Universal Board Rules Update

ModThe Djinn·Jun 12, 2018·20 votes·127,070 views

Hello,** Boards!**

It’s been a while since the Universal Rules have been really looked at, and today we’re pushing out an update to them based on feedback we’ve received from the community. Here’s a quick rundown of the major changes, although we encourage every board member to review the rules and read the new additions:

#MAJOR RULES CHANGES We’ve added three new specific rules – while all of these rules were implied by previous rules, we’ve called them out specifically as these are things that we’ve heard pretty loudly players want to see less of (well, nobody was begging for a “No sharing personal information” rules, but it seemed important).

Gameplay and Rank Shaming [Added]: No belittling or shaming a player for their champion pool, rank, playstyle, or match history.

Pejorative Language [Added]: Do not use language intended to express contempt for an individual on the basis of ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, gender, religion, etc. This includes, but is not limited to, examples such as “gay”, “retarded”, “autistic”, “cuck”, “jew”, etc., even if intended humorously or jokingly.

Sharing Personal Information [Added]: Do not post personal information belonging to yourself or another player. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: real names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, Facebook profiles, etc. The sole exception is for streams/fan pages/names belonging to individuals who have opted to reveal this information to the public.

The Good Stuff [Added]: A section detailing some positive board behaviors that are great to aspire to. It’s worth reading, as if your post is adhering to these principles you’ve got nothing to worry about. If it looks a bit like the Summoner’s Code tweaked to apply to the boards, well…

#ORGANIZATION CHANGES You’ll see three sections (Good Stuff, Bad Stuff, and Really Bad Stuff) to help convey which behaviors we consider most problematic, some more links to the moderation discord and/or player support, some wording changes for clarity, and a nifty new drop-down format.

#You can find the updated Universal Rules here.

71 Comments

AltiverseJun 12, 20186 votes

Do not post or engage in discussions of religion, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, gender, politics, or real-world social issues.

Really? Are we encouraging censored platforms now as if we're living in North Korea? I fully understand that these topics will usually lead to heated discussions, yet any possible violation of board rules is already listed under a different category. If a discussion is getting out of hand, there already is a reason to close it and/or ban offensive commenters due to violation of the already listed rules (e.g. "hate speech", or anything else that was violated). That being said, I see no reason to censor and prohibit these types of discussions solely based on their nature. Doing so seems like nothing short of creating a dystopian platform to me.

Pejorative Language: This includes, but is not limited to, examples such as “gay”, “retarded”, “autistic”, “cuck”, “jew”, etc., even if intended humorously or jokingly.

Will these words be banned only if used in a pejorative manner? I'm quite literally a jew and a bisexual person irl, and seeing two of my identities in a "these words are offensive" list once again leads me to believe something went horribly wrong down the line of the decision making here.

InTheoryJun 12, 20181 votes

There are still special rules for general discussion though.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20188 votes

{quoted}

Really? Are we encouraging censored platforms now as if we're living in North Korea? I fully understand that these topics will usually lead to heated discussions, yet any possible violation of board rules is already listed under a different category. If a discussion is getting out of hand, there already is a reason to close it and/or ban offensive commenters due to violation of the already listed rules (e.g. "hate speech", or anything else that was violated). That being said, I see no reason to censor and prohibit these types of discussions solely based on their nature. Doing so seems like nothing short of creating a dystopian platform to me.

This rules has always existed, actually. It is simply more visible due to the new format.

The reason that rule is in effect is it's our experience, after several experiments where we allowed threads about those topics, that they almost unanimously spiral out of control and we are forced to take action, often against individuals whose behavior is otherwise perfectly fine, but who get pulled into these volatile topics.

Every now and then we take a look at this rule to see whether it needs to remain, and if we see a notable increase in how frequently these threads are handled appropriately when they are allowed, we may consider adjusting this rule.

Will these words be banned only if used in a pejorative manner? I'm quite literally a jew and a bisexual person irl, and seeing two of my identities in a "these words are offensive" list once again leads me to believe something went horribly wrong down the line of the decision making here.

Saying "I'm Jewish and I'm bisexual" or "my gay friend loved the rainbow poro icon" is fine. Saying "typical bi jew" in response to someone's opinion wouldn't be.

So yes, there is some discretionary space if you're using words non-insultingly. The reason we pushed this rule out, however, is that we saw a lot of instances of these terms used insultingly and wanted to clarify that thay isn't okay.

