verbal abuse that exist? Who determines what is felt as being berated? If a player feels they have been berated and/or distressed, can a moderator honestly say that they haven't been? Even if unintentional? And if a moderator knows how to make the good intentions of an experience undo the distressing impact of the experience, I have hundreds of dollars spent on medicine and therapy that I would like to give to that mod. 

 


Personally, I would love to have no topic off limits, no subject matter that can't be discussed amongst friends. My primary studies focused on world religions and, ohhh boy, I have had to come to terms with the bitter knowledge that my idea of a lovely chit-chat will probably never be a conversation topic open for exploration in social internet spaces. 

 

There is no reason why a discussion in public chat channels cannot be about politics IF the participants are acting in good faith, AND honestly want to engage in talking with each other. In fact, I had a conversation like this on my island's Freedom chat just the other day, and it was downright lovely. And I will tell that happily to anyone who asks - I had such a good time with my fellow Wurmians that I very nearly printed out the chat log to frame. /geek 

 

But.... sadly, not all times that politics comes up in public chat go like that.

And when it comes down to it, I don't agree with Rainrain that the only response we can give to each other is, "just hope for the best." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - Hi, I'm Amata. I drink tea, and talk too much. That's just what I do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not actually seen politics on global for years, though it has been on alliance before.

 

It may be more of a "new cluster" issue, but I see no reason for censorship.

 

If you hear an opinion you dislike, don't engage and move on.  If you know someone will just spout drivel why bother with them?  It's not "fracturing the community" it's more "choosing who you engage with".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

define "politics"

 

You are free not to talk or read about things you don't like, leave other people option to talk and read about things they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bigger problem is the lack of a set standard.

 

What one Chat Mod thinks is fine another thinks is against the rules, this leads to confusing people all the time and can at times come across that some people are allowed to get away with subjects others aren't.

 

 

I have no answer for this as we are human and the world would be such a boring place if we all agreed all the time, but this is a game and some people play wurm to get away from the stresses of real life and I can understand why people may want some subjects  banned in chat.

 

We also have to take into account children may play the game and wouldn't want to see the more heated debates, without checking what is the age rating on the game 13+ maybe?

 

So to be safe than sorry ( even though I like a good debate also ) I think it best to just blanket ban these subjects and keep the public channels free of the drama, plenty forums and places to have these adults debates outside of a game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a phrase going around that everything has become politics. If that is true, and I'm not too deep into philosophy to argue for or against, than avoiding politics is impossible without banning any speech.

 

Also I remember them publishing a post about being pro-Black Lives Matter. That is a political statement, although they admitted hesitantly given. After all, saying you are for all lives is deemed unacceptable in the current political environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, this could lead to a more gray area you start banning one topic then it will most likely daisy chain to other subjects because others will try to add more topics and if one gets denied then they can just openly compare to why was politics banned and not my suggestion

 

Censorship is never fun even if its for the greater good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jollibee said:

Hmm, this could lead to a more gray area you start banning one topic then it will most likely daisy chain to other subjects because others will try to add more topics and if one gets denied then they can just openly compare to why was politics banned and not my suggestion

 

Censorship is never fun even if its for the greater good.

Maybe not, but sometimes it's necessary and essential. Would you really appreciate someone coming to a motorcycle forum and talking about their knitting or Pokemon battle accomplishments?

 

Every platform has the right to decide what they do or don't allow on their platforms. Pornography, in particular, is often blanket banned from forums, even textual descriptions of pornographic activity. This is a form of censorship that is not only allowed, but actively encouraged by the majority of the posters. It's not the right time or place to discuss it, even if it's completely legal. Extend that to other things that have a high level of conflict - politics, especially. Is it a net positive or net negative to the platform? If it's a net negative, ask people to take it elsewhere.

 

While some people do come to Wurm to vent about real life, some come to Wurm to give an escape from the real world for a few hours. The latest things done by the US Congress, or Boris Johnson's latest antics, or whether two countries are about to go to war with each other; none of these things are even remotely relevant to Wurm Online chat, even if people do feel strongly about them. And perhaps because feel strongly about them. 

 

And with all that said, I'm not actually in favor of banning political chat. I'd rather take the softer approach, and ask people to refrain personally and voluntarily. Have consideration for the fellow players who don't want to have to deal with it, and don't bring it up. Vent your political frustrations in a more appropriate discussion format. I've already got a Wurmian who I liked who soured my opinion of him with some rather... misogynist usage of words. I'd rather stay ignorant of others' political views, and keep them as friends. Or at least good acquaintances. 

Edited by Nekojin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nekojin said:

While some people do come to Wurm to vent about real life, some come to Wurm to give an escape from the real world for a few hours. The latest things done by the US Congress, or Boris Johnson's latest antics, or whether two countries are about to go to war with each other; none of these things are even remotely relevant to Wurm Online chat, even if people do feel strongly about them. And perhaps because feel strongly about them. 

