Subject: Please don't start multiple posts.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-06-16 16:11:00 UTC
This could have easily been kept in the thread below.
Also, we don't add new mini types at random. That's for the first person to either 1) write a mission into the series or 2) write an OFU for that series to decide.
(And by the way, WoW already has a mini type.)
Also, on the subject of minis, I have a few ideas for official mini types:
Deltora: Mini Ak-baba (I know that in the Deltora badfic Cadmar tackled, 'shadow lord' should have spawned a mini) or maybe mini-Gluses (Glusi? There's only one, so what's the plural?)
World of Warcraft: Mini-murlocs
Starcraft: Mini-zerg (Zerglings are the most common, but hydralisks, mutalisks, and even mini-ultralisks do occur)
Guardians of Ga'hoole: Mini-hagsfiends or mini-dire wolves
So, does anyone else have any ideas for future minis?
This could have easily been kept in the thread below.
Also, we don't add new mini types at random. That's for the first person to either 1) write a mission into the series or 2) write an OFU for that series to decide.
(And by the way, WoW already has a mini type.)
What do WoW minis look like? Orcs? Tauren?
The Wiki is your friend.
Anyway, WoW minis are mini-Wrath Cadets. (Though I must say I rather wish it had been murlocks. I still freak out when I'm wandering Elwynn Forest with my level 100 Priest and hear "ARGHLBARHGGLAHAHRAR". ^^;)
Sorry, GlarnBoudin. We didn't mean to gang up on you.
~Neshomeh
Nah, it's fine. If anything, it's good to know that you guys keep such close vigil on the board.
Or is that ninjaiest lawyer?
hS
... by how 'movie Japanese' the Tengwaresque calligraphy came out. Maybe there's more to this Elvish Ninja theory than I thought? Come to think of it, wasn't Scapegrace characterising the Eldar as technologically stagnant a few weeks ago - much like the old Japanese attempts to keep such innovations as firearms out of their territory?
...
The conclusion is clear: Japan is Valinor.
hS
It's in the wrong side, so to speak.
The truth of the matter is, Tolkien lacked one important thing from his copy of the Red Book of Westmarch: he didn't have a map. All the maps drawn later were his reconstructions from the information in the text - and what the Professor never realised is that the Red Book was not written in the lands that became Europe.
Yes, that's right: Middle-earth was North America, and Aman was the entirety of Eurasafrica. The truth of this is obvious, when you think about it: where did civilisation first arise? In the Middle-east (where we can assume the Two Trees once grew - yes, it's rather further from the coast than we're accustomed to thinking, but the Eldar would think nothing of taking a two-year trip to visit them), and in China (ie, the vicinity of Tirion and Alqualonde).
The elves obviously awoke around the Great Lakes; this matches nicely with Latter-day Saint/Mormon folklore, and indicates that Joseph Smith (who all many some know was prone to translating ancient documents) had at some point a copy of the Red Book. Men first arose somewhere east of the Orocarni (the Appalachians), and journeyed west over the Misty Mountains (the southern Rockies) and the Blue Mountains (northern Rockies and everything west of the Utah valley) to reach Beleriand (now sadly sunken into the Pacific due to the actions of the San Andreas fault).
Numenor once stood in the middle of the Pacific/Belegaer, though only the central mountain and some scattered islands now remain (as Hawai'i). The Gondorian claim that after the world was made round they found 'new lands' on the other side, and sailed all the way round, is patently false: they had only nine Numenorean ships, and given the general decay of their technology, clearly didn't retain the art of shipbuilding. The Eldar simply kept quiet about the fact that Valinor was just as accessible as ever.
Japan is of course Tol Eressea, the Lonely Isle: resettled by the Eldar on their return from North America. You know how DNA evidence draws a link between eastern Asia and North America? Across the Bering Straits? Yeah, that was the Noldor.
There have been some changes in the geography of Middle-earth, though not nearly as extensive as you might think if you only know Tolkien's maps. Mordor has been submerged into the combined seas of Rhun and Nurn, which have in turn joined up with the eastern ocean. Possibly at the same time, Arnor and the Shire became a desert - Utah, Nevada, and so forth. It's a sad end for the poor hobbits, but it's possibly they survived and escaped to Canada.
The Eldar have long since faded - note that the Chinese and Japanese do not have significantly longer lifespans than Native Americans (though they do retain knowledge of the healing magics they can no longer perform...), but remain in their ancient lands. And mortal men...
