UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Text Rape

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Cut the weird and not entirely accurate clause about UK law and this is s a good policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think in terms of flow it's probably best just not to mention UK law because it isn't relevant. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted Gordon 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This would still go to A/VB and the punishment is just insta-perma ban if the case is ruled vandalism. Correct?        03:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mazu, yes it would. This proposal is simply so we don't have the situation where sysops are being dragged over the coals for exercising common sense dealing with something that no decent human being would possibly defend. Gordon 21:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

hmm

trying to mind my business so no one will snipe at me ...but this is sort of a big deal that every wiki user / UD player should be involved ... if someone is "text raping" in-character against another in-character wiki user/account, a text-rape policy shouldn't be implemented. if someone is "text raping" out of character, threatening to rape the person behind a character, then that is unacceptable. if someone wants to be a Malton (text) rapist & pretend to (text) rape Malton citizens, that should be allowed/accepted. if that rapist talks about (text) raping your character (not you irl) on this wiki, it's inappropriate but shouldn't be against any rule/policy. maybe someone should create a text-rape hotline (group forum) for text-rape victims... →Son of Sin← 00:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

People can do whatever they want in game, it is the wiki that is being mentioned I beleive aka recent Arb case. Also your support of rape in general is noted.--Rapture 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

i support people text-raping on this wiki while they are in-character. Rotting Joe Cochrane seemed to be in-character ...he/she didn't fabricate any personal threats against Carrie Cutter or Sister Rita ...but Joe did vandalize both of their pages. vandalism should be the only issue in this case ...not the text-rape. →Son of Sin← 01:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Srsly? Not 'I believe it's their freedom' or 'I tolerate', but you actually support text-rape? --Kirsty Cotton _{Org XIII} 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, i support inappropriate "texting" ..."text-rape" is entertaining & significant for role-playing ...imagine how boring games would be if people didn't say rude, vulgar, disrespectful, derogatory, etc things to other people ...maybe Joe wants a reputation for text-raping "female" characters in-game, on the wiki, on UD-related forums ...Joe shouldn't have been banned for role-playing ...fantasy is part of the game ...Joe raped & killed a couple women in Malton & wanted to showcase outside of the game itself ...i never knew so many men were feminists... →Son of Sin← 03:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree. Roleplaying rape should be punished only by those who roleplay opposition to rape. Rape is no different from murder in this sense; I don't want anyone raped or murdered in real life, but in a survival horror game, it adds a unique and entertaining threat with reasonably challenging solutions. My characters certainly wouldn't want to be raped, and I would be disappointed when they are victimized in this way. But I would enjoy trying to evade (or kill) rapists, just as much as I would PKers or zombies or undead-hating survivors.

Roleplaying on the wiki is no different that roleplaying in the game. As long as they're using their victim's talk page and in no way suggesting they would rape the player in real life, they're doing no worse than reviewing someone's flavor or threatening to disembowel their character. This wiki is for a violent game. Violent things will be spoken, and they make the game more fun. --VVV ^RPMBG 19:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Except it kinda is different. There are certain parameters you agree to when your start playing the game. You may be killed with certain weapons. Zombies may eat you. These are functions of the game that people consent to when signing up. Sure someone could claim that they are killing you with a katana but all that would happen is they would look a bit of a muppet as the game would not suddenly say "X hits you with a katana for 50 damage. You have died." Rape is not something people consent to when starting the game and is has no place here. None.

There is also a vast world of difference between how a death is depicted in game and with how text rapists like to depict things. The game simply says "X shot you with Y" or "X hit you with a fireaxe" and ultimately "you were killed". Let's compare that to the content of a recent text rape self reported to the RG shall we?

"I love you so much! *Pathetic Billie then rips Smary's dress out and rapes her sweet, well used pussy and asshole again!* You will be a wonderful zed with your head split in two and my cum seeping out of your tortured holes!"

Are you saying for one moment that that something that obscenely graphic is even REMOTELY compareable to the game's clinical "you were killed"?