BobaFlautistJun 12, 20181 votes

I'm gonna ask here since it's tangentially related to the above:

Do not post or engage in discussions of religion, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, gender, politics, or real-world social issues.

How about as they pertain to League, or gaming in general? Can we have discussions about how, for example, female streamers find them harassed 10x as much as male stream? Or about how League presents minorities in it's lore?

Such conversations would also likely get out of hand, but mostly because a lot of people would lash out at the idea of caring about these things and actively try to sabotage threads about them.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20182 votes

{quoted}How about as they pertain to League, or gaming in general? Can we have discussions about how, for example, female streamers find them harassed 10x as much as male stream? Or about how League presents minorities in it's lore?

These threads are always discretionary, depending on the tone and content. Historically we have given leeway to threads that are especially relevant to the boards community, such as Net Neutrality or minority representation in League, but I would recommend visiting the moderation discord before making a thread you feel crosses those lines, so we can help advise on how (or if) it can be made board appropriate.

Because yes -- we do want people to be able to discuss things like the harassment of streamers, or the presentation of minorities in League, but we have to be careful these topics are being discussed properly, and not as proxies for other issues or as places to vent political/social anger.

BobaFlautistJun 12, 20181 votes

That makes sense. I guess my worry is that people with the agenda of preventing these discussions could aggressively make bad-faith threads or posts on existing threads with the goal of getting the topic banned (or getting controversial but good-faith threads closed by exploding on them). There's a relatively small, but incredibly vocal faction of gamers as a whole that are super invested in not allowing these conversations to happen, and I would hope you have a clear policy/plan for protecting these discussions from them.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

That makes sense. I guess my worry is that people with the agenda of preventing these discussions could aggressively make bad-faith threads or posts on existing threads with the goal of getting the topic banned (or getting controversial but good-faith threads closed by exploding on them). There's a relatively small, but incredibly vocal faction of gamers as a whole that are super invested in not allowing these conversations to happen, and I would hope you have a clear policy/plan for protecting these discussions from them.

This is precisely why we're cautious about allowing them, and why I recommend coming to the Discord to chat about it first. The fewer threads like this there are (and the more we're made aware of them), the easier it is for us to keep an eye on them.

EkyonKunJun 12, 20183 votes

I do have a question in regards to rank shaming, though it is 100% a rule that I understand. What if in the context, it's almost necessary to point out rank? For example: Player 1 is Bronze III claims Garen is OP and destroys every game he's in. Player 2 points out "Garen is fine. He probably does very well in your games because of the low elo you play in." or something along these lines. Is this permissible or is it still considered rank shaming?

I just imagine this rule was made to stop people from spouting things like "lol a silver 2 discussing balance" which i totally agree is a problem and should be addressed, but I'd just like some clarification if there are exceptions like the former example.

AltiverseJun 12, 20181 votes

I second this question. Rank is originally meant simply to match you with players of similar rank, aka matchmaking. Seeing board mods ban the very act of stating one's rank, if not used in a pejorative manner, is nothing short of enforcing the idea that rank is only used to praise and/or shame someone for their rank.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I second this question. Rank is originally meant simply to match you with players of similar rank, aka matchmaking. Seeing board mods ban the very act of stating one's rank, if not used in a pejorative manner, is nothing short of enforcing the idea that rank is only used to praise and/or shame someone for their rank.

The rule specifically states "belittling or shaming." If it's appropriate to the discussion to mention someone's rank (such as "Master Yi does often feel overpowered in lower MMRs due to the teamwork required to shut him down, which requires more coordination than you [the OP] probably see frequently in Silver" that's fine -- it's a statement of fact, and isn't insulting (although I'll point out you could make the same point without bringing rank into it at all).

"You only think he's too strong 'cause your Silver", on the other hand, isn't okay.

InTheoryJun 12, 20183 votes

Commenting something in regards of rank, implying that there are differences in ranks should not be phrased by pointing out low skill of said rank but rather in a way that implies something being more common there.

#Bad:

"Champion XY is not toxic because you are in low elo and nobody in low elo can play them properly".

"Champion XY is stomping in your games because players in low elo can't play against it".

#Good:

"Champion XY is has a high skill ceiling so you don't see them as often played to their full potential in low elo".

"Champion XY is tends to be hard to deal with in low elo since he requires better organized teamplay as counterplay".