Well, mortal men have had it pretty bad. You see, the only logical conclusion from all of this is that Europe - the land of pale-skinned, pale-haired, pale-eyed folk - is the Halls of Mandos. We Europeans, and those of European extraction, are actually the spirits of dead elves. And we've spent the past few centuries invading every land we can get to. The race of mortal men - Native Americans - is subjugated under the hand of the incarnate spectres of the Firstborn Children of Iluvatar.
Australia is Avathar, where Ungoliant once lived and her children still do. Tolkien at one point mentioned the idea that mortal men wandered in Avathar after their deaths, so it may well be that Australian Aboriginals are similarly-incarnated former Men (ie, Native Americans). And Africa?
Well, there's only one people left to add, isn't there? Africa is clearly the home of the Maiar.
hS
...Mexico City is located in the site of ancient Osgilliath?
And the port of Acapulco in the site of the Refuge of Edhellion?
And the city of Puebla used to be Minas Morgul?
And that my native country used to be Gondor!?
The Middle-earth archaeology community is split over whether the Rio Grande or the Colorado River is the ancient Anduin. Supporters of the Rio Grande theory highlight the matching of Gondorian cities to archaeological sites, and general overall geography; supporters of the Colorado pin their theory on the smaller scale required - more closely matching the Red Book.
The main flaw cited in the Colorado theory is the artificiality of the 'White Mountains'; they are simply a continuation of the Blue Mountains. The position of Rohan also has to be somewhat stretched, actually incorporating a sea-coast under some interpretations.
Nevertheless, it has its supporters, and the Colorado version does allow Moria (here identified with Mt. Timpanogos, Utah) to be placed west of Anduin, instead of north of it.
However, it does not allow this image...
... and is therefore strictly inferior.
hS, drawing on similar debate about the Book of Mormon
This is the first time I've been able to properly contribute to any LotR discussion... pretty much anywhere. Thanks for putting up with my weirdness. And my glyptodonts. I realise not eberyone will find the same things cute, but yeah, giant armadillo-lookin' things are the cutest cute to ever cute. So yeah. Thanks for letting me spout nonsense at this idea like it was valued. Means a lot. =]
The Elves probably sailed west from San Francisco Bay. Seems like a likely place for the Grey Havens, to me.
I wonder if the Pacific Northwest legend of Big Foot might be a case of an Orc sighting. There could be a lost tribe hiding out under the Rocky Mountains. Maybe in the ruins of Gundabad?
The Iron Hills probably match up with the Black Hills of South Dakota.
What about Moria? Did that get sealed off? Wait a minute...did we build a base in Cheyenne Mountain or did we find an existing network of caverns and take over?
Speaking of military bases and hidden secrets; Area 51. I have to believe that it was built on the ruins of Isengard. Forget aliens, they have magical artifacts hidden away in the Nevada desert!
-Phobos and his tinfoil hat
Heck, it's a perfect match!
I like Cheyenne Mountain for Moria, too. Area 51 might be a bit too far north for the Gap of Rohan... but on the other hand, let's not let geography get in the way of a good analogy!
I don't know about the Iron Hills. Probably the best way to track them down is to start with the Lonely Mountain, which... it's proving very difficult not to claim Mount Rushmore and agree with you about the Black Hills. And if it's not Lonely enough - so what? Massive terrain upheaval.
hS
On Google Maps.
I haven't put in places we don't have a specific location for (eg, Gundabad, Edoras). I also, um... have to assume that Tolkien's distances were way off. Otherwise, Edoras is just barely north of Mexico City, and Rivendell has to lie east of the Rockies (to get the right distance to Cheyenne/Moria).
hS
Definitely the last one, at any rate. ^_^
The difficulty with pinning down the precise geography of Gondor is that Anduin the Great (AKA the Rio Grande) no longer flows in to Belegaer; when Mordor was broken, it was diverted to feed into what we now call the Gulf of Mexico. So while I've sketched in its course to pass through the lowest point on the map, it's entirely possible that it used turn west further up the White Mountains. Actually, Acapulco looks like a good spot for Dol Amroth; the fall of Mordor must have raised the White Mountains somewhat. So this map is already wrong!
Precisely where the cities of Gondor lay is open for debate; Mexico City was probably either Osgiliath or Minas Tirith itself, but without the course of Anduin pinned down, we can't say for sure.
hS, having fun
Where do the indigenous populations of Mexico fit into all this?
