by bananahammock » Fri May 26, 2023 9:14 am
Thank you for your reply, now that there has been clarification of the position of this report in terms of it being a form of "bad language", we can now discuss the issues with this case.
"Your used language does not fit a game for people at the age of 13+"
During the past couple of days, I have review all the documentation that is available to players to view in regards to rules, in particular to that of the issue at hand. I am sure you are aware of these documents, so at risk of sounding arrogant or condescending, I will not quote them in this message. This includes the Google document with filtered and unfiltered vocabulary, and phrases not allowed in the game. I have failed to find any example that could even closely apply to the case in question.
The problem with this case is that it is making an objective ruling, based on a subjective evaluation. If the language rules were stated objectively and that what was said was not meeting a directly stated standard i.e.. google doc vocabulary filter list, then this is a open and shut case. However, it fails to meet this threshold from a legal standpoint.
There is a hypocritical aspect with regards to the rules if this game is in fact suppose to be 13+. TOS is rated "Teen" by the ESRB, again at risk of sounding condescending i won't quote it, but what was said would still be accepted in the ESRB rating system for "Teen".
Though the chat filter does exist to allow the game to have a "Teen" rating, this can easily be shut off by a minor playing the game which would also expose those players to "4 letter" words which are far more harmful and offensive than the words "sex criminal" or "sex crime". This doesn't including the many vulgar terms still used in game that currently are far more offensive then a legally used term such as "sex crime".
If we wanted to go further into the games concepts, the roles Escort and Consort literally exemplify a "sex crime" or an act of prostitution.
In light of the evidence presented above, I fail to see how it can be defended that the language used wasn't appropriate when other vocabulary/phrases far more offensive and vulgar are allowed in game(not picked up by the chat filter), and aspects of the game concepts themselves hint at the very thing that was said. To do so contradicts the already allowed words and phrases in game that go against the games rules.
This is also connected with a community panel of judges that decide on cases based on their own subjectivity. Some cases are clear cut objectively because the exact infraction is listed, or is it basic common sense being used i.e.. chat filter work arounds for racism or vulgarity.
The judges who decided that this case should have been deemed guilty should have their credentials and voting history on cases reviewed. If someone is going to vote a case to be guilty based on a purely subjective nature without the basis of objectivity, you are setting up a precedent that can be deemed undemocratic and an injustice.
I would like to see that this infraction is stricken from my account at the earliest possible convenience.
If this verdict is being upheld, the position is being made by the powers that be, that this would fall under the subjective and ambiguity of the language rules, which to me would be a cop out at dealing with this appropriately and also a wrongfully placed supportive measure of backing up community judges who got this wrong. This would come at a price.
By allowing this to stand, the justice system of this game is saying that there are rules are in place, but open to subjective interpretation with out the basis of objectivity. If this is fact what the game wants to stand by, then rules are merely suggestions in this case, and orderly rule of the law does not exist in this community. Justice is dealt with in objective realm, and if the subjective realm is being used, then there needs to be some objective basis in fact. This has failed to meet this threshold and really shouldn't have escalated any further than the initial reporting stage.
This does seem to be a lot of fuss for a 1st time infraction but I wouldn't be challenging this if I didn't think that the possible decision here would be starting a slippery slope and be viewed as a debasement to the current judicial system of the game and how infractions are interpreted and acted on in this community.