Happy Pride Month!

[marikandaperc 1818]

i think its crazy some people will call u chronically online for not wanting bigotry then argue for hours because they're unhappy with anti-bigot rule.

 

maybe just play the server like a normal person and avoid getting upset because adam is marrying steve lol 

[Gaja 1311]

13 minutes ago, wowj said:

Hello!

hi wowj how are you doing today =)

[HandsomeFloppa 722]

6 hours ago, Narthok said:

I don't appreciate my religion being defacto banned

if your minecraft religion is "defacto banned" because you can't hate people anymore, that says a lot about you 

[Zhikarta 4064]

Hey anyone wanna play a Dark Elf

[Ramon 5186]

2 hours ago, Fluffy Horror said:

@RamonI got so distracted by the second question that I didn't remember the first.

 

I don't think it's that hard to pivot away from homophobia in a fictional religion. For the people worried about how it will work, I kind of wonder what personal gameplay this rule is affecting that makes them so anxious about it? And are these good faith arguments, or bad faith arguments in an innocuous disguise? Or perhaps, ignorance of the nuances of homophobia and transphobia? Either way, I'm not in their heads so I can't say, but it does net some side eye from me that THAT is what some people are worried about.

I personally think it is lame for people to immediately assume that everyone who questions the effects such a change will have on roleplay is acting in bad faith and in reality just meaning to preserve space for hateful bigotry. Though this of course assumes they aren't outright hatefully advocating in favor of lynching all characters deemed to be homosexual and whatever else you could think of just because. *That* sure should get you to reap consequences.

I think it is of valid concern to want lore to stay consistent and grounded, and I think it's ok to object to this change because it infringes on such. It's just weird for any religion, even if ultimately just fictional, to be forced to drop beliefs that have been held for literal years overnight because of some rule change. This especially when, looking at the actual tenets and dogma of the main religion that'll be the target (Canonism, or True Faith now, I suppose), it makes no single shred of sense to. What's the point of forcing them to change it all? Especially when a compromise had already been reached in the past by means of legalising secular civil unions? The compromise allowed same-sex couples to exist, and be recognised by the laws of realms, and enjoy protection and legitimacy without forcing say Canonism/True Faithism to act against its theology, and the way I see it already basically dealt with real ''homophobia'' just fine. Both sides of the issue seemed contented with this back then. And so it's kind of the status quo I wish would've stayed personally. It felt very live and let live. And so I suppose that's kind of how I view it and what my endgoal would've been, personally.

I don't think you can actually change this on a whim properly either way because you'd have to throw the entire religion around if you want it to still seem theologically sound, or risk leaving a massive contradiction that just sucks all internal logic and thus enjoyment out of theology rp. if u were to believe the universe was supposedly created by a omniscient, omnipresent, eternally holy, just and immutable deity then why would there be cause to doubt and deviate from the world order you believe him to have established? he can't have been omniscient and immutable if he was wrong in the past and changed his mind. 

Obviously I am also religious myself IRL, and as such have no real cause to deny a certain kind of bias against this stuff, to the point that I'd rather not be explicitly forced to roleplay or support something I've come to believe to be morally wrong. I've put my faith in what I'd describe as authentic Christianity in any case, and so hold what is in the scriptures, and affirmed by the apostles and church fathers, and holy tradition as a whole, as authoritative and infallible, and it all really couldn't be any clearer. I guess I subscribe to the St. Augustine quote of 'if you accept what you like about the gospel, and reject what you don't like, then it's not the gospel you believe in, but yourself' when it comes to this. I don't believe there is room for any Christian that takes the virtue of obedience seriously to really compromise on this either. So I guess that on that front you're free to take my takes with a grain of salt if you want to. I know I've certainly taken the claims that people who hold the kind of views I do are objectively evil and villainous and whatever else with such.
 

3 hours ago, Fluffy Horror said:

@Ramon4chan is hyperbole. But I've been playing in Burgundy, Numendil, Koyo-Kunj, Norland, Canonism, Druids... It's the worst in the official Discord servers, a lot of distasteful stuff. I've had to drop out of public VCs a few times because of it, and I avoid a lot of the shit posting channels. It might be worse because I'm playing a member of a visible racial minority- On my second day in I got attacked for being allegedly Hyspian when I wasn't of Hyspian heritage at all, just dark skinned. It was either metagaming or racism. 🤷‍♀️

and ermermerm this reply is alrdy ridiculously long so I'll try n keep this part short, but going off this and what you said before I guess I'd just advice you to report any kind of rulebreaking behaviour in the future if you have valid proof. I understand it can be quite daunting but staff on LOTC r honestly infamous (or famous. depends on who u ask. it can sometimes cause confusion though.) for being super stingy with evidence when they're investigating, and even after having banned people already, and so the chances of whoever it was that actually reported someone being leaked are pretty low. I'd waddle on over to whoever is mod admin at the time if I were worried some staff themselves were participating in whatever I'm reporting, they'd probably have the common sense to not involve whoever is suspected in any investigations. And could probably also keep your name out of things entirely if asked.