All this took place a long time before the pale undead Elves crossed over from the east to take over Middle-earth. It also took place a long time before recorded Mesoamerican history starts - about 6000 years ago, as we know from Professor Tolkien's work.
Why? You weren't thinking that the men of Gondor were white, were you?
hS
Through Tolkien's colour symbolism, if nothing else - and I realise that's rather a loaded statement. It was the fair-haired and fair-skinned bastions of civilization against the swarthier, darker peoples of Mordor, Rhun, and Harad. Or at least, that is the most popular reading; if you know better, do let me know.
Also, Mesoamerican cloud cities make for a much more evocative image than bog-standard Swan King castles. The seven layers of Minas Tirith suddenly make a crapton more sense when you think of it laid out like a stepped pyramid. It also gives us the image of the Pelennor Fields actually being chinampa. =]
Not only did he not have access to a map - he was working far outside his competence area. Not as a writer, but as a translator - a man who worked with Old English and Gothic, trying to translate Mesoamerican texts? It's amazing he did as well as he did!
More seriously (since, hint: Tolkien actually made it all up, so this is all silliness anyway), there's very little in LotR which pins down the skin colour of the main characters. There's a long thingy here which discusses most of the 'evidence', but the fact that it had to delve into old drafts to find any statements about the skin colour of the House of Beor is... telling. What Tolkien mostly says is 'fair' - which can mean pale, but can also mean 'pretty'. [Shrugs] I'm sure he did view most of his protagonists as Anglo-Celtic White, but that doesn't mean he wrote it that way.
Ahem. Back to silliness. See? It all makes sense! Minas Tirith: stepped pyramid, or the biggest stepped pyramid? You decide!
hS
Anyway: from a thematic standpoint, I think this makes a much better location for Minas Tirith.
Behold: MONTE ALBAN!
Note, if you will, the single tree in the middle of the plaza. Gondor stands.
Or, possibly, if we think about it... let us consider a different possibility. The Zapotec were a proud people, vastly more technologically advanced than their neighbours. They built soaring cities that scraped the dome of heaven, their pyramids divine and majestic. But then came the wrath of an even more advanced civilization, and they fell, consumed by it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our Numenor.
That... can that possibly not mean 'White Mountain'? Yep, I'm won over.
Unfortunately, we've run into a bit of a chronology problem. The Third Age ended 6000 years ago, but the earliest attested Mesoamerican culture, the Olmecs, were barely four thousand years ago. Which...
Wait, maybe it's not so bad. Tolkien thought we were just entering the Seventh Age, right? So:
Third Age: ends 4000 BC.
Fourth Age: 4000 BC - 2000 BC. Ends with the sinking of Mordor. Destroys utterly all major cities in the Americas Middle-earth. Society regresses to pre-civilised status.
Fifth Age: 2000 BC - AD 33 (because of course). The remnants of mortal society rebuild, starting with the Olmec and running down the list. Some old cities are rebuilt, including Minas Tirith/Monte Alban. The peoples of Middle-earth continue building step-pyramids, just like they learned from the Numenoreans (Hawaiians, remember).
Sixth Age: AD 33 to AD 1945. The Sixth Age starts with the 'Old Hope' - the incarnation of Iluvatar in the world. Towards its end, it becomes the tale of Elvish ghosts invading and conquering the lands of men. It ends with the Second German War, and the collapse of the last ghostish empires.
Seventh Age: AD 1945 - present. As with every other age-turnover, the Seventh starts with environmental upheaval... ;)
(So why is Christianity in this? Well, because it's in Middle-earth! But Jesus under this conception is... pretty different to the version you're thinking of. Remember, he's born in Valinor - and goes about preaching 'resurrection to eternal life' to a people who were once immortal. Whole new angle, right there.)
All we need to do now is find some natural disasters taking place round about 2000 BC, and we can pin a specific date on the sinking of Mordor. Maybe we can tie it into the Biblical Flood, too, that'd be fun(ny). ^_^
hS
There have been some interesting tidbits from my trawling through the internet. One, which may or may not be correct, is that A Great Big Something Happened around 2200 BCE. The weird part is that the data from this period doesn't really look like it came from a volcanic eruption. I'll link you to the (quite dry and written by a Finnish EFL speaker) article here.
