UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Hate Speech

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy establishes firm guidelines against hate speech content on the wiki. In particular, it disallows from all pages any content that incites violence or prejudice against, or degrades, intimidates, or discriminates against, other persons (whether or not they are wiki users) based upon certain traits, portrays the traits as inferior, or deals with the traits, or persons embodying the traits, in an insulting or offensive manner. The traits are:

  • Race
  • Sex
  • Religion
  • Skin color
  • Place of origin or current place of residence
  • Age
  • Sexuality
  • Disabilities

Content that fits the above should be reported to Vandal Banning. It is also suggested, but not required, that the person reporting the content attempt to convince the person who created the content to alter or remove the content before reporting the content. The user who created the content will be treated as a vandal and dealt with appropriately. Furthermore, the content should be immediately deleted by a moderator, with notice placed on the Vandal Banning and Speedy Deletions pages. Votes of Keep to preserve the content are not allowed. Content that existed prior to the implementation of this policy will be deleted, but the creators of such content will not be treated as a vandal.

If a user who is affected by this policy believes that the content that he or she created did not fit the above, the issue should be taken to Moderator Misconduct to be reviewed by other moderators.

Furthermore, if the list of offenses or traits is found to be ineffectual, the list may be changed by holding a vote, wherein:

  • A moderator proposes a specific change to the list.
  • The only valid votes are Agree or Disagree.
  • Votes will be calculated as follows:
    • Moderator votes are each treated as one vote.
    • Community votes are calculated by taking the simple majority winner of the community vote, and treating it as one third the number of moderator votes (rounded down) of the same type as the simple majority winner of the community vote. If there is no simple majority community vote, the community vote should be assumed to be the same as the majority moderator vote. If there is also no majority moderator vote, the current bureaucrats will decide the outcome.
  • Voting should stay open for one week.
  • The moderator who proposed the change may not vote.
  • At least three moderator votes must be cast.
  • At least two thirds of the votes must be Agree for the change to take place.

–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:57, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:55, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  2. Thari T/C/TJ! 06:58, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  3. Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 07:09, 18 August 2006 (BST)
    Applied to all users equally, yes. -- (The Lord God) † Pray 07:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)
    • Banned user's alt's vote struck. --Brizth M T 15:46, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  4. What is it with you, God? You've been here like three weeks and you already hate the majority of the mod population. Cyberbob  Talk  07:23, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  5. Good thing that isn't one of the protected groups, then. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 08:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  6. Max Grivas JG,T,P! 08:41, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  7. I'm completely for this. Am I correct in getting that your NOT implying a filter? --CaptainM 08:53, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  8. and PLEASE let us pass this quickly.Conndrakamod T CFT 08:53, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  9. I'll go with it for now.. Niilomaan GRR! 09:17, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  10. Mafiamanz 10:10, 18 August 2006 (GMT)
  11. Jonny12 W! 11:41, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  12. --Luigi Galleani 14:19, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  13. no one wants racial discrimination in the real world.....now online too??!? Axe Hack 14:26, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  14. --Tico 14:59, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  15. --Preasure 20:06, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  16. --Canuhearmenow 20:22, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  17. --Certified=InsaneUG 20:26, 18 August 2006 (BST)
    hopefully this curtail some of the shit the faggots keep creating.--Gage • ASS 21:54, 18 August 2006 (BST)
    • Please, god, tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony in this.PadreRomero 23:58, 23 August 2006 (BST)
      • He won't. I banned him. Heh heh. Um, yeah, I can see the irony in that. He is talking about The Faggots, though. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:49, 24 August 2006 (BST)