[xDK 1205]

Appreciate this 🏳️‍🌈. No idea if this was already asked, since I haven't read all comments.

The rule makes sense and it’s good to have it written out. That said, since LotC is a UK-based LTD, shouldn’t this already be covered under UK discrimination law? The Equality Act protects against things like racism, homophobia, and transphobia. I get that it mostly applies to workplaces and services, but if the server takes donations or offers public/private access (greylist/whitelist), some parts might still apply. Especially if someone reports harassment and nothing is done. Not saying the rule is just about legal stuff, but it’s worth considering. Either way, glad it’s now clearly stated.

[Borin 7646]

27 minutes ago, xDK said:

Appreciate this ‍. No idea if this was already asked, since I haven't read all comments.

The rule makes sense and it’s good to have it written out. That said, since LotC is a UK-based LTD, shouldn’t this already be covered under UK discrimination law? The Equality Act protects against things like racism, homophobia, and transphobia. I get that it mostly applies to workplaces and services, but if the server takes donations or offers public/private access (greylist/whitelist), some parts might still apply. Especially if someone reports harassment and nothing is done. Not saying the rule is just about legal stuff, but it’s worth considering. Either way, glad it’s now clearly stated.

 

I highly doubt that the Equality Act applies to a minecraft roleplay server

 

At a stretch it might apply in relation to deciding who could and could not join based on discrimination? But fantasy religion? LOL

[Mikes Rhino 451]

 

 

 

[argonian 14254]

mfw I get banned because my child's preschool teacher tells me my kid is trans and I withdraw him from class

[siglms_ 932]

Not gonna lie, this ruling kinda feels half-assed and not really thought out or worded correctly. 

Can't wait for people to be banned, not for actual bigotry, but because admins/mods don't like them!

 

Don't forget, "Metaplay" is bad too! 

[xDK 1205]

34 minutes ago, Borin said:

 

I highly doubt that the Equality Act applies to a minecraft roleplay server

 

At a stretch it might apply in relation to deciding who could and could not join based on discrimination? But fantasy religion? LOL

Yeah, I’m not saying the Equality Act is going to police fantasy RP or made-up religions. That’s obviously not the point. The law doesn’t say “you can’t roleplay as a bad person.” But if the server takes donations or sells VIP, it might count as a service provider under UK law. And if someone is targeted based on a real-life protected trait and staff ignore it, that could be a legal issue. The line gets blurry when RP starts to mirror real-life hate. That’s why I asked the question.

[Xarkly 17299]

mpreg

[CHARLES THE BALD 2615]

HAPPY PRIDE MONTH 

**** the drama, don't listen to them

[Borin 7646]

45 minutes ago, xDK said:

Yeah, I’m not saying the Equality Act is going to police fantasy RP or made-up religions. That’s obviously not the point. The law doesn’t say “you can’t roleplay as a bad person.” But if the server takes donations or sells VIP, it might count as a service provider under UK law. And if someone is targeted based on a real-life protected trait and staff ignore it, that could be a legal issue. The line gets blurry when RP starts to mirror real-life hate. That’s why I asked the question.

 

People being blatantly horrible to people with ooc intent is already policed here, and I don't think that will ever stop.

 

I think the line between one man's harassment and another man's free expression of opinion is just as or more blurry, and the possibility of suppressing peoples religious beliefs for example (a protected characteristic) could equally draw legal issues.

 

I sat here for a bit trying to write up a defence of Canonist church doctrine and such, as I believe there really isnt an issue that isnt already dealt with though 1. Staff banning people for obvious, purposeful, ooc-fuelled nastiness and harassment 2. civil unions. But, the heat might not be worth it, I'll think it over when i'm not hungover.

[Nug 2011]

yes!!! your IC or OOC religion (or wherever you source your prejudice) doesn't give you an excuse to mirror IRL discrimination in IC. sorry you can't dance around that fact and be coy about it. grow up please. we all know what you were getting at when you do the same shit OOC.