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20182 votes

Well said. Pointing out trends in a skill range is fine, being insulting about them is not. If you're a platinum player, we all know you're likely better at pretty much everything about the game then someone in bronze 5. That still doesn't mean you have to call bronze 5 players bad, or call them noobs, or trash their opinions disrespectfully.

sKz Aaron DJun 14, 20181 votes

Sounds like it's doubleplusungood to use the skill measurement system Riot created to discuss skill.

ModThe DjinnJun 14, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=sKz Aaron D,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=000300010001,timestamp=2018-06-14T03:05:23.654+0000)Sounds like it's doubleplusungood to use the skill measurement system Riot created to discuss skill.

Discussing skill is fine. Belittling someone else for their rank is not, nor is dismissing their comments simply due to their rank, or making fun of their lack of gameplay success. Hence the use of the word "shaming" rather than "mentioning." If mentioning someone's rank is important to the conversation and you discuss it in a respectful manner, that's fine.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I do have a question in regards to rank shaming, though it is 100% a rule that I understand. What if in the context, it's almost necessary to point out rank? For example: Player 1 is Bronze III claims Garen is OP and destroys every game he's in. Player 2 points out "Garen is fine. He probably does very well in your games because of the low elo you play in." or something along these lines. Is this permissible or is it still considered rank shaming?

I just imagine this rule was made to stop people from spouting things like "lol a silver 2 discussing balance" which i totally agree is a problem and should be addressed, but I'd just like some clarification if there are exceptions like the former example.

If you are not the belittling or shaming the player, discussion of rank is fine.

"Garen tends to do really well in your ranked bracket, because a lot of players there don't know the proper counterplay to him. Here are some tips." -- This is great.

"Garen tends to do really well in your ranked bracket because it's the lowest one out there and that's where all the noobs are." -- This is not great.

"Garen's fine if you aren't bronze. Learn to play." -- This is definitely not great.

4 Step CadenceJun 12, 20183 votes

Pejorative Language [Added]: Do not use language intended to express contempt for an individual on the basis of ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, gender, religion, etc. This includes, but is not limited to, examples such as “gay”, “retarded”, “autistic”, “cuck”, “jew”, etc., even if intended humorously or jokingly.

As someone with Autism(who is also Pan), I'm happy to hear that this is no longer allowed on the boards. Thank you.

QuinzleyJun 12, 20183 votes

[deleted]

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20184 votes

{quoted}

Oh look even more censorship. I'll get banned for making jokes?

If your joke relies on pejorative or derogatory language for it's punchline, it's a possibility, yes. That's not an appropriate joke for the boards, and never has been.

QuinzleyJun 12, 20182 votes

[deleted]

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20186 votes

{quoted}

I hate censorship. In a society which promotes freedom of speech this is unacceptable. Where exactly do you draw the line? Can I make a joke about cats? What if it offends someone who partially identifies as a cat? Isn't that hate speech then?

"Cat" is not a derogatory or pejorative word, so you can make a joke about cats, yes. The exact location the line is drawn is a little bit discretionary, but in general it is drawn at using terms related to social views, race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or physical/mental conditions as either insults or punchlines.

I will also point out the private organizations have always been allowed to set restrictions for beavior on their premises, be they real or virtual. It is no more a violation of your freedom of speech then it is for a supermarket to ask someone shouting racist slurs to leave.

meticoulouswolfJun 13, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=000c000000000000,timestamp=2018-06-12T21:08:45.291+0000)

"Cat" is not a derogatory or pejorative word, so you can make a joke about cats, yes. The exact location the line is drawn is a little bit discretionary, but in general it is drawn at using terms related to social views, race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, or physical/mental conditions as either insults or punchlines.

I will also point out the private organizations have always been allowed to set restrictions for beavior on their premises, be they real or virtual. It is no more a violation of your freedom of speech then it is for a supermarket to ask someone shouting racist slurs to leave.

ayye someone understands how freedom of speech works I am happy to see this XD

QuinzleyJun 13, 20182 votes

[deleted]

ModThe DjinnJun 13, 20184 votes

{quoted}But some people identify as cats. What now? Aren't cat jokes offensive to them and are aimed at their gender/sexuality?

If you are using the joke specifically to target their gender/sexuality, they yes. The simple fact is that it's typically assumed that "I fucking hate cats" isn't disparaging someone for their gender/sexuality, and "I fucking hate gays" is intended as that.

In effect, the answer to "where does it stop" is "somewhere."

I hate the thought of a person's ideas being modified or even hushed because someone somewhere might not like to hear them. Outside actually breaking the law or causing someone physical harm "hurting someone's feelings" is almost impossible to objectively quantify.

