Is it acceptable for posters to call others "whales"? This is a purely insulting and derogatory term that is used to insult people who have discretionary income to spend on things they enjoy, simply because the person calling them a "whale" is mad that they aren't getting it for free and can't afford it.
If this is allowed, it shouldn't be.
ModThe Djinn9 votesThe term is fairly standard in the microtransaction industry, and I can't see us banning it as a result. If used to obviously disparage someone that's a different situation we'll handle as the circumstance dictates.
rujitra2 votesSomething being commonly used should not be a reason to not ban something that is used solely and completely in a certain context to disparage and insult others. Nor should it have to be a specific person or "obvious" to remove.
Part of civil discussion is not alienating entire classes of opinion/person with an insulting, disparaging term.
ModThe Djinn5 votes{quoted}Something being commonly used should not be a reason to not ban something that is used solely and completely in a certain context to disparage and insult others.
Let me rephrase then: it is actually a descriptive and accepted term when discussing monetization methods. It has to do with an outsized spending amount compared to other individuals, and that's it. It is not actually used to disparage or insult others unless individuals are specifically using it that way malevolently. All it is otherwise is industry shorthand for a big spender.
rujitra1 votesThe only context in which bringing up players who are "whales" on the boards would be used is when it is used as an attempt to disparage. I cannot see and refuse to believe there is an acceptable discussion where League players would be grouped into "whales" and "not whales" unless you can provide an example of one where it would be acceptable.
Even if a rare case where it is appropriate does exist, in my opinion it is much better to simply have a blanket ban and deal with the rare case where it's okay with a rule exception based on common sense.
ModThe Djinn5 votesThe only context in which bringing up players who are "whales" on the boards would be used is when it is used as an attempt to disparage. I cannot see and refuse to believe there is an acceptable discussion where League players would be grouped into "whales" and "not whales" unless you can provide an example of one where it would be acceptable.
Even if a rare case where it is appropriate does exist, in my opinion it is much better to simply have a blanket ban and deal with the rare case where it's okay with a rule exception based on common sense.
If you cannot believe and refuse to believe there is any situation where this term might be appropriate, then I believe there is no good in us having further discussion here. Perhaps other Heralds will wish to weigh in, but at this time I think I will simply have to disagree and, ultimately, leave you disappointed.
Since you asked for an example, however, it would be entirely reasonable to say that Gemstone skins are designed to appeal to whales. In this context that is not at all insulting, and simply is a way to explain that those skins lines are designed to be appealing to players who spend more money at the game. That statement does not disparage those individuals in any way.
rujitra1 votesI do not feel that would be an acceptable thing.
It is segmenting the League of Legends community based solely on the fact that someone spends. At a minimum, it has absolutely no discussion value. If they want to say "they are designed to appeal to those who spend a lot of money", they can say that. By permitting them to be called "whales" (which is also used to refer to fat people and as an insult), it is not fostering civil discussion.
I respect that you may disagree and that's fine.
Umbral Regent5 votesAFAIK; directly insulting people by calling them "whales" is against the rules, however there are use cases that are borderline (such as making indirect comments about "whales", such as "whales influence Riot's commercial behavior"), and there's also what I believe to be an acceptable usage case, which is discussing pricing and the like with mention or reference to "whales".
I could almost certainly be wrong on the latter two examples, but I do think that it's one of those things that, while disparaging and insulting to a degree, has some valid use cases and would be moderated on such a basis.
rujitra2 votesI do not believe the term should be allowed at all.
When you are discussing pricing or Riot's behavior and reference "whales", it is an attempt to disparage and demean people who choose to buy Riot's products. There is absolutely no context in which calling a group of players "whales" would be not an insulting, demeaning, disparaging, and quite frankly borderline discriminatory term (unless, I guess, there were actual blue whales playing League. But I doubt that).
Like, when you look at it, the word is used to cordon off a group of players for a characteristic (namely that they have money to spend and choose to spend it), and is then used to disparage them. That is the definition of hate speech (if you accept the general definition that it only need be a "non-negative characteristic" and not something specifically limited to sex/race/etc.