    • Why would someone else's rights be more important than theirs?--Some guy 12:29, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  18. Censorship of hate speech is the most important part of free speech --Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 21:56, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  19. --Dreadnaught, Councillor 04:52, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  20. --mikm 16:35, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  21. I support this legislation. --Kiki Lottaboobs 02:12, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  22. Hopefully this will reduce some of the never-ending wiki drama. Hopefully. --DarkStar2374383 Talk | LDY | LOE 03:24, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  23. There is very good precedent for very good reasons for not regarding hate speech as protected speech. Passing this policy is an act of basic social responsibility that frankly should have been done a long time ago. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 08:45, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  24. If you are an American, you know what is and is not protected under the first amendment (or at least you SHOULD. If you are European you realize you actually have NO Protection of speech, and cant complain (well you can complain but it wont do you any good). In any case, the wiki is vaguely democratic, but Kevin can drop the hammer on anything he wants to at any point. And having many many years of experience, if this policy doesn’t pass. Kevin will take things into his own hands the moment he feels it crosses a line. --General Alex Creedy 09:08, 20 August 2006 (BST)
    • Wrong. Americans are a dopey lot and think that they have a right to have any automatic weapon as they see fit. Y'know, the second amendment? The one that most of your countrymen don't read the other fucking half of? Yeah, thought so. Other countries have Freedom of Speech too, Creedy. Kevan is spelt Kevan, with an "A". Kevan has rarely intervened in the process of the wiki, and has managed to stick by the guidelines that he is not obliged to adhere to better than any mod has. Odds are, he will not intervene except where absolutely necessary or where something is so clear cut that it would count as vandalism anyway! –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:49, 24 August 2006 (BST)
      • Xoid, you have a good point here that you're undermining with your own misconceptions about the text of the Second Amendment (hint: the weight of responsible scholarship on the subject does not find the militia clause to modify or limit the main clause) and how Americans, generally, perceive the substantive rights that it protects (hint: there's not even a significant minority of Americans clamoring to own "any automatic weapon as they see fit"). It was enough to say that Creedy's rationale for his vote is incoherent; beyond that, you're adding more heat than light. --Centerfire 07:04, 28 August 2006 (BST)
        • If the second half is irrelevant, why is it there? They would not have included it did it not have some meaning to it. Which goes back to my point: practically no one bothers to read it, or if they do they selectively interpret it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:00, 28 August 2006 (BST)
          • Who said irrelevant? You're confusing "having meaning" with "operating as a limitation". If you want to discuss this further, stop by my talk page; I'd be happy to point you to relevant scholarship. --Centerfire 19:20, 28 August 2006 (BST)
    • When exactly did the internet become american, or subject to american laws?
  25. --Bullgod 09:38, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  26. --Eugene Barrett 15:05, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  27. I'm for this. Steele Glovier 1:33, 20 August 2006 )BST)
  28. Racist remarks should be punished by banning. -- Krazy Monkey W! 20:21, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  29. --ALACE 20:52, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  30. Since this will STILL require a Moderator to come into effect, and thus a common sense ruling will be applied, this more seems like a formal format for what already occurs. I assume this can be expanded upon and altered as time goes on. --MorthBabid 21:00, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  31. --Vikermac 22:35, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  32. --B Rubble 00:01, 22 August 2006 (MST)
  33. Killemenow 11:16, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  34. GrownUpSurvivor 13:15, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  35. --Im all for this. Pillsy 15:09, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    --For. ChrisLe
    Improperly signed vote struck. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:21, 27 August 2006 (BST)
  36. --I assume that the person who is being reported is allowed to defend themselves before action is taken, we wouldn't want to ban someone for a misunderstanding.Gold Blade Hunt! 15:35, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  37. --I'm guessing Luigi's stupid anarchist and socialist groups that target fascists will also go. Since no matter what that is still targeting someone.Sonny Corleone 16:19, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  38. -- Although I am typically against "Censorship", enforcement of community standards often has to be enforced. Doctor Doolittle 17:26, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    -- Satan believes that all should be equally miserable, the masses should not gang up upon one individual group. The Devil 18:27, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    • :0 Even the devil dosn't support Hate Speech? Wow. --CaptainM 20:34, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    • Changed my mind on this vote. The Devil 00:49, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  39. -- I don't support Hate Speech either.--Paradox319 00:02, 23 August 2006 (BST)
  40. -- I agree. Hate speech should be censored for the younger people that play this game, and to make the game a better place. --Mole 23rd August 2006 14:04 (GMT)
    Hate Speech is WRONG! --Lance Warlord Corso
    • Timestamp free vote struck. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:08, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    The Badman 17:41, 23 August 2006 (BST) T'is veh veh wrong, what? Particularly for dem youngins.