"Hurting someone's feelings" also isn't on the list of things that aren't okay, because we understand that people can have hurt feelings about things that are frankly harmless to 99.99% of people and aren't intended to disparage or antagonize any specific group. We aren't going to do things like remove "I don't like cats" because someone who DOES like cats is offended. We ARE going to remove "I don't like jews" because that's clearly a social/racial/religious/ethnic/sexuality/condition related comment. Part of this is that the second is OBVIOUSLY designed to target someone, and the former could ACCIDENTALLY do that in HIGHLY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.

If you are ever in doubt if a comment you wish to make is acceptable, you can always come to the Moderation Discord. We'll be happy to help you determine if it is acceptable or not.

kriegnesJun 22, 20181 votes

banning racism is ok but now you cant even make a joke? everytime someone makes a racist, homophobe or disabled joke white knights appear and try to defend them. at the same time that guy sitting in a wheelchair is laughing his ass off because he thougth that joke to be funny. you guys are racists and you dont even realize it. by forbidding jokes about disabled people you are moving them into the victim role. you are acting as if they cant defend themselves. as if they are some broken humans. if i can make a joke about a "normal" human being i can make jokes about disabled people too. they are all just people and should be threatened equally. not worse but also not better.

ModThe DjinnJun 22, 20182 votes

{quoted}banning racism is ok but now you cant even make a joke?

We're not banning humor. We're banning specific types of comments (humorous or not) that are not acceptable for use on the boards, and are consistent with behaviors that are not considered acceptable in the game.

"That's gay" isn't a joke -- it's the equivalent to calling something stupid, save that you're using "gay" to MEAN stupid, and in doing so insulting everyone who is gay by equating it with stupidity. When the punchline is "being gay is the same as being stupid," it's not a joke -- it's just derogatory.

I'm not saying that someone (gay or straight or otherwise) can't find it fucking hilarious -- I'm saying that the boards simply aren't the place for that. You and that individual are welcome to go somewhere else to yuck it up all you want, with my blessings.

SangreDeNocheJun 13, 20183 votes

I read this as "Universal Bard rules update"

rtbf225618241Jun 12, 20182 votes

even if intended humorously or jokingly.

Why? If the parties involved understand they're both just fooling around and not attacking each other, this part seems pointless.

Imagine someone calls themselves a Bronzie or someone else but in a playful, friendly manner. Say they know each other. This would not seem justified at all.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20185 votes

{quoted}Why? If the parties involved understand they're both just fooling around and not attacking each other, this part seems pointless.

Because that quote is pulled from the pejorative language section. I frankly don't care if you and your friends use "that's gay" or "that's retarded" to mean different things when talking privately to each other, or if you find them light-hearted phrases. That's fine.

What's NOT fine is assuming you can use those usually-offensive words outside of that setting -- in front of the entire board community -- and assume that everyone will simply assume you meant them in a light-hearted or joking way.

In short, your friend may know that when you say "that's retarded" to him you mean "that's silly and unbelievable." No one on the boards knows that, and that word is typically used as an insult, and as a derogatory one at that. As such, it is not something we will be allowing.

rtbf225618241Jun 12, 20182 votes

Ok then. Might be useful to be a tiny bit more specific when making such broad statements though.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Ok then. Might be useful to be a tiny bit more specific when making such broad statements though.

I don't really see the need to be, because, again, the point is that you can't use words like that on the boards, which aren't private. I think it's assumed that the Universal Board Rules don't affect how you act with your friends in private.

rtbf225618241Jun 12, 20183 votes

I meant that you should be a bit more specific so misunderstandings like mine won't happen again.

Because honestly, i'm not an idiot and i sort-of knew what you meant but i had to be sure. I'm willing to be you've met people on the Boards who jump to far more aggressive conclusions without asking.

sKz Aaron DJun 14, 20183 votes

I have a gay friend who uses "that's gay" as a catch-all for annoying, dumb, strange, and more. Is my gay friend no longer allowed to say that something is gay?

No, my gay friend is not me, and yes he is actually gay. He has flirted with me and everyone other guy on our team and describes himself as a, "Raging #@*%&@."

ModThe DjinnJun 14, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=sKz Aaron D,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=000b00000001,timestamp=2018-06-14T03:11:54.256+0000)I have a gay friend who uses "that's gay" as a catch-all for annoying, dumb, strange, and more. Is my gay friend no longer allowed to say that something is gay?