GatekeeperTDS3 votesI do not believe the term should be allowed at all.
Those who spend a lot of money on video games are not a protected class, and referring to "whales" in a non-insulting manner should not be a problem. This isn't hate speech. I think you're stretching here, rujitra.
rujitra1 votesI am not suggesting discussion of the animal be prohibited. And I am not saying it is hate speech, I am saying that it meets the definition of it. Who gets to define what classes are "protected"?
Umbral Regent5 votesCalling it hate speech is a bit much. We're talking about spending practices here, not something like sexual orientation, ethnicity, or mental disability. It's an insulting and disparaging term, no doubt about that, but it doesn't constitute hate speech.
Personally, I think there can still be at least some valid reference to "whales" even despite the insulting nature of the term, but I also feel like we need a different term for it altogether - one that's not subject to the euphemism treadmill.
The problem with that, though, is that it's hard not to create negative terminology to refer to someone who openly spends in potential excess. The lightest term I can think of is "spendthrift", and even that is a touch insulting. Maybe "leisure-spender"? I dunno.
At the end of the day, while I understand why you don't think it should be allowed, and even agree with you to a point, I think those other use cases I mentioned are something of a bullet we have to bite.
rujitra2 votesWhere should the line be drawn between classes that are "protected" enough? If we are to have freedom of choice, but we permit people to be harassed, demeaned, and insulted based on their choices, is it true freedom of choice?
There is absolutely no reason that discussing spending in excess should be permitted on the boards. If people are spending money on League through their own choices, it's their choice, and they should not be permitted to be harassed or insulted for it. It does not matter you disagree with their choice to spend - it's their choice, not yours.
DBS Ronovon1 votes[deleted]
rujitra2 votesObesity is a health issue.
This is the League of Legends discussion boards, of which people who spend money are a part of. This is not a board in which discussion of weight is appropriate at all.
DBS Ronovon1 votes
Obesity is a health issue.
This is the League of Legends discussion boards, of which people who spend money are a part of. This is not a board in which discussion of weight is appropriate at all.
Thanks, I deleted my comment, I don't want to get banned from the forums.
rujitra1 votesI'm not sure you comment would've violated any rules, I was merely trying to point out why the discussion of weight on, say, someone's instagram page is different than attempting to discredit the opinions of people because they spend money by insulting them calling them "whales".
DBS Ronovon2 votesI'm not sure you comment would've violated any rules, I was merely trying to point out why the discussion of weight on, say, someone's instagram page is different than attempting to discredit the opinions of people because they spend money by insulting them calling them "whales".
Did someone offend you recently?
Umbral Regent3 votesWhere should the line be drawn between classes that are "protected" enough?
As I frequently tend to explain, hate speech is an attack on an unchangeable characteristic of an individual. Gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. - if it's something that can't be helped or can't fundamentally be changed, insulting someone on that basis would be hate speech.
Income and spending practice are very malleable characteristics. I could potentially have a job or other such source of income, and then one day I could leave off or get fired or something else; and likewise, I could be very open to spending one day, but then the next start being more careful about my purchases.
If we are to have freedom of choice, but we permit people to be harassed, demeaned, and insulted based on their choices, is it true freedom of choice?
Generally speaking, if that harassment and insult does not ultimately constrain a person's choice, then yes, it is still the freedom of choice.
The problem is that you're conflating all use cases of a disparaging term to being insults and harassment; it's still a shitty term, but as I mentioned before, it's an unfortunate effect of the euphemism treadmill. It's very difficult to remove negative connotations from something like excess spending.
It is possible, I'm certain, but you'd have to boil it down to the point where it becomes akin to Intellectual Disability; so reduced into a basic description that it would barely see any common use. And even then, people would still fall back on disparaging slang terms since the association is so ingrained on the word that it becomes part and parcel with the described subject.
So, like I said; it's a bullet we unfortunately have to bite.
There is absolutely no reason that discussing spending in excess should be permitted on the boards.