Basically, for the purposes of this thought experiment, I am choosing to believe means Mordor sank as a result of a meteor crashing into the Halls of Mandos, or whatever central Anatolia constitutes in this discussion. Again, while this is ever so slightly dubious, it's such an awesome image that I can't ignore it. =]
Also: this thing takes the Sixth Age as the rise of the Late Classical Mesoamerican civilizations, right? So, while it might not be entirely germane, we at least have, in Tenochtitlan...
Laketown.
Maybe.
Also also: Harad is supposed to be far to the south, right? Sort of on the top edge of South America, if Mordor is currently the damp bit between Florida and everywhere else. Now, an interesting point about the etymology of the term "desert" is that it was also used to describe places modern observers would call "jungle"...
Implying that Harad? Not a big sandy desert in this timeline. Actually, it lines up with what's now the northern coast of Venezuela and the islands off it. What's also worth noting is that there were several species of megafauna endemic to that part of the world, primarily toxodonts - big, shaggy-looking things that resemble hornless rhinos. They also had giant ground sloths and the frankly adorable glyptodonts. And these were definitely around during the Third Age of our timeline - we've got finds dating from up to 1000 BCE, far outstripping the sinking of Mordor.
I am therefore choosing to believe that Mumakil and Oliphaunts are in fact shaggy rhino-looking things and/or overgrown armadillos.
And I'm perfectly bloody fine with that. =]
And I want them to draw an army of giant glyptodonts laying siege to a stepped pyramid White City.
hS
(So 'desert' is basically 'uninhabitable territory'? Interesting! This is working better and better. Harad is just the word 'south' anyway, so it covers all of South America. ~hS)
Also - Rohan is weird in this timeline. Did all the horses die or something? Because - and this is probably where I've missed something - horses arrived in the Americas courtesy of Europeans. This implies that either the Rohirrim were just really fast runners, or that...
Well, the fossil record of Nevada (which is where you plonked Isengard) is an interesting one, and they've dug up a lot of stuff - including mastodons. This implies that the Horse Lords rode no horses. Instead, they rode mastodons. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW.
This implies that the famous stables of the Second and First Ages and the Mearas in general? Also mastodons.
((while there's evidence of prehistoric horses in nevada i dont care i want the rohirrim to ride mastodons u cant stop me))
I forgot that you'd sort of put Rohan around northern Texas, with Edoras roughly where Dallas is now. What's interesting is that there's quite a lot of evidence that prehistoric horses were around in Texas until ca. 11000 years ago, but I'd like to counter-argue that mastodons are cool so I want Theoden riding a mastodon provide me with this immediately.
Which puts it in northern Mexico. Texas is too far east.
Which means, basically, that yes, you can have Theoden on a mastodon.
"This is Shadowfax, Lord of Mastodons..."
Also:
I know someone who can sort of cheat at drawing, and it's me. ^_^
(Complete with genuine Mesoamerican atlatls, and one very out of place bow-wielding elf. :D)
hS
If we assume that the events of the film are accurate, Legoland was knocking about. However, judging from what's been going on thus far, Mirkwood appears to be somewhere around Colorado, and they would probably have used throwing spears and darts. Which means our resident pointy-eared elvish princeling might have been a master blowgunner.
Which explains why he doesn't have that many lines, if nothing else. =]
Lelo has a blowgun now. ^_^ And, there you go: mastodons.
Including Shadowfax. I'm not sure what our pointy-hatted wizard is trying to do, but it'll go better now he's on his mastodon.
(Though I can't help seeing him more as Rincewind than Gandalf...)
hS
I think I found where one of the Lamps was situated:-
This is a really weird rock formation off the coast of Yonaguni, which afficionados of tinfoil headgear demand be called the Yonaguni Monument because there's no way straight lines like that could appear in nature-
...
*shoos away the rock formation*
But unfortunately doesn't work as a Lamp: they were in Middle-earth, not Aman.
I'm trying to pin down the Shire, myself; I've found where Gollum lived (the Gladden Fields at the head of Anduin - though Tolkien messed up in claiming the river flowed further north than Moria), but the geography of Utah-Nevada is proving tricky. Either Frodo hiked north up the mountains to Rivendell, then turned around and went practically back home before reaching Moria - or the Great Salt Lake lies in central Arnor.
Which... it could, since Tolkien's map was made up. Hmm. Perhaps I should start by figuring out what Yellowstone used to be...
hS
...at least not without picturing the Rohirrim on mastodons.
