Suggestion talk:20071126 Religious Flavor in Malton

Arright, have at it.

Funt's Vote

Spam - I can't find the words. I hate this suggestion. I just don't like religion. Also, I don't like the references to actual player groups, especially the more in-your-face ones such as Queer Jew. I mean, what is that? Is it a positive statement, a negative statement, or a joke? Is it designed to provoke a reaction? What about the references to Mossad in their page? In taking real world religions and depicting them in a game, you're inviting real world arguments, which some people take REALLY seriously. Seriously enough to target other people. Sure, we have churches now - but it's not like they say what religion the churches are from. You can roleplay it any way you like at the moment. Can't we all just get along? (Apart from the brain-munching and shooting, that is.) --Funt Solo ^QT 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Suggestions, the only thing that's generic about the churches is that they don't specify which branch of christianity they conform to. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They can be treated as generic (just ditch crucifixes) and "church" is a "place of worship", according to my dictionary. Even if they're not generic, the answer is not to introduce more layers of religion to what is supposed to be a recreational pursuit. Religion breeds conflict - I don't want it in this game. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Midianian. If the churches were something ridiculously non-denominational like "Non-Denominational House of Faith" I'd agree that they were generic, but as "churches" they're specifically Christian. If you check dictionary.com (lame I know, but it's the only one I have on hand), most of the definitions refer to Christianity. Additionally, as I already mentioned in the suggestion, hate groups already exist - I specifically recall anti-semitic comments around Chaffey a while back, and there's plenty of misogyny and homophobia in the game. The fact of the matter is, these groups exist whether or not there are buildings for them to protest, and I think folks have done a relatively good job of addressing them (see, as I mentioned, the case of text rapists). As for my reference to QJ, it wasn't positive/negative/joking - I didn't really care *where* these buildings were located, but I figured I should offer at least a reason for where I suggested them. Still, I don't see how this necessitates a spam vote and not a kill. Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I chose Spam because I would never vote Keep. That's how I vote. It's not the end of the world, so don't get hung up on it. And it doesn't matter what most of the meanings on dictionary.com say - that's not how language works. You only need one meaning to be the one you want, in order to use a word in that way. And, anyway, your entire argument is based on "two wrongs make a right", which they don't (of course). Regardless - looks like you've got a lot of support for your hotbed of controversial hatred and spite. Well done! --Funt Solo ^QT 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Funt Solo said:"inviting real worlds arguments"? well of course, the whole town and the wiki is full of it (what´s a police dep. what´s a mall, what´s a FAK, what´s a murderer, what´s a savehouse??) but as you said, real world, means we are not part of it. We are a grid-based browser game.....a game you know. So everything people do within UD isn´t going to hurt anybody (physically) and if you´r really offended by something you´r free to leave any time you want! Why do we have to treat people (and their private problems) with >silky gloves<? Grow up, this is not reality! Of course, as boxy said, some racist idiots and religious fanatics will use this as an opportunity to target people but do you honestly think this will lead to some kind of real argument. The worst(?) that could happen is that some fools who´r seeing more in UD than a game get so offended that they quit! I assure you that there´ll be ten times as many players who quit UD if the game stays unchanged. You have to add some flavor to it from time to time otherwise everybody gets bored and those mosques, synagoges and temples would just do the job! --Wasted wallaby 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree entirely. And, before you tell me to grow up, you might want to get your facts straight. This is reality. Sure, it's a game, but it's not a game in my personal imagination. It's happening in our shared reality. And if the only argument you have is "well, if they don't like it they can leave", then, well, I think it's clear who's the most immature person talking here. I'm for inclusion, and the release of tension. You're for exclusion and an increase in tension. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Funt, I didn´t want to insult you personally! Of course this is a shared reality, still it´s fictional.What do you think would happen if Kevan invented a torture tool. Would people be traumatized, would they have to go to the shrink? UD is the cola-light version of reality --Wasted wallaby 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly your prerogative, it just doesn't seem to fit the guidelines of a "spam" vote - unless spam and kill are the same thing now? And re: your comment about being for "inclusion and the release of tension," I do have to wonder who is... included in your inclusion. Your justification seems to be, essentially, that people will be hateful so something shouldn't be allowed to exist, regardless of whether or not it could also produce a good flavor effect in the game. Under the same arguments, white robes and masks should also be removed from the game because - yikes! - people could use them to create a UD KKK. Should we remove everything that could possibly result in something offensive happening? Speech, perhaps? Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But that very argument is a defence for leaving text rape in the game... People feel very strongly about things like rape and religion and it comes down to common sense to reduce the chances of people being offended by such where possible. A lot of people don't like the idea of science gone-wrong-creatures eating folk but they probably don't play this game so screw em!--Honestmistake 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheana - you're not making any sense now. Religion is, by it's very nature, divisive and hateful. Speech isn't. White robes aren't. Religion is. It's very nature is to proclaim itself more right than anything else, and to split people apart into those who are and are not right. It's nature is to punish those who go against it, and often even those who go with it. It's hateful, and I'd rather it wasn't in the game in an overt form, which is what you're suggesting. I can't make myself any clearer than that in my opinion. You may disagree with my opinion, but it's mine, and you can't change it by arguing with me. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not trying to change your opinion, just articulate mine. It's not an objective reality that religion is "by it's very nature, divisive and hateful," and that speech and white robes aren't. Billions would argue that the nature of religion is the opposite of hate, and there are many who would argue that a person dressed in all white robes and a white mask *is* hateful - just because it doesn't seem hateful to you doesn't make it hateful - it's all pretty subjective. I can understand and even respect your opinion and the way you state it while still wanting to discuss it. After all, isn't that what this page is for? :) Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