 

This I agree with. And if politics is ok, then why not religion or any other subject that could potentially cause dissension and intense feelings in some people? And especially at a time when passions are running high, like in today's political climate, I feel it has no place in a "game" that I'd wager most play to escape from the intensity for a while and try to relax.  Methinks that's why politics and religion are usually lumped together when certain topics are excluded from "approved" topics on forums, because they both evoke intense feelings in some people and can lead to some pretty brutal verbal confrontations.  Yet for some reason Wurm decided at some point to remove politics from the rule but not religion?  I didn't know that. I thought it was still not allowed. I really have to wonder why. Sounds stupid to me. If people want to argue politics or spout their ideologies, Twitter and Facebook are that way ------->

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Amadee said:

 

This I agree with. And if politics is ok, then why not religion or any other subject that could potentially cause dissension and intense feelings in some people? And especially at a time when passions are running high, like in today's political climate, I feel it has no place in a "game" that I'd wager most play to escape from the intensity for a while and try to relax.  Methinks that's why politics and religion are usually lumped together when certain topics are excluded from "approved" topics on forums, because they both evoke intense feelings in some people and can lead to some pretty brutal verbal confrontations.  Yet for some reason Wurm decided at some point to remove politics from the rule but not religion?  I didn't know that. I thought it was still not allowed. I really have to wonder why. Sounds stupid to me. If people want to argue politics or spout their ideologies, Twitter and Facebook are that way ------->

 

If you can't control your feelings then you shouldn't talk about serious topics. I don't understand why people who do not control their behavior should set the standard for what to talk about and what not to talk about?
If you feel bad about someone else's arguments, it's time to change your views, not to silence your interlocutor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darnok said:

 

If you can't control your feelings then you shouldn't talk about serious topics. I don't understand why people who do not control their behavior should set the standard for what to talk about and what not to talk about?
If you feel bad about someone else's arguments, it's time to change your views, not to silence your interlocutor.

 

You can try to be all smug if you like and tell others what they should do, while at the same time saying they shouldn't try to control your behavior. But the fact is there are people who will not control their feelings, and politics at this point in time is completely unhinged, so the conflicts will happen regardless of your high-hat comment that it "shouldn't" and how people "should" react to it.  But if you're one of those who just loves the madness, then I guess you'd be quite happy with turning the in-game chat into a battle ground. It makes others very uncomfortable and if the game ceases to be an escape for them, they'll likely find another game that is.  It is what it is and people will be people.

 

And I will repeat the question, if politics is ok, then why not religion, or drugs, or porn, or any other controversial subject that can be offensive to some, or make some people uncomfortable?  One is ok and the others are not?  Pick and choose what's allowed to be argued about but still allow dissension and hard feelings?  Why is that I wonder?  I believe that none of it has any place in a game people play for escape from all that crap.  Oh, and I'm certainly not going to take your "advice" and change my views to accommodate your love of conflict. LOL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Amadee said:

 

You can try to be all smug if you like and tell others what they should do, while at the same time saying they shouldn't try to control your behavior. But the fact is there are people who will not control their feelings, and politics at this point in time is completely unhinged, so the conflicts will happen regardless of your high-hat comment that it "shouldn't" and how people "should" react to it.  But if you're one of those who just loves the madness, then I guess you'd be quite happy with turning the in-game chat into a battle ground. It makes others very uncomfortable and if the game ceases to be an escape for them, they'll likely find another game that is.  It is what it is and people will be people.

 

And I will repeat the question, if politics is ok, then why not religion, or drugs, or porn, or any other controversial subject that can be offensive to some, or make some people uncomfortable?  One is ok and the others are not?  Pick and choose what's allowed to be argued about but still allow dissension and hard feelings?  Why is that I wonder?  I believe that none of it has any place in a game people play for escape from all that crap.  Oh, and I'm certainly not going to take your "advice" and change my views to accommodate your love of conflict. LOL 

 

This is their problem, not mine. If censorship needs to be turned on at any time when someone comes out who doesn't control their emotions, then any topic will be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they evidently are all banned, except for politics, which gets back to my question of why.  But you seem to feel that's ok.  LOL.   Whatever, I'm not going to go tit for tat with you since you do seem to be one of those always looking for a fight.   I gave my opinion and you gave yours.  Mission accomplished. If you want an argument, choose someone else to quote.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amadee said:

And they evidently are all banned, except for politics, which gets back to my question of why.  But you seem to feel that's ok.  LOL.   Whatever, I'm not going to go tit for tat with you since you do seem to be one of those always looking for a fight.   I gave my opinion and you gave yours.  Mission accomplished. If you want an argument, choose someone else to quote.  :)

 

Why ban anyone? Just ignore them. Anyone should be free to talk about any topic. If you don't like it ignore topic and person.