You guys are brilliant, I love it. :D
This is one of those zany fan theories that are totally unexpected yet make perfect sense. This is simply fantastic.
... is that it's pretty useless for making a story. I mean, elves and Maiar are mortal now, so everyone you've heard of is dead!
Unless... did I say the Two Trees were in the Middle East? And they're (quite famously) on a special, sacred hill?
... :D
Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is the Ezellohar. The remains of the Two Trees are still there, hidden in the catacombs. And when a (controversial, of course) archaeological expedition uncovers them - well, let's just say that Yavanna does not take kindly to her children's grave being disturbed.
And that earthquake on Everest which uncovered a broken, star-studded dome? Those reports of a terrifying creature of flame and shadow in the Rockies? The strange metallic serpent uncovered by the retreating polar ice in northern Canada? Yeah.
The Valar are waking up. And with their awakening, the repeatedly-reincarnated souls of the Eldar are starting to regain their memories...
Yeah, you could probably do something. But I don't think I want to.
hS
1/ This really, really should've been part of your previous thread. The Constitution says Before you post, though, see if someone else is already talking about your preferred topic - no-one will object if you add to a relevant thread instead of starting your own (in fact, we often prefer it)!
2/ Minis are decided by the person who writes the relevant OFU, or by the first person to write a mission in that continuum and need one. They're not really planned out in advance this way.
Not saying you can't have the discussion, but please, no-one add any of the ideas thrown around to the wiki.
hS, feeling more and more like a boring lawyer
...of you being a lawyer ninja multiple posts where one would do the trick...
Well. I keep seeing this happen--especially recently, what with the influx of newbies--and I've been thinking maybe we should add something about this to the information at the top of the Board, and maybe also to the 'making a new post' page, as a preventative measure. I know either the Board or the Other Board has something about reading the Constitution before posting; couldn't there be added something like, 'also, we'd like to remind you that every new thread pushes another off the front page and off the Board itself. Please think before you post, and if you find that there's already a thread with a similar topic, consider adding to that instead.'? There could be a link to the FAQs we have about the Board, assuming I'm remembering correctly and we have then, if necessary (to explain threads vs posts and so on).
I don't expect, of course, that this would completely stop people from unknowingly or accidentally making unnecessary new posts, but I think it would drop the numbers and be more helpful to newbies than someone telling them after the fact--at least then all they have to deal with is 'whoops, didn't read that carefully enough' rather than, 'great. Thanks, won't do it again. Gee, would've been great to know this ahead of time...'
Thoughts?
~DF
We can't add it to the topic-creation page, sadly - we can only add to every single page (which you can see in action over on the Other Board). But... yeah, I thought the Board FAQ was already in the header. It's pretty clear about it, and covers 'how do I make the letters go all slanty' as well. I'll add that one in straight away.
If anyone has any suggestions to improve the readability/utility of the Board Header, please offer them! It's one of the things I'm trying to continually improve. (Along with the Constitution, and the Permission process - so if you've got concrete suggestions for those, make them too!)
hS
This is an amendment originally proposed last year. No-one was against its inclusion, but I decided not to add it due to only having six supporters.
It replaces Section 1 of the PPC Constitution entirely, and creates a new Section 2 at the end of it (pushing the current Section 2 down to 3, and so forth). I've nicknamed it the Dispute Resolution Amendment.
I have my personal doubts as to how actually effective it will be.
This isn't based on what you've presented- I'm sure it's fine, were the community able to pull it off- but more in prior events.
I guess I'm tentatively supportive, with doubts.
... what did you mean by 'nationalism'? It's causing some confusion, and I'd like to make sure we capture the intent.
hS
So, to start off with, the main reason for the inclusion of 'nationalism' was due to remembering the issue with OrangeDream, who thought country of birth and country of residence were perfectly fine targets to use to utter bile in regards to.
...But instead of demonstrating thus, I will use some handpuppets instead!
*pulls out two handpuppets. One is actually just a sock. Oh well.*
I hope you don't mind me running with this, but let's call the non-sock one Lacksadasical, after your own exemplary imaginary person. Lacksy, in this example, lives in Saturland.
Moxie, on the other hand, *motions to the sock* lives in Hueland.
Hueland has strong employment levels, a fairly good standard of living by pretty much all standards, and let's say fast and cheap internet. ..They also get a lot of immigration of hopeful workers from Saturland.