White robes aren't "KKK white robes". As a church is (by my definition) non-denominational. I'd rather pointed genericism, and have voted for prior suggestions to get rid of the crucifix along those lines. My stance is pretty clear. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "church" is an ambiguous term, but saints are christian (all churches are St. Somebody's) and cricifixes are christian. Thus the churches in UD are christian. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said, my solution would be to make them more generic, not to add more specificity. Which part of that were you missing? --Funt Solo ^QT 10:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The part where you actually say that :D. All I've seen is you saying that they are generic, not that they should be generic. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"I'd rather pointed genericism, and have voted for prior suggestions to get rid of the crucifix along those lines." CNR. It's a few lines above this - and you replied to it. Lay off the drugs, man. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I said I'd missed it, no need to rub it in. But, removing crucifixes isn't enough. As I said, saints are a christian thing and alcohol is a no-no in many religions, so the names would have to be changed and the only thing findable inside would have to be FAKs. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's ridiculous how Spam is, contrary to the voting guidelines, used by a small group of people who use it to mean "strong kill". Given its actual use, I think it's a failed experiment in the voting process of this wiki, and is reasonably good at marking problem users through its use in that capacity. --Pgunn 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but this is not one of those cases! Spam in this case is being used not so much as a strong kill but as a statement that the voter feels that implementing this would cause serious problems that would negatively impact the game. I never vote Spam as a strong kill and object to people who do, accusing people of doing it when they have gone to such lengths in explaining their vote that it is clearly not the being used as a strong kill only serves to damage the case against Spam abuse!!! --Honestmistake 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the actual Template:Suggestions:Cycling Instructions, "If a suggestion is deemed by the community to be either not made seriously, or simply completely awful and not worthy of inclusion on the Suggestion page for a two-week period, it can be spaminated," and also, "spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM." Obviously you don't think I made it in jest, and it's not some crazy uber power, so ... what makes it spam? I'm not trying to change your vote - you've made your point quite clear when this was on the discussion page and I'm all for strong opinions - but let's call it what it is. If folks want to use the spam vote to express a strong kill that's their decision, but it doesn't change the fact that that's what folks are doing, and that this is abuse of the spam vote. Sheana/Gogolnik ^{(T HD-T TMZ)} 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"or simply completely awful and not worthy of inclusion" - that's the definition I'm going with. You see, the rule is bullshit, because on the one hand it says not to use it as a strong kill, but on the other hand it describes pretty much exactly that use. Many rules here don't make sense. You'll get used to it. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you could see my vote history you might find as many as 10 Spam votes in 2 years! I never vote "strong kill" with Spam because I agree that it is not the right catagory... I believe this is SPAM because I believe it has no place in the game, its unfixable, it is in short not welcomed by me! Funt obviously feels much the same and usually votes kill when he means kill. I just can't see any real merit to including this and thus it is SPAM. I understand (and even agree with) some of your reasons but really do think its not worth the hassle it would bring.--Honestmistake 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)