Edited by Darnok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support banning it if I can continue to talk ###### about the wicked witch of Britain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2020 at 4:21 AM, Etherdrifter said:

 

It may be more of a "new cluster" issue, but I see no reason for censorship.

 

When it comes down to it, honestly... I don't support censorship either. 

 

My overall sense of Wurm chat & forum rules is one of "don't be dicks to each other, and we'll all get along well enough." And I feel that the enumerated list of "banned" topics is somewhat pro forma. My suggestion entertains the enumerated list, namely religion, sex, drugs, and metagame no-nos... And to this I say, that list is missing "politics." 

 

IF you are going to have a pro forma enumerated list of traditionally "touchy subjects" - THEN politics should be included on that list. It is, and has been, one of the globally recognized "touchy subjects." 

 

On 10/27/2020 at 4:21 AM, Etherdrifter said:

 

If you hear an opinion you dislike, don't engage and move on.  If you know someone will just spout drivel why bother with them?  It's not "fracturing the community" it's more "choosing who you engage with".

 

Again, honestly, I generally agree. 

Try to consider the hypothetical situation as something that would not have been presented on the forums as a problem that might need a top-down solution, unless other approaches had already been unsuccessful in some way. That is, don't assume a low tolerance in engagement - assume a high tolerance that has started to run out of options. 

 

It is for this reason that the topic would only be moderated on public channels - places like Local and Kingdom, that are intended to be freely accessible by all players. In a public space IRL, if there is a person on a street corner with a megaphone preaching a thing - the other people in the public space have the option of crossing the street, or in some other way, moving out of ear-shot. The only equivalent to this movement in a public chat channel is to use the /ignore. 

 

I have a question for Etherdrifter, and for many of the Wurmians above, whose responses prioritize everyone simply using /ignore to effectively "don't engage and move on" .... 


In the "street corner" scenario, one person or a small handful of people are responsible for "spouting drivel" in the public space. At what threshold of server population using /ignore for those exact same person/people for the exact same "drivel" repeated in the exact same way on the exact same corner every day - at what threshold does it stop being reasonable for individual players to /ignore - and start being more rational to consider enforcing some change in that one person / peoples' unwelcome behavior? 

 

Essentially, your response makes reasonable, adult sense for something that is an occasional experience from random, sporadic sources. These can be handled personally, on a case-by-case basis. The space can be left temporarily for quieter "rooms." Or the random player can be /ignored temporarily or permanently. 

 

But if something is a daily occurance, from known sources, with predictable negative, intractable responses to other's use of the public space, and no realistic end in sight... Is it honestly unreasonable to start seeking more permanent solutions to respond to this problem - and any future replication of this problem? 

Edited by Amata
formatting is driving me nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2020 at 9:02 AM, Darnok said:

define "politics"

 

You are free not to talk or read about things you don't like, leave other people option to talk and read about things they like.

 

As a point of fact - we are not actually "free to talk and read about" whatever things we like. 

 

Personally, I am absolutely passionate about the topic of world religions and human nature with regard to the combination of our drive to organize into groupings plus our seemingly innate search for things of meaning / value / "spirituality." I would adore the option to sit around spinning yarn by a fireplace while chatting for hours and hours and hours about the human experience of religion and all the wildly intricate subtopics thereof. 

 

And!~ I even enjoy - in fact - I love hearing when other people have an utterly different and/or completely opposite approach, opinion, conclusion, or idea. I just eat that stuff up like 99QL goblin liver and onions. 

 

So, go ahead, tell me again about how simple it is to just be free to not talk about things I don't like, and have others leave me similarly free to talk about things I do like? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Amata said:

I have a question for Etherdrifter, and for many of the Wurmians above, whose responses prioritize everyone simply using /ignore to effectively "don't engage and move on" .... 


In the "street corner" scenario, one person or a small handful of people are responsible for "spouting drivel" in the public space. At what threshold of server population using /ignore for those exact same person/people for the exact same "drivel" repeated in the exact same way on the exact same corner every day - at what threshold does it stop being reasonable for individual players to /ignore - and start being more rational to consider enforcing some change in that one person / peoples' unwelcome behavior? 

 

 

It stops being reasonable the moment those people do more than talk; which in the scenario of wurm's global chat isn't happening.  The moment you hit /ignore you no longer hear them, and they are no longer a problem for you.

 

It's like me and a few forum members on here; once I realise that all they spout is drivel then I just put them under "ignore" and carry on my way.  Engaging with trolls is the only way you really lose out, and forcing censorship due to the actions of a few is rather like giving the trolls a gold medal for their work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now