Saturland, in comparison, has a lot of employment problems, there's plenty in the news about it these days, and it'd quite frankly be cheaper to send letters by messenger bird rather than use the internet, even if it's an untrained owl obtained for questionable purposes.
Lacksy and Moxie get into a conversation on the board one day, and Lacksy ends up revealing at some point that she lives in Saturland! Moxie promptly informs Lacksy that Saturland is a third world country and would best be taken over by a neighboring country for the good of its people, and that Saturlandians are taking all the jobs, at which point Lacksy would probably be highly offended.
That would not be okay.
A disccusion between Lacksy and Moxie of the employment issues in Saturland would be okay. Even political talk!
But the point at which Moxie begins to assert and treat Moxie like her country is intrinsicly inferior to Lacksy's and that it is a problem to be dealt with by a more advanced or strong nature, that is not okay.
And I never mind Lacksi showing up in examples; it's what she's there for!
It sounds like the 'discrimination on the basis of... national origin' will work very nicely, then. Thank you!
hS
Most of these look pretty good, and I like the idea behind the Dispute Resolution Amendment. My only additions, thought that may be covered elsewhere, would be a line somewhere about not taking disagreements personally, or "a suggestion is not an attack."
A better wording for the last sentence of 2.10 might be "It is never wrong to ask a third party to comment on a dispute, but try to find someone uninvolved; a mediator will be more useful for resolving a dispute than a supporter." I don't think it's bad as-is, just wanted to give you another option as you said you weren't satisfied with it.
Overall, I would be for it's inclusion.
I, however, do have a slight problem with the language of Article 4. I do not like "Should debate escalate into an argument for any reason..." At least to me, I feel like it is a bit over broad. Arguments, to me anyways, are not necessarily the heated fights you are trying prevent. An argument, as I understand it, is essentially a point one is trying to make with adequate support. I think it might be better written as:
4. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into a fight for any reason, everyone involved should step back and clam down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely. For the purposes of this article fight shall mean 1) Personal Attacks, 2)Flaming, or 3) Any other disrespectful conduct.
I also vote for the changes
Though 'argument' is used colloquially in the sense you're saying 'fight', I agree to the change - and to the 'generally' change! Good work there.
But I don't think we even need 'fight'. How about this?
4. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Someone disagreeing your opinion is generally not an attack on you, and should not be taken personally. Should a debate escalate into personal attacks, flaming, or any form of disrespectful conduct for any reason, everyone involved should step back and clam down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely.
I'd actually be tempted by 'descend into', instead. Thoughts?
It allows for debate and disagreement, without letting things explode into verbal warfare. No additional changes needed that I can see.
What do you all think about maybe a list of words that are prohibited? I was thinking back to a certain event that arose from a misunderstanding. Because of the high level of diversity of the community, misunderstandings are bound to occur, and these can often times lead to visceral, emotional responses. To offset this risk, a list of certain prohibited words might go a long way. Just a thought.
All swear words. The only word that may be considered for inclusion is the one you are referring to. And, ironic it may be, due to my position when that little kerfuffle happened, I support never using it. It has clearly hurt a lot of people, and is a sore subject for many others. However, due to the ambiguous nature of the word, a simple reminder in case it is used should be enough. Nothing like beating them over the head or even a harsh reprehend for using it, just inform them that the word they thought was safe is actually highly offensive to many other cultures.
For the purposes of those who may not be aware, the word in question is spastic. If you are not from America, you probably cringed. However, if you are from America, you are likely confused. Basically, we have two different definitions of the word. In America, it is erratic clumsiness. A hyperactive ADD kid would likely be called a spaz in the US. No real serious insult, nobody I have ever met in the States has ever taken any offence to that word. In Europe however, the UK especially, it is one of the most ablest slurs you can say, just short of or equal to retard. It is quite literally a fighting word for many people. As in, you say it, they will fight you. If you want to know more, read this.
Now, unless you are furthering the notion that we should make a list of words to never use (which I am against, as it is silly, and likely to cause more drama then it is worth) this conversation is over.
Should we tweak Article 1 in light of that discussion?
1. Discrimination and persecution of any kind will not be tolerated, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion. We will not tolerate individual people or groups who intentionally oppress, persecute, abuse, other, use or otherwise attack others in any way, shape or form, for any reason.