  41. --For Asheets 04:05, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  42. I'm less concerned about the outcry of banning free speech than someone feeling outcast from the wiki. If this kind of content is already not allowed in all but rule (since moderators should be, well, moderating in a disputed page where these things could come up), then what's the harm of actually turning it into a rule? Support the comunity and relationships in it, eliminate ostracizing of users. - Bango Skank 06:03, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  43. armareum 12:59, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  44. --The Fifth Horseman 14:59, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  45. Lyoko is Cool 22:29, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  46. --Cartoonlad 16:27, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  47. Can't believe I didn't vote on this already. --SirensT RR 20:18, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  48. Sorry... voted in the wrong format... is this right? The Badman 10:11, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  49. --Zod Rhombus 16:13, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  50. I'm totally for this, this should stop all those immature people on this wiki--AZK 18:30, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  51. Go for it!! --FallHollow 21:42 26 August 2006 (BST)
  52. Censorship is wrong, and people should have the right to say what they want. However, the Moderators have the right to ban whoever they wish for whatever reason, so for. --Wikidead 17:48, 26 August 2006 (PST)
  53. Shandonia 05:30, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  54. --While people are always going to cry "OMG SENSHORSHIP", it'll be a matter of time before something SO controversial happens that public outrage will outnumber those who started the problem - it'll be public veto, no matter what anyone says. I'm trying to preempt that. Agent Heroic 19:53, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  55. --Coldflame 23:57, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  56. It's going to be very interesting to see people get banned when they cross the line with their troll vote comments. --MrAushvitz 05:14, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  57. Abi79 AB 07:22, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  58. --The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:52, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  59. Sabre1 15:18, 29 August 2006
  60. some think that this is stopping our freedom of speech but it's protecting people not hurting them --Rekaina 22:42, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Against

  1. Censorship is wrong.Jjames 19:01, 18 August 2006 (BST)
  2. Seconded. All this will do is meddle game play. People who broadcast hate online shouldnt be taken seriously. Mr_Backwards 20:42, 18 August 2006 (EST)
  3. First: I don't believe this manner of censorship is proper; people do have a right to hold their opinions and voice them in an open forum (which this is). Second, this would also apply to, say, a hate-based group's page; in other words, banning certain groups from advertising for members. This is actually interfering in the RP and gameplay of Urban Dead. Ivan Romanov 02:16, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  4. TheDictator 2350, 18 August 2006 (MST)
  5. I do not support this form of censorship. Arainach 16:16, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  6. The idea that UD wiki moderators should start enforcing politically-correct speech codes is one more indication that the game has jumped the shark. Centerfire 21:41, 19 August 2006 (BST)
  7. No, too much a chance of Slippery Slope effect. --Rogue 01:50, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  8. Passing this would eventually lead to a need for more complicated and extensive set of rules on what you can and what you can't say. While the idea itself is good I vote for common sense (which some users will have and some not, M/VB weeds out the latter anyway). --Bonefiver 18:24, 20 August 2006 (BST)
    do you know how hard it is to define what's offensive without going too far or not far enough? -Tito 21:11, 20 August 2006 (BST)
    • Vandal vote struck.--Thari S T F U 05:44, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  9. Most people are already limited enough on what they can say in the real world, bringing that into this environment would only further cause complications from censorship. If you're going to ban free speech, then you may as well start keeping your own opinions to yourself. Everyone has the right to their opinion, no matter what it is. -Vashka 17:35, 20 August 2006 (EST)
  10. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and it seems we are on the path with this suggestion. Good idea, wrong implementation. Just as you say as an american you know what is allowed and what isn't, then you also realize how gray the area is to define what is and what isn't. Change it around, and you will certainly get my vote. --John Blast 23:01, 20 August 2006 (BST)
  11. What's the use of not allowing someone to say something when you still allow him to think it? Is the act of saying something hateful wrong, or the act of possessing hateful emotions? That is, are such things wrong in and of themselves, or do they simply become so upon being made public? Mind control. I'd vote "yes" for that! But not this. We are on the Internet, after all. --Ron Burgundy 02:39, 21 August 2006 (BST)
    • RE: The act of censorship is because some people don't want to be abused based on their race, religion or whatever else. You can think those thoughts all you want and that's un-stoppable, but to actually put them on the internet, for everyone to see not only gives the wrong impression of you, but of the entire wiki. --CaptainM 20:37, 22 August 2006 (BST)