Additionally this is obviously all make believe. No one playing UD has been killed in the past. No one playing UD has been headshot IRL. No one playing UD has been revived against their will. Nothing we actually do in UD is actually realistic so it's not going to trigger any memories in people. Has anyone playing UD been raped? Well we don't know that do we? We don't know what effect that sort of "roleplay" might have on people. What we do know is that is sure as hell isn't a function of the game they signed up for and can be damned sure that anyone with an ounce of conscience, with a shred of humanity wouldn't dismiss it as "just roleplay." It is completely socially unacceptable. It has no place in UD. It has no place on the wiki. It has no place anywhere. Gordon 22:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this as even though I have played UD for close to 2 1/2 year I still consider myself a newbie in the meta game and wiki aspect. However what Gordon posted I could not agree with more or have posted anything better. There really is no place for text rape in the game or on the wiki for all the reasons he listed and more. Remember there are minors who do play, and yes it is their parents responsibility to chaperone their internet time BUT when you log on and the first thing you may see is some sort of text rape, how do you control that? And anyone who makes the claim of first amendment and freedom of speech (depending on your country of origin) we are still held responsible for what we say and or post legally, morally or ethically (assuming people have morals and ethics of some sort). I won't go into the psychological short comings of anyone who thinks they need to role play as a rapist, but seriously if you do, seek therapy NOW. Especially if you need to role play with people who have NOT agreed up front for this type of 'foreplay'. There are sites online where you can role play as a rapist with WILLING PARTICIPANTS. Try those out and good luck with that fetish.

Now to the important bit: Gordon stated "Has anyone playing UD been raped?" The honest answer just by playing the odds would be a resounding yes. Sexual assault is by far to common in our society, I could bore you with all the reported stats but the 1 in 4 women having been sexually assaulted by age 18 to 20, or the average of 28 women sexually assaulted and raped every hour in the USA alone (year 2000 US Department of Justice report). Plus that we know less then half of all sexual assaults get reported, should be enough for anyone with an inkling of common sense or decency to be against any form of text rape.--Raven Corvus 00:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The UD wiki is a community of sorts and it seems reasonable that we should choose to affirm or establish a standard that sanctions text rape. I'd be content to give the sysops team substantial freedom to use their judgment on what constitutes falling outside that standard and trust that foolish bans over vague or simply ignominious speech would be avoided or overturned. It's not that I can't understand and see value in the opposing arguments; I can. I just believe that a desire to be as text-rape free as we wanna be is a widely accepted community standard and we are within our purview to establish some code of conduct in an effort to limit it. Many public forums employ similar policies to address what is considered by most to be a wholly vile and contemptuous activity.--Bad Attitude Barbie^SDN 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

you guys want to make role-playing too strict, so it'll be so boring players will only pretend to have pillow & food fights ...if a text-rapist wants to live out his fantasy online, be happy that he's online & not offline actually raping someone. if a rape victim compares text-rape to real rape, the victim needs mental help. →Son of Sin← 03:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"text-rape" is entertaining"... Surely one of the most jaw-dropping comments ever written on this wiki - and that's saying something. It says something about us that we enjoy games about killing people and being eaten by zombies (or eating other people's brains), but even so most civilized people draw the line at 'gaming' rape.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 03:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This: "if a rape victim compares text-rape to real rape, the victim needs mental help." is truly uninformed and unconscionable. --Raven Corvus 04:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

honestly i thought text-rape was any offensive rant (similar to trolling) before i read about the incident ...but i realize text-rape is related to role-playing, and all forms of role-playing should be accepted ...irl, i am compassionate about rape ...i've watched The Oprah Show & Lifetime movies ...but now that i've found out that the majority of the active female characters on this wiki are men, i don't feel bad about anyone being text-raped in-game/on the wiki ...so being sympathetic towards female victims of rape on the wiki is pointless because there probably aren't any real females playing UD ...are Carrie Cutter & Sister Rita females irl? you guys will look foolish for defending female impersonators. and it's not okay to impose your morals on anyone ...if someone wants to call himself/herself "Child Molester" & pretend to molest imaginary children in Malton city schools, as immortal & inappropriate as that is, it should be allowed as long as he/she doesn't upload child pornography or obscene stories about molestation on the wiki. →Son of Sin← 05:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

either in jamaica or haiti, they chop off the penis of a rapist/pedophile in public ...drag him out on the street, rip his clothes off & cut his penis off with a machete ...if you say "justice served", do that to a text-rapist ...chop off his penis with an axe ...humiliate him ...give this game some umph! ...Active Characters : 11999 ...the UD Wiki is PG ...adults don't like PG -- The Bone Collector -- 05:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition of wiki-rape