I disagree; there is, at least somewhere on the Boards, a place where Riot's pricing for content and the like belongs, and if there is any place where people are permitted to discuss things like pricing, commerce, and so forth, I think that there will also inevitably be a place where discussing/referencing excess-spenders is permitted.
If people are spending money on League through their own choices, it's their choice, and they should not be permitted to be harassed or insulted for it. It does not matter you disagree with their choice to spend - it's their choice, not yours.
I don't disagree in the slightest. I've been raised with the ethos of "(not) my money, (not) my problem" - people have no place to dictate or argue how someone else spends their money, and vice versa.
But I don't believe that "whale" as a broad-use term merits being completely disallowed.
MunchingDragon4 votesWe are reaching levels of woke never seen before.
ModUlanopo4 votesWhen we review words to see if they should be added to the list, we look at a couple of things:
How bad is the word to the people most affected by it? Examples of this are the slang terms for the Roma and for having been cheated by a Roma. Most people don't know the origins of these terms, but they're no less offensive because of it. We don't allow either despite the common perception they aren't highly racist.
Does the word have a common, innocuous meaning? We don't censor "bitch" because it's sometimes used in the context of complaining. We would remove it when we note it being used as an insult. This is true for a number of racial and ethnic insults (a "%%%%%" in the armor, my house is "%%%%" and span, etc.). It's worth noting that "r%%%%%ed" was only added to the filter after a couple of weeks of fairly intense debate. People argued that it can mean "delayed in development or progression", but were challenged to find a use in that context. Truth is, it's very nearly always "that's r%%%%%ed", which is useless as a point of discussion, or "you're r%%%%%ed", which is obviously an attack.
Is the word commonly understood as offensive? The NA Boards have to be open to all regions because this is where the Rioters are. In general, we lean towards "is it offensive or insulting anywhere?" This is how British slang terms for cigarettes and female genitalia are reviewed, for example.
So, let's come back around to "whale". Moderating this the way you suggest presents a couple of problems.
I've never heard of someone objecting to being called a whale in the sense of regularly spending a lot of money on something. This is how casinos regularly refer to their high rollers. If we noticed someone using it in a derogatory way with regard to someone's weight or size, that would be moderated based on the general guidelines.
The word has a perfectly innocuous meaning. It would be really awkward to go to GD and see a thread titled, "I went on a cruise and saw some w%%%%s."
Again, yours is the very first complaint I've ever heard with regard to the term, so I don't really feel it's as much of a problem as you're making it out to be. As always, if you can find an example of a pejorative use on the Boards that would not be subject to traditional moderation, link it to me in the Discord and I'll take a look.
rujitra1 votesThank you. I'm not asking it to be censored universally, but I believe that when used to refer to a group or players it should be edited or deleted. I can try to gather examples and come discuss with you in discord over the next few days sometime.
Kürama4 votesI love whales.
And more.
I also feel like identifying as a Sperm Whale today. So please, address as such or maybe just Whale for short. 😄
TyrekGoldenspear2 votesIt's a blanket term referring to large spenders. It's just a word with no connotation behind it. It's the context in the rest of the sentence that would denote a negative or positive spin on it.
Also, I think that people willing to spend lots of money have other more important things to do with their time then be offended by the term whale.
Like enjoying the stuff they bought, for one.
EvilDustMan2 votesIt's a careful line to draw. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a whale except that maybe we as a people need to spend our money on better things. It is hard to see a game cater to whales, because it means they are spending energy on things for high value customers or making things pay to win(FFRK has big whale hooks, but the game works well for non whales)
It's more that the people who fill this space foster some possibly bad but necessary for profitability design. And if they didn't exist, more energy would be spent on the mid range spenders.
Everyone hates lawyers, but lawyer itself isn't an insult. But you can totally make lawyer an insult through context.
MrFawknSunshine1 voteswhat i think is insulting is people think that people are to stupid to have self control over their budget/finances. and the fact that people think no one has a job and earn $$$ and can chose to buy whatever da fuk they want if they chose so. then those same people think riot is wrong for being a for profit company and evil by releasing content to make money.