      • Ah, so it's impressions we're worried about, not what's internal! All is well and good, so long as they see us for what we want to be, not what we are. That makes you a liar!  :) I actually wouldn't vote "yes" for mind control, by the way. This whole shebang is just sophistry. What's not sophistry is this: I think people would be better off if they were allowed to express what they feel and I think the act of being offended is reflexive. That is to say, when x offends y, it's y's fault becuase y is the one taking the offence. We're all responsible for our actions and x is responsible for doing what he did to offend y, but y is responsible for being offended becuase it's ultimately an internal action. That may strike you as absurd, but it's actually very empowering to y; it allows y to act instead of simply being acted upon. God, I'm sickeningly Kantian- especially at 2 and a half in the morning. There are so many things wrong with censorship.  :( --Ron Burgundy 07:44, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  12. No. --Zoift 22:37, 20 August 2006 (EST)
  13. I agree with Mr Backwards. If you are going to get offended by internet content then the internet is not the place for you. Censorship is not the answer. Spudd 10:46, 21 August 2006 (BST)
  14. There does not need to be a firm policy regarding hate speech. If it is offensive, it will be removed. --otherlleft W! 18:49, 21 August 2006 (BST)
  15. Although I don't think this sort of behavior is right, the internet is one of the last places in this world free of censorship. I'm against it. --ErynSMA 19:46, 21 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Incorrect. The Great Firewall of China, anybody? –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:34, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  16. I will cast a "No" for this policy. I feel that it is necessary to allow for free speech here. I also feel that users should be able to moderate themselves. --RivCA, 7:39 PST, 22 Aug 2006)
  17. If something is truly offensive, the mods will take it down. To ban anything and everything involving those themes is oppressive PC nonsense.--Thom Flask 16:55, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    You're mistaken on two counts. One, unless I have badly misunderstood the current rules, neither mods nor anyone else are permitted to make that kind of judgment call. What this policy is designed to do is to enable the legal, speedy removal of genuinely offensive content. Two, I'm assuming by "those themes" you refer to anything relating to gender, race, etc. This is incorrect. This policy would simply forbid the promotion of hatred towards any of these groups. My understanding of it is that it would, for instance, still permit the inescapable "men and women are different in xyz ways" comedy routine, it just wouldn't allow a version of it that went "men are awesome and women are useless cows". This may be a difference of opinion, but I don't see that as being particularly oppressive. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 00:45, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    Unfortunately, that will likely end up as wishful thinking. As the discussion page has aptly demonstrated, the majority of people support this due to an opposition to Operation White Storm, which was an example of satire. The blatantly racist 'Operation Black Storm' hardly got a mention. The 'men and women comedy routine' would likely be shot down just as quickly as truly ignorant garbage if this was implemented.--Thom Flask 03:34, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    "The majority of people" decide whether this will be implemented, not how it will be interpreted. Mods are required to rule on vandalism reports, and mods are bound by the literal reading of the rules in question. Which, as noted, would support the scenario I outlined. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 03:43, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    There are no wiki rules set in stone concerning the interpretation of what is offensive and what is not. Many mods have voiced similar opinions to the rest of the mob, and as such will make decisions that will lead to much complaint.--Thom Flask 04:46, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    Don't you hear yourself? You want the people to decide on the implementation not the interpreptation? The implication of that is a little bit scarey. This talk should start with the interpretation and then deal with the implementation, not vice versa as it is proposed here. --Fartey 00:13, 25 August 2006 (BST)#
  18. The Man won't silence me! -- Rueful 18:12, 22 August 2006 (BST)
    • Strange then that you want to censor Amazing's links, isn't it?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:55, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  19. Free speech FTW!!! --hagnat mod 18:25, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  20. Screw you censorship! --Rotticus 22:49, 22 August 2006 (BST)
  21. Isn't this what arbitration is for? That if you find something offensive then they can rule for it to be changed if it is felt that it's offensive enough. - Jedaz 08:13, 23 August 2006 (BST)
  22. You can take my free speech when you pry it from my cold dead hands. YbborT 14:32, 23 August 2006 (BST)
    Fartey 14:50, 23 August 2006 (BST) Censorship, slippery slope, etc. Too much potential for abuse, who gets to decide what is "Hate Speech"?
    Invalidly formatted vote struck. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:30, 23 August 2006 (BST)
  23. I'm no fan of hate speech, but most people aren't a fan of me, so I'll take what I can. Keep the Wiki free PadreRomero 23:55, 23 August 2006 (BST)
  24. Censorship of any kind here can only lead to trouble. --Paradox244 W! TJ! 03:01, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  25. Is it just me, or is orange juice the BEST late night drink? JoeHunt 03:26, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  26. Stop drinking starbucks at night, dude. -- Bubba 04:58, 24 August 2006 (BST)
    Freedom of speech....censorship....yadda yadda yadda. What he said.
