KillerB wrote:MattgomeryScott wrote:
In conclusion, a lawless wild west may sound like fun to some, but it really, really isn't.
Mattgomery Scott.
You were making reasonable points, but when you conclude with this it means you didn't listen to the other side. Once again, nobody is advocating for abolishing the CoC.
Please people, listen to the other side.
While I cannot claim to be across all aspects of this (as I'm not as active here as I once was,) I did read the original post in this thread, the poll options and many of the posts in this thread, as well as your thread on the topic "The Poll Sykes' Should've Posted" and the relevant passages of the CoC before posting. Given that abolishing the CoC is both an option in this poll, and one that at time of posting has 15% of the vote, it does appear to me to be one option being discussed, and one I am fundamentally opposed to.
Even if, as you say, the abolishing of the CoC is not on the table, it seems to me from the above sources that some are advocating changes to the relevant rules which would largely have the same effect.
The CoC in general, and specifically Rule 11 and its subsections, are to me very reasonable, and perhaps even a little lenient. In my view there is no justification for anyone to be "belittling, disparaging, denigrating, harassing, threatening, bullying, or cruel towards another person." In an ideal world we wouldn't even have to have that rule, it should just go without saying. But we don't live in an ideal world. And so, if having that spelt out in the CoC (and appropriate penalties for violating it) is what is necessary for us to have a civil discussion, then so be it.
I appreciate that for some this sort of "banter" is deemed acceptable, and if they wish to use it between themselves, in private and with mutual consent then that's really up to them. But these forums and this site are, since the demise of Decipher, the official site for this game and therefore it is necessary for this site to be suitable for all. As is stated in Rule 10:
"10. Moderated forums are intended for all members of the Star Trek CCG community, including young players and learners."
A site which allows "belittling, disparaging, denigrating, harassing, threatening, bullying, or cruel towards another person" is in my view in violation of Rule 10, and cannot be said to be one suitable for all.
For similar reasons, I'm personally disappointed to see Rule 12 (the ban on profanity) has been repealed at some point, and voted for the CoC to be made more stringent partly because of this.
Neither of us want to see people feeling they have to leave over this, or told to "go someplace else." But that is precisely what happens in a community where people are allowed to act in this sort of abusive way without consequence. It may not make such a big "splash" as say a well known member of the community receiving a ban for their conduct, but it is still detrimental to the individual players, the community and the game as a whole, when players start leaving because it's either that or put up with being bullied or seeing others bullied.
It seems to me that it is upon those repeatedly falling afoul of Rule 11 to modify their behaviour to be consistent with the rules, which are to my mind fair and reasonable and largely consistent with the basic conduct expected in most communities to allow for civil discussion. If, after being given plenty of chances (see Rules 13 through 13d) they still cannot do so, then as an ultimate recourse I think a ban is in order. It's not something I want to see done, but it is something that I feel may sometimes be necessary for the good of the community as a whole.
So, in conclusion, I do not see a need to modify Rule 11 and its subsections, as they seem clear to me. If someone acts in such a fashion as to break those rules, I believe appropriate measures should be taken in accordance with Rule 13 through 13d. And I'd personally like to see Rule 12 reinstated. But I respect others feel differently.
All the Best,
Mattgomery Scott.
EDIT: Just to be clear, my comments both in this and my earlier post are not directed at any specific person or persons in the group. I'm arguing for why I believe we need the CoC and Rule 11 specifically, not discussing any particular case or the actions of any particular people. I would not feel qualified to do so, given my lack of activity here and not being across all aspects of the discussion. I also only support permanbans in the absolute most extreme cases, as I believe people can change and usually deserve a second chance. Thank you.