We could easily alter that to specifically disallow sexist, racist, etcist language as well - which takes it out of 'I wasn't using it to be--' territory and into a straightforward 'hey, that's xist, please don't use it'. (Harsh reprimands would of course violate Articles 5 and 7.)
(I say it's easy, but I can't come up with a tidy way of saying it... anyone think it's worth doing, and have any ideas?)
hS
As for how to slip in the term neatly, I am as lost as you.
I was just more so thinking of trying to avoid someone accidentally stirring up a hornet's nest. I do not like nationalism's inclusion though. Like World-Jumper suggests it does seem over broad to me. Because while it does cover clearly offensive stereotypes it also could theoretically prohibit someone from saying "my country is better at [insert sport] than yours" which does not seem to fit in with the rest of the provision.
I think that changing it to something like: This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, and religion.
I would also possibly put some reference to insulting political affiliation as well. Just so we have all the basis covered.
Seems to clear everything up nicely.
Also, I support the revisions so far generally. Don't recall if I said anything the last time around.
~Neshomeh
-Does 'discrimination on the basis of... ability' really feel like a synomym for 'ableism'? I'd almost prefer 'the basis of... disability', but I suspect that might be taken as insulting.
-Is 'transphobia' covered by 'basis of... sexual orientation'? I've given up trying to understand the language people use around this field, so I don't know whether it's an accepted way to refer to it. I wonder whether 'sexual orientation, gender identity,' would be more comprehensive. Only now I'm saying that, it'll turn out to be mortally offensive. ^_^
hS
Trans stuff isn't covered by "sexual orientation" because being trans or nonbinary or any of the other stuff has no bearing whatsoever on who you feel attracted to. I know plenty of gay trans men and women, for instance. =]
-Are those two terms together enough to cover most things, or are we going to get told off in a week's time for missing something out?
hS
This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability handicap, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion or membership in any group, provided said group is not a hate group.
Hate Group shall be defined as any group that as its sole, or main purpose is to practice discrimination on the basis of the categories listed above. This shall include organizations like White Supremacist Groups.
Really what this second part is trying to get at is political parties. And I am trying to craft the phraseology in such a way that things like Neo-Nazis may be included, but things like political parties that not everyone agrees with are not included. As an example I am trying to say basically you cannot hate on something for being say Conservative. Really I am thinking more along the lines of the Republican Party in the US. It has of late, at least in my area, very easy to basically say "You are a Republican? So you are a racist, sexist, etc.," Which is not true, and politics is something that we should be able to discuss, but has the ability to descend into flaming, fighting, and everything these amendments are trying to prevent. So I just want to ensure that this category is covered as well.
I really like this! I'm a U.S. Conservative, and, as you said, a lot of people hear "Republican" and immediately hate on whatever it's attached to. I've also been leery of bringing up politics in any way, shape, or form, because... To be honest, I didn't want the Board to dislike me on that basis. Though, to be clear, there haven't been many opportunities to talk about such matters.
I will be enacting everything discussed EXCEPT changes to Article 1 sometime today (including 1.5). Article 1 needs to be discussed as a separate Amendment, I think, since it has little to do with Dispute Resolution.
hS
There are currently two proposed texts of Article 1 under the Listing Amendment:
The second proposed change (by EAIUO) was to:
1. The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.
(Apparently 'ability' is the common-use term, so I'd prefer to leave that.)
The latest proposed edit (by EAIUO again) is:
1. The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion, or membership in any group, provided said group is not a hate group.
Hate Group shall be defined as any group that as its sole, or main purpose is to practice discrimination on the basis of the categories listed above. This shall include organizations like White Supremacist Groups.
This seems to me to be a serious case of overkill. You're throwing an entire extra paragraph in to cover 'don't pick on me for being a Republican', when sexism is being covered in three letters. If you look at that list and think 'man, Republicans totally have it worse than all those people!'... um, just no.
More to the point: we don't need it. The article already says we won't tolerate discrimination for any reason. It also says we won't tolerate any group which intentionally discriminates. That covers 'don't pick on Republicans' and 'don't be a neo-Nazi'.
The list is not meant to be an exhaustive list. I've been picked on for not drinking tea before now - should we add 'beverage choice'? Obviously not! The items currently listed are almost solely those which currently or recently suffer(ed) legal or widespread actual discrimination against them. If we are to have a list at all, it should be limited to that. Not 'supporting one of the two main parties of my country'.
hS
1. The PPC community will not tolerate any individual or group who intentionally discriminates against, abuses, persecutes, or otherwise attacks others in any way, shape, or form, for any reason. This includes, but is not limited to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ability, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion.