    Votes must be signed to be valid. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 01:51, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  27. I'd rather see people stand up for what is right in opposing hate speech, than never have the discussion at all. As long as hate speech is never expressed, it can never be challenged. Nosimplehiway 14:32, 24 August 2006 (BST)
  28. Please count this as my validly formatted vote. Censorship sucks, and oh the irony. Fartey 00:04, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  29. What Jedaz said. – Nubis NWO 00:05, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  30. From the ASS forum, reposted with permission:
    "QUOTE (jjames @ Aug 23 2006, 10:54 AM)
    Also, there are a lot of people who will abuse this and I frankly don't trust all moderator's discretion. hell cyberbob has no problem warning people after another mod says something isn't vandalism like he did with jake weber. Karl asked that I be banned as an alt. Many voting believe it will target us and say so in the comments. At the very least this is going to result in a flood of false reports causing more wiki drama and work for you, not less.    "
    Argumentum ad populam is a logical fallacy that is given all too much creedence in this day and age, and as such, I have to agree wholeheartedly with jjames. I've seen too many bad judgement calls and instances of bandwagoning to leave this up to the majority, especially when the majority's intent seems to be political correctness, not anti-racism. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:00, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  31. Im against censorship. Even if it is wrong to say something, where do people get the right to tell you that you cant say it? And some people may be joking or RPing (as inappropiate as it may be). Some groups just love to be hated. --Cdrwcry 07:02, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  32. Too controlling. Such things should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Funt Solo 15:22, 25 August 2006 (BST)
    Against, changed my mind. The Devil 19:22, 25 August 2006 (BST)
    • The Devil has been banned, and was revealed by moderator Xoid to be the vandal 3page (and many other alts). This vote should be struck. --Kiki Lottaboobs 13:19, 27 August 2006 (BST)
      • Vandal vote struck. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:22, 27 August 2006 (BST)
  33. Against. Heavens forbid some fucking satire and a dumbass who takes it seriously. --A1C JerryASS•PK•ASA•T21:33, 25 August 2006 (BST)
    Against alexmul T•RCDC
    Invalid vote struck. –Bob Hammero Mod•T•A•C•B! 22:52, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  34. Neurotrashed 22:59, 25 August 2006 (BST)
  35. This is a so-so idea, and as others have said, insults, etc... on the web shouldn't be taken seriously. How far would this go? There should at least be a chance for the person to contest this before deletion. The current Vandal system works well enough and I find this to be un-nessecary. --Mnbvcx 02:06, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  36. I believe in freedom of speech, and I am against Cencorship. If you find a web page offensive, DO NO GO TO IT. it is as simple as that. There is no reason to take away people's human rights. These days, if anyone believes in free speech, they are branded a racist, or a sexist, or something else.--Some guy 12:17, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  37. I am against bigotry, but this could so easily be abused. These things should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Anyway, IMO some of the Mods have (in the past) been guilty of what could be termed 'hate posting' (eg: "fucking inbred retard" etc) -Dog Deever T•Nec 15:23, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  38. Incredibly horrible precedent, would allow for censorship and abuse on a large scale. --LibrarianBrent 18:37, 26 August 2006 (BST)
  39. At first, I was like, "of course this is bad." But I did a search and couldn't FIND any of these things everyone is talking about on this WIKI. If someone were to decide to post garbage, then SO WHAT? There's TONS of crap on television and on the INTERNET already I find offensive. And you know what? I just don't go there. Why are we even discussing this? It seems like a waste of time.--Peter Pixie 04:55, 27 August 2006 (BST)
  40. I agree with Peter Pixie.--Demonic Muse 15:58, 27 August 2006 (BST)
  41. Outside of claims that freedom of speech is somehow sacrosanct on this privately owned wiki, I'd have to say that this policy would be more trouble than it's worth to enforce properly. The Faggots's little wacky hijinks seem to have been the cause of this, and those were removed using the pre-existing rules. It just seems to be too much danger of abuse for too little gain. -- Alan Watson Talk · MalTel 22:12, 27 August 2006 (BST)
  42. I like the idea of this, but it doesn't work. Why can't we document a group that is hateful and such? That defeats the purporse of the wiki. Against. Lightman 16:08, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  43. No means no. Besides, anyone who gets offended by something on the Urban Dead Wiki, should really step back, and take a long hard look at what the hell is wrong with them.--Duce Nauks 16:23, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  44. I don't think this is needed--Cwissball 17:11, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  45. If truly applied as written, this would require the removal of, for example, all references to Zombie Jesus, which I don't think most would intend. Da Popa 21:42, 28 August 2006 (BST)
  46. I changed my mind--Gage 00:26, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  47. Mmm, no. See above answers. --Lucero Talk U! 00:33, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  48. Not a chance in hell. Literally anything can be defined as hate speech, and this policy will be misused, I guarantee it. We don't need this policy, we just need people to apply common sense. Completely opposed. --John Hawke 08:29, 29 August 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Hate_Speech&oldid=377546"