No, my gay friend is not me, and yes he is actually gay. He has flirted with me and everyone other guy on our team and describes himself as a, "Raging #@*%&@."

Again, I'm not saying what your friend can or cannot say outside of the boards, or what he finds funny/amusing/appropriate. I'm simply saying what is considered acceptable or unacceptable on the boards. Using "gay" to mean "dumb" or "strange" or calling someone a "raging @#^!@#" are not allowed, no matter who says it.

kriegnesJun 22, 20181 votes

wow. so you are not even allowing a gay person to joke about himself? no one has even the right to be offended by what he says. hes the gay person not you. you dont decide for him.

ModThe DjinnJun 22, 20181 votes

{quoted}

wow. so you are not even allowing a gay person to joke about himself? no one has even the right to be offended by what he says. hes the gay person not you. you dont decide for him.

"Using "gay" to mean "dumb" or "strange" or calling someone a "raging @#^!@#" are not allowed, no matter who says it."

Emphasis (and original words) mine -- we're not saying he has to be offended, or that he can't also think this is a silly rule. He's entitled to his opinions. We're simply saying what is and isn't allowed on this board.

Godly ArchfiendJun 14, 20182 votes

I find it all good and happy but when you say <<Pejorative Language [Added]: Do not use language intended to express contempt for an individual on the basis of ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, gender, religion, etc. This includes, but is not limited to, examples such as “gay”, “retarded”, “autistic”, “cuck”, “jew”, etc., even if intended humorously or jokingly. >> you are reffering mainly to what is classifed as racism but do we forget that the first black champion riot released lucian Lucian was holding two guns or we forget that the second black champ reffering to ekko Ekko ( some of you may not agree with this based on how he looks in the splash art ) stole a time machine in his lore? isnt that racism and usage of stereotypes.

Now dont get me wrong i dont want to judge you or anything and i dont want to get banned for letting out my opinion ( and i mean it like seriously one ez can end up in permaban... and after 2 months of not flaming im still in the first checkpoint for level 1 ) i just hate hypocrisy.

ModThe DjinnJun 14, 20184 votes

{quoted}but do we forget that the first black champion riot released lucian was holding two guns or we forget that the second black champ reffering to ekko [ some of you may not agree with this based on how he looks in the splash art ] stole a time machine in his lore? isnt that racism and usage of stereotypes.

Anyone who actively looks for reasons to be offended will find them, yes.

Lucian is a heroic and moral character. He just happens to fight with guns, which has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his character fantasy. The "heroic anti-supernatural gunslinger" is a trope from many forms of media, and simply because Lucian is a BLACK anti-supernatural gunslinger doesn't make that racist. Sure, you could MAKE it racist if you leaned into certain stereotypes, but Lucian's character portrayal definitely avoids that.

Ekko didn't really steal anything -- he took a crystal from the rubble of a demolished lab, and invented his own device around it. He's an ingenous child turned mage-punk hero, and the fact that he happens to be black doesn't make him a stereotype.

In effect, people need to realize that a character's skin color is just that -- a skin color. Unless we see enough stereotypical elements to be insulting, it's safe to assume that you're simply reading too far into things. If criminals, gunslingers, mages, and great warriors exist in League of Legends, than a person of ANY skin color or ethnicity can be a criminal, gunslinger, mage, or great warrior.

This is also entirely different from the use of pejorative language. "This gunslinging character happens to be black" is a description of a character that is neither inherently racist nor insulting. "You're a retarded cuck" is an insult, plain and simple.

Godly ArchfiendJun 14, 20182 votes

You come to what i meant but probably I set it wrong Sry for that English is not my primary language it is how you lean to something so why say <<even if it was intended as humorous>> isn't that for the people to decide? Did they openly said we want this to be banned and I mean like a lot of people not like 10 9yo who haven't even informed they parent that they are play. Anyways not that I actually mind as a said in my original comment since I don't use the forum often

ModThe DjinnJun 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}Did they openly said we want this to be banned and I mean like a lot of people not like 10 9yo who haven't even informed they parent that they are play.

Feedback we have received from the community and data we have on what frequently gets reported were the majority of what we based this rule on, yes. It also better aligns the board rules with the in-game chat rules on what behavior is acceptable.

