09-16-2018, 12:28 PMTheDangaZone Wrote:

09-16-2018, 12:04 PMJumpierPancakes Wrote: I mean to sum it up, this is kind of how I think a lot of people feel:

I totally agree with the HO sentiment of wanting the SHL to be a more inviting place. We should be kinder to our fellow members, and to people of minorities. However, the HO has kind of cocked this up since that thought. There has been a severe lack of good communication, a lack of understanding of why the ruling is too far, and an inability to adapt to their mistake. The old rule encompasses attacks on other members, people, and hate speech. What should have happened, is that they should have made that rule more severe so there was more incentive not to be terrible to people or say shitty things and words that are meant to offend and hurt.

Instead HO tried to ban certain words, feels very authoritarian, and destroys context specific situations. I believe this could be handled way better by HO, and the rule should have remained as it was, with new provisions added. The biggest issue people have is with that ONE specific section that bans words, especially the word "gay".

HO needs to re-word and re-do this new rule. They need to make it more context specific, while creating a stricter context on the words. But don't ban them outright, and don't make the rule that fuzzy in what you mean. Simply tighten up the ruling and try to make the forum a better place. All you've done is make this way worse than simply one thread about Slash, because you've brought power to this conversation. Just fucked up by HO from step #1

We have been discussing this very thing since introducing the rule. I do apologize that we have not come out quicker with saying something on it but we have been talking about it I promise. Yes we probably could have waited to make sure things were worded more clearly and properly but we felt it would be better to get something out quickly with how out of hand that TD and others had gotten on the site. We felt it was in best to get something out asap in hopes of cutting down on what was happening over the past time frame. I can ensure you though that we should have something out today. Also as was stated before it all falls under the personal attack ruling. So there is a context specific situations just the wording probably could have been better. We will get this fixed today and I will personally make a post on it in the next few hours to make sure everything is more clear. Sorry for the mistake

I think this rule needs to wait until there are not 3 HO members on Calgary and the Co-commish position is filled.