I don’t want OOC talk about topics that are sensitive and inflamed. There are plenty of places on the net for that. This is a RP place to have fun, not to get upset by someones RL political opinions.
No inflamed topics
Pushing inflamed out-of-character topics such as religion or politics in public areas may get you suspended.
Can you even call it “inflamed topics”? Any native English speaker, or other skillful player, willing to improve the wording?
No inflammatory topics
Topics such as religion, politics or other highly divisive topics in public areas are discouraged. There are other, more suitable arenas for such discussion on the internet. Seek to keep public rooms’ OOC chat conflict free. Moderators may warn or suspend users who fail to drop discussions that lead to volatility.
Ah. Yes, in that case, perhaps “No controversial topics”. There should be a way to get a more verbose set of rules though; not all aspects of what is expected from a short, consise rule statement always shines through. If we stick with inflammatory, it’s with two Ms.
This is something I’m pleased to see addressed.
Topics and stances which are ill-intended, hateful, bad vibe topics of discussion probably don’t need to be present on a shared, public community site - and even scholarly discussion between the good natured (not the cheeky game of “I’m not touching you” version of discussion) are far too readily misunderstood by bad actors who’d claim discomfort. Topics like these are something which should be occurring in the first destination of the MUCK.
Ideally, these things should not be why people are opting to come to the MUCK which is ideally focused around IC interaction or at least good vibes.
I do wonder if this rule regarding politics and religion should be a public zone/in-public rule which doesn’t extend to private areas or private conversation between users who wish to engage in civil discussion? I do however feel that the abuse rule should remain site-wide public/private for obvious reasons. Good Faith vs Bad Faith sorta energy obviously.
Also: Might be good to make sure people know not to take the law into their own hands, as an encouragement for people to be good rather than asking forgiveness after very intentionally breaking the rules because it wasn’t explicitly stated to be good. >_>;
No Vigilantism ----- Users are not to engage in hostilities over rules violations - report to moderation.
+1 on leaving moderation to moderators. Selfpolicing often has a tendency to get out of hand, and suddenly you have unwritten rules being enforced, or rules being ‘enforced’ more harshly than intended.
Much needed, and I’m glad to see it added. I’m a big fan of soft rules with broad but obvious intent. No one worth having around needs to be told up front to not be a jerk. Perhaps reminded now and then if something gets out of hand. But broadcasting that jerks aren’t allowed is a clear signal of invitation and haven to those who aren’t. If someone has to defend their behavior by referring to the rules, they’re probably already well past the desirable threshold and need (maybe gentle!) course correction.
Fixed it as well!