InTheoryJun 12, 20181 votes

I'm quite surprised that you didn't update the phrasing for some rules like spamming as I suggested in your personal ama. Still can't figgure out when a comment violates these rules:

Posting designed to bait conversation or falsify content.
Posting designed to spoil things (movies, shows, books, etc.) for other players
Posting repetitive non-constructive or low-effort content.
Bumping of discussions while adding no meaningful content.

ModThe DjinnJun 12, 20182 votes

{quoted}I'm quite surprised that you didn't update the phrasing for some rules like spamming as I suggested in your personal ama. Still can't figgure out when a comment violates these rules:

Unfortunately, my attempts to find clarifying language led to large blocks of text that still left ambiguity while also reducing readablity. It's frustrating, but most of the judgments when spamming are concerned are, in fact, largely discretionary.

sKz Aaron DJun 14, 20181 votes

And today I was likely downvoted by a mod who said that I was in the right, but evidently disliked that I said what I did. Nice to see that our overlords are all aspiring to the standards they have set for us.

ModThe DjinnJun 14, 20182 votes

[{quoted}](name=sKz Aaron D,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=000f,timestamp=2018-06-14T02:33:00.688+0000)

And today I was likely downvoted by a mod who said that I was in the right, but evidently disliked that I said what I did. Nice to see that our overlords are all aspiring to the standards they have set for us.

I'm sorry you feel that way, although with the size of the community and the visibility of a lot of threads I'm a little saddened that you immediately jump to assuming that a moderator had a personal vendetta against you, especially given that the moderator in question is one of the most cheerful moderators on the team. Other people DO use upvotes and downvotes as well, after all. :)

sKz Aaron DJun 14, 20181 votes

It was a few comments down on a thread with no upvotes on either of us beyond the default one, so I think it's safe to assume it was the mod I was talking to.

I don't think they have a personal vendetta against me, but I do think that most of the mods and Rioters have a set of values that they see as diametrically opposed to mine.

kriegnesJun 22, 20181 votes

the dont say gay rule is gay

La Belle SauvageJun 22, 20181 votes

Question @ The Djinn:

Often when answering Tech Spec questions I mention JayzTwocent's YouTube Channel. It's not my channel but it's excellent information about pc builds and how components work. That's okay right? One of the rukes mentioned not advertising your own channel, but what about other channels that are well established?

ModThe DjinnJun 22, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Bello Bagheera,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=0016,timestamp=2018-06-22T15:36:48.028+0000)

Question @ The Djinn:

Often when answering Tech Spec questions I mention JayzTwocent's YouTube Channel. It's not my channel but it's excellent information about pc builds and how components work. That's okay right? One of the rukes mentioned not advertising your own channel, but what about other channels that are well established?

Giving useful information when relevant is totally fine, even if it IS your own content.

La Belle SauvageJun 22, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=00160000,timestamp=2018-06-22T15:43:53.620+0000)

Giving useful information when relevant is totally fine, even if it IS your own content.

I thought so, but thought I'd double check. Thank you!

Hemulen MagiJun 28, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Rr5Ulb1z,comment-id=,timestamp=2018-06-12T01:07:09.123+0000)

Pejorative Language [Added]: Do not use language intended to express contempt for an individual on the basis of ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, political affiliation, gender, religion, etc. This includes, but is not limited to, examples such as “gay”, “retarded”, “autistic”, “cuck”, “jew”, etc., even if intended humorously or jokingly.

Can you take "jew" out of this list? The context implies that "jew" has an automatic pejorative connotation. I feel like it makes no more sense than to list Christian, Muslim, Arab, Turk, Mongol, Chinese, Black, White, Male, Mexican, etc. In fact, just remove the list altogether and get rid of the rule. It's too subjective and open-ended. It puts too much power in mods hands based on their personal interpretations. There is no clear line to say is something is pejorative or if it exceeds some arbitrary line of how pejorative something is allowed to be. If someone says they are tired of being bible bashed are they going to be banned for using a pejorative against religion? If someone says that they don't like blacks being shot by racist cops, are they going to be banned for showing contempt against law enforcement? What if someone says the opposite, that cops should be empowered to make snap judgments in order to preserve law enforcement lives even if it means accepting civilians deaths that are partly the result of racial profiling, is that being pejorative against blacks because it could be interpreted as saying that cop lives are more important than certain blacks in high-crime areas? This rule is honestly stupid and meaningless. All you mods do is shut down free speech. The only rule I agree with is the one against sharing personal identity information. You might as well add "mod" to your stupid list, because whenever I use that word, I mean it pejoratively with as much contempt as I can fit in a word.