Boards›Player Behavior

The Offense Principle

JRobin31·6/26/2018, 5:51:26 AM·2 votes·3,102 views

In the 1800s, philosopher John Stuart Mill put forth the "harm principle" which roughly states freedom of speech should only be limited (by the government) where speech incites people to commit crimes. For example, "Burn down his house!", "Beat them up!" In other words, speech should be limited when it incites people to do harm. In the 1980s, the philosopher Joel Feinberg put forth the "offense principle" which roughly states freedom of speech may be limited when is it "seriously offensive." Unfortunately, "seriously offensive" isn't something that everyone seems to agree about. Some people don't have a problem with people who say "abusive and hateful things" about cats, but they might feel differently if abusive and hateful things are said about a particular religion.

Some people believe they have the right to say "abusive and hateful things." Some people don't believe they have the right to say "abusive and hateful things." Some people think it's more accurate to say that people have the right not to listen to "abusive and hateful things."

Let's just explore a bit further. In soccer (football), Law 12 (Fouls and misconducts) instructs referees to red card players that use swear words. A red card commonly means permanent suspension from the game. Yet we see many player complain about their suspensions... and, of course, their account bans. According to this article in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine June 1, 2011 (May I Curse a Referee? Swear Words and Consequences), "Approximately half of the referees would have responded to players saying swear words in a game by issuing a red card (55.7% red card, 25.2% yellow/blue card, 12.1% admonition, and 7.0% no reaction)." But in all of these cases a red card is called for according to Law 12. The effect was independent of the referee’s qualification and experience as a referee.

There are actual differences among people as to what they regard as offensive. Of the 113 referees, only 11 gave red cards in every case and only 2 of them stated that an offense of that nature must lead to a red card. Seven referees wrote that verbal abuse would lead to a red card, but chose not to issue a red card in all cases. Two referees added that verbal offenses do not influence them in any way.

I think it's interesting because some players don't care about verbally abusive chat at all and some players are offended at any instance of it and we get the common threads in Player Behavior where players banter back and forth about what they should or should not be allowed to say in chat... without consequences...

So we know that the "offense principle" isn't agreed on by 100% of the population. This is a fact. What is regarded as offensive is a matter of opinion. This is the basis of some arguments against permanent account bans for offensive chat.

Here is a list of suspensions in the National Football League. In what sports do people get banned for life on the basis of offensive comments?

Recently, Microsoft banned offensive language, declaring the power to take away all your video games for swearing. Whereas just two years ago, Instagram adopted a policy of 'let users decide'.

Now that we've taken this magical journey to understand the "offense principle," here's the next question I want to leave you with: Is the "offense principle" something that has undeniable appeal in the intermediate term but leaves grievances to fester and mistrust to grow?

Yesterday people are offended by swearing, today people are offended by Nunu bot lane, tomorrow people are offended by the entire player community. Say it isn't so.

18 Comments

Mordepool6/26/2018, 3:10:42 PM4 votes

In order to have an actual thought provoking conversation you need to risk having your sensibilities offended. That's the medium for human growth.

We live in a world dominated by overly offended frail people who demand to be sheltered as they claim victimhood. However those demands are tyrannical in implementation.

Bringing the subject to the medium at hand. There are things you need to understand.

We made an agreement with a private company to play this game.

That company doesn't have to act in good faith. We have no rights here, no true freedom of speech.

Thier playground thier rules. That's all well and good. Since Frankly I don't want Political Bullshit mixing with My Fantasy Power fantasy.

Answer is. "Don't think about it"

naruto12676/26/2018, 5:57:23 AM3 votes

why, why are you giving us a informational text about the offense principle?

YerroFever6/27/2018, 7:19:15 PM3 votes

{quoted}

** ::edited out the background info part::**

Now that we've taken this magical journey to understand the "offense principle," here's the next question I want to leave you with: Is the "offense principle" something that has undeniable appeal in the intermediate term but leaves grievances to fester and mistrust to grow?

Yesterday people are offended by swearing, today people are offended by Nunu bot lane, tomorrow people are offended by the entire player community. Say it isn't so.

This reductio ad absurdium analysis isn't proper. When you do this, the absurd result has to come from showing a fallacy that flows from the logic (or lack thereof). What you're doing here is proposing an absurd result without showing it comes from the statements or policies you are criticizing.

Your first problem is that you cite freedom of speech issues, which actually only apply to the government, and you actually even properly cite it so, which is your first problem. You incorrectly apply a governmental standard to a private company, which is clearly shown when you start citing the NFL, Microsoft, and Instagram. Years ago, it was acceptable to call black people the N word in the US. Years ago, it wasn't a crime for a white person to murder a black person in the US because black people were considered property and not people. I'm glad we change our standards of behavior and evolved as a society and continue to evolve.

Your second problem is that you compare the inconsistent behaviors of football referees responding to swear words to Riot and swear words. Riot has already stated that they do not punish for swear words. This comparison is largely faulty because they are incompatible based on the rules issued by the NFL vs Riot. One states it is punishable while the other states it is not punishable.

Your third problem is that you use bad comparisons in your reductio.

In your first comparison, just because one believes they are being punished for swearing, doesn't mean they actually are being punished for swearing. Telling someone "You fucking shitty noob, you need to uninstall and kys" and getting punished doesn't mean they were punished for saying fuck and shit. They were punished for flaming and telling someone to kill themselves.

In your second comparison, remember that the nunu bot jungle roam issues arose from lack of communication and forced gameplay changes that the team did not want to pursue. It wasn't offensive, it was not fun to play with. The solution was to temp ban until the player responded to the issue and talked with a player behavior specialist because they were creating an unfriendly gaming environment by forcing a specific tactic rather than working cooperatively and ensuring the teammates were on the same page. They differentiated "talking with teammates" vs "talking at teammates" and just because one states a strategy, doesn't mean they're working with their teammates. They may just be talking at the teammates and making the game more difficult because they want to force their teammates into a specific strategy that they may not be used to or comfortable with.

Because all of the above, your final statement of "tomorrow people are offended by the entire player community" isn't a proper reductio ad absurdium.

Arngrim316/27/2018, 4:24:21 AM2 votes

No one is reading all that. If I wanted to learn about all of this I would have read about it in school.