Would there be one , or is it left to the discretion of the active sysops at the time on a case per case basis.--Rapture 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. Initially I had thought it would be obvious when something was grossly offensive. Would you have a suggested definition? Gordon 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't really - My question is the same as TZH's was when RFKZombieKiller was Ignore Listed on the RG for singing a rap verse that indicated "Inappropriate touching" to some degree (Yes it happened in game and the wiki always seems more sanitized than the actual game itself) but I think there should be a clear definition of what the community\ops expects the "Crime" to be as opposed to the whim of the wikisysops at the time. While the wiki is completely different to the ingame text and its very easy to contact an "Involved party" (via the wiki account that made the comment) I guess I don't want to see UserX being banned as he isn't "liked" by sysops opposed to UserB getting a slap on the wrist simply as he has wikisysops favour despite them saying the same thing, simply due to issues that the Rogues Gallery Ignore list always faced. I hope that makes sense.--Rapture 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be much better not to try and define it, and just leave it up to the sysop team's judgement if it was being used in an inappropriate way. Wiki-lawyers could argue that a simple "fuck you", "we will fuck you up" or "jam it up yer arse" is an example of text rape. Seriously, the system works already, without this addition. The only example of this on the wiki has been dealt with. No need to micro-manage the rules because a small minority think some great injustice has happened -- boxy 07:04, 24 November 2011 (BST)

meaning yon and thad. nobody really gives a fuck what they think anyway. as proven by the recent case they started. accusing more than half the sysop team of misconduct than expecting the rest of the team to agree with them even tho they are clearly in wrong. also don't forget the remaining members of the team don't hold yon and thad's "opinions" in the highest regards. fucking idiots.--User:Sexualharrison13:47, 24 November 2011 (bst)

BEANS

BEANS ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. --Uroguy^TMZ 16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yerp. Uh huh. Oh and one word, Misconbitragnarok -- •הבוס• ♥ ^CGR 01:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

oi

no fuck off annoying 07:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

this is a waste of everybodies time

And we shouldn't be outlining stricture through policy to deal with nonstrict problems. We sysops already hvave the tools we need to deal with this.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it posted in the first place asking for input ?--Rapture 02:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Because anyone can propose policy at anytime. Doesn't always mean they should. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see - thanks--Rapture 03:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

you're sweeping this under the rug because users/sysops very strongly oppose text-rape. i've already admitted that text-rape is inappropriate but as someone else pointed out so are the racial slurs & name-calling. the guy above said something about real life rape flashbacks after reading a text-rape ...what if some homosexuals have been bullied/teased irl and are offended by the gay slurs on the wiki? zero-tolerance should be implemented for every offensive word in the US/UK/Australian/etc dictionaries. i oppose censorship but i also oppose what's going on here. all wiki rules should be clearly stated regardless if some rules haven't been broken yet ...i think i read that this was the first text-rape case ...5 years into this game & no one has written a policy about text-rape, but someone has been banned for text-rape because it's offensive role-playing. →Son of Sin← 03:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Karek is correct. This is covered wholly by existing discretion rules and this policy, as well intentioned as it may be, isn't needed. If anything, we may want to revisit the permaban voting policy to require a vote when a sysop feels that perma without escalation is appropriate. That policy discussion too would likely be uneccessary since its such a rare circumstance and the existing rules work just fine on those occasions.
It seems that some of you believe that there is some perceived notion now that sysops will use the recent vnadal case as precedent to ban others on a whim because they aren't liked or because they don't want to go through the effort of the esclation process. That just simply isn't the case. There are sufficient checks and balances in place to prevent that kind of abuse. Nothing special has happened because Johnny Rotten's ban was upheld. It was simply the first time that this wiki has had to deal with this specific issue and it had to be handled in a special way. Should that specific issue arise again, we'll handle it the same. Otherwise, its business as usual.
I don't recommend that this policy discussion be taken to vote. As Revenant points out, people will often try to push the boundaries of new policies and I don't really think that's something we want to see. It's time to just let it go and be thankful that one user can no longer use this wiki to victimize ud players. ~ _{07:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)}

and we lost yon and hopefully if we are lucky thad also... so win win.--User:Sexualharrison19:14, 25 November 2011 (bst)

I see no harm in writing it up as a policy, as it is descriptive of actual practice, and has the support of at least 8 sys-ops (the ones from the original A/VB case, plus the three who decided to Not Misconduct the A/M case). At the very least, it allows us a shortcut the next time someone like Yon or Thad tries to misconduct ops for doing the right decision. -- Spiderzed█ 20:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The correct course if you want to pursue this is to lay out a class of misdeeds that could result in an insta-permaban, rather than specifying an individual one or enumerating several individual ones. Make rules that can catch both previously-seen and never-before-seen misdeeds of a certain type and can handle them all in a sane way, rather than acting in a reactionary (*pokes Yon*) fashion by only responding to things that we've already seen. Personally though, I'm with Karek and the others that think the rules already handle things just fine. —Aichon— 04:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As Aichon. Singling out this as a specific offense while ignoring all the other potentially offensive stuff kicking around is not going to improve anything. This would be handled best with a civility policy but I'm pretty sure any attempts at that have been shot down. -- Cheese 12:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As Karek. --Private Mark 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As Karek. There is no need for this policy.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)