Apparently this is too far down the page to get much attention.
HG
... and that's five votes. I'm going to enact as the Fourth Amendment.
hS
It was trying to hone in on the the fact that politics can be a point of contention for people. Frankly it makes no difference to me one way or the other. I honestly preferred my first one anyways.
My intent was not to come across as "Republicans have it worse". That's just absolute nonsense. Now that I think about it, I have no idea why I even made that change.
So yeah my vote is for the former of the two.
The second was excessive overkill that I am not real certain what was going on in my mind at the time.
Second proposed change, first one listed in hS's post. Bloody numbers.
Anyway, yeah, I think being in X political party is an entirely different class from the rest and is covered by "but not limited to." And, well, if a person in X political party DOES happen to discriminate against others, we're not going to tolerate it, period. You can't go "you're just hating on me because I'm X!" as a defense there.
~Neshomeh
That seems to cover the major reasons for offence and discrimination. Anything else that personally offends people can be worked out between boarders, without using the threat of the ban hammer.
(Yes, I know, we have used it, what, three times now? Four, maybe? Still, by putting it in the constitution, that is the threat we are using.)
I agree that the second one is far too overkill, for all the reasons hS mentioned.
(Actually, back to the ban-hammer thing: how many times have we used it? In all our history. I know very sparingly, but just how sparing is it? No, spambots do not count. Not unless you want to make that a separate statistic.)
The thing to remember is that we didn't have it until 2008 - that's when Dann claimed admin access to the Board from the long-departed P@L.
I seem to recall... oh, yes. Waaaaay back in 2004, red wolf was annoying enough that Bast emailled P@L to get it blocked. It left by itself before she did so, though.
And... well, the whole question is a little vague anyway. As I said when we banned zdimensia and Ammo Guy, the IP block is just a technical enforcement of a community-delivered decision. So does DoctorHello, who was emphatically told to leave, count? He was never IP banned. What about people who weren't told to leave, but were just made emphatically unwelcome?
PPC bans are from the community, not from any admin team. That makes them a lot harder to quantify. ^_~
hS
What exactly do you mean by "nationalism?" I get what you are trying to prevent: Pollacks are idiots, Germans are Nazis, ect. However, due to the very clear, "in any way, shape, or form, for any reason" I want to be sure. Are gentle pokes, such like I made with Sergio over the "our pizza is superior" thing, or light ribbing during the World Cup, acceptable? Or do we want to avoid all of those things? I would hope not, national pride and minor competition is fun and healthy. But if that is the way the board wants to roll, so be it.
That whole phrase was added as part of the First Amendment, which was back in 2012. The discussion that led to those words looked like this:
hS: Since I don't want to start with 'I, the h of S, have crafted this perfected Amendment; concord with it or suggest your pitiful alterations at your peril'...
We're talking about altering the text of Article One, as I understand this thread, to state that:
a) Discrimination and persecution - against specific individuals or classes of people, even if they aren't people on the Board - are not going to be tolerated.
July: Do these individuals and classes of people include neo-nazis, racists, pick up artists/seduction artists, men's rights activists, and mimes?
Because we should at least be allowed to discriminate against terrible people.
Especially the mimes.
In all seriousness, though, if it's a group with the focus of racism, sexism, or some form of oppressive -ism, we should not tolerate them. And probably should be wary of such groups.
hS: I'm not writing the wording. So it's up to someone else to decide whether to list everyone who can't be discriminated against, list everyone who can be discriminated against, or say something really clever that covers both.
July: An attempt. A) Discrimination and persecution on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, and transphobia are not going to be tolerated- this means we will not tolerate individual people or groups with the distinct goal of opppressing, persecuting, othering or otherwise using others.
I think Article 10 looks fine to me, though.
The parenthetical looks good to me, and I still don’t know how to rephrase the end of Article 10.
HG
Oh, OK. My apologies.
Two things:
1. Please don't start multiple new threads in a row, especially when they're on the exact same topic. Each new thread knocks an older one off the front page. This post could have been added as a reply to your first one.
2. We have a wiki article all about minis, including when it's appropriate to create a new type. You can read it right here. {= )
~Neshomeh