HC 2.0

*************TL:DR LINE 40************
=========				=========
======= 	  HC 2.0      =======
=========				=========

	Table of Contents:
	>Summary of Current Problems
	>Five Laws in HC 2.0
	>Interpretations
	>List of HCs (with a Voting System)

----------------------------------
Summary of Current Problems

Worst rule on em by far; has complete ambiguity so a lot of mods are unguided, guessing, over-stepping boundaries, making mistakes, and too harsh.
Appeals take days because arguments very easily go back and forth. Admins/mods don't know how to settle these, so the problem is never solved.
Enormous potential for mod abuse and corruption; mods favor giving violations rather than benefit of the doubt to certain players (i.e. players they
dislike rather than their friends)

		Example Problem Report:
		Moderator Mist reports shaGuar for HC
		>shaGuar said, "you play like a fag" to kronk in a game 21 days old.
		>Mist is not in the game. No one opened the report when it happened. No one was offended.
		>Kronk even states he was not offended in the report that Mist filed herself.
		>Mist still gives it HC.
 		>Mist's actions here are considered "justified" under the current rule.

		More Examples:
		>abc had 50 people banned in survivor, including 5 perma 4xHC bans whilst using a macro to find the slurs and report automatically,
		>Players report out of frustration over a loss
		>A mod interprets a phrase in a way that is offensive only to that one mod, and depending on the mod's view, and his or her mood, their
		judgment is used and accepted by the rest of the mods who agree only because "mod discretion" is generally accepted.

This is why the current rule is terrible. It propagates more mod abuse and spite reporting than any other rule.

The Fix:
By creating a new rule comprised of 5 laws (explained below) that give clear boundaries and limits when giving someone HC. It works with the philosophy that only people who deserve an HC will receive them. It reduces spite reporting. It has consistency by reducing mod discretion almost completely.

----------------------------------
Five Laws in HC 2.0

LAW1   There will be a list of HCs. All slurs on the 'HC list' are considered hateful comments, and any changes to it are voted on in mod chat (explained later). The list is reset by newly promoted admins if both admins opt/agree to it. Each administration may have differences in core values, so an option to reset the HC list is there to adjust to those new admin views.

LAW2   The slur must be used as an insult to be considered HC (unless the user was warned beforehand).

LAW3   The person whom the slur was directed at must be the person to file the report (with the exception explained in LAW4).

LAW4  If a slur is directed at someone other than you, you may report only if true offense was taken and you are an active participant in the conversation. Therefore you must include heavy in-game evidence and timestamps. Mods are encouraged to close spite reports by bystanders of a conversation.

LAW5 - The below is when to apply a vio:
	       1. 3 slurs in a game is an automatic hc vio.
           2. 2 slurs may be a violation depending on context, severity, and level of offense that was taken. It must be severe enough to warrant a
				violation. If a player reacts badly or shows he is offended, that is an example of solid basis.
    	   3. A note may be given if 2 slurs are used IF the mod is uncertain of the severity of the slurs or the offense taken.
    	   4. Never will a full violation be given for a single use of HC. A note can be given with careful discretion.
 		   5. If a player slurred once and has a previous note for HC, the mod should treat this using LAW 5.2.

----------------------------------
Interpretations

LAW1
There is now a list.

1. autist
2. retard
3. faggot
4. nigger
5. autism
6. ??
 (Slurs are added by a vote system explained later)

You could ask, "Why a list? Why not let us decide for ourselves like we have been? Why is this necessary?"
Mod discretion (or having no list) is inconsistent, it allows mods to make bad choices, and that's why you deal with endless forum threads.
This system is optimal in every way. You can now say with certainty what is and is not a slur.


LAW2
The slur must be used as an insult to be considered HC (unless the user was warned beforehand).

If someone randomly screams nigger and it's not directed at anyone. This is not a vio. If someone shows offense and the slur is used again, this is now a case for HC. Because now there is evidence for someone being offended. Mods will mess up a lot on this concept.

		Example:
		> Player1: nigger i just bit my tongue					< A mod will mistakenly HC this. This is not a vio on its own.
 		> Player2: stop please			                        < Player 2 gives a warning to stop
 		> Player1: it hurts like a nigger tho (my finger lol)	< A mod could now justify HC
 		> Player2: ...reporting


LAW3
The person whom the slur was directed at must be the person to file the report (with an exception explained in LAW4).
This is a measure to eliminate spite reporting. Meaning, someone in gy who is upset about things game-related cannot report someone they see use a slur. HC is 100% based on whether offense is truly received. It is unfair to vio people for using words that caused no harm to a player.

	 	Example:
     	> Imagine a singer in a forest yelling the n-word with no one around to hear.
     	> Does that singer deserve punishment for using words only she hears that are aimed at no one? No.
		> What if people are overlooking in the trees and are listening, but she is unaware of them? The singer still wouldn't deserve punishment.
		> The singer's words were targeted at no one, 2) there is no context at all to assume the singer used these words as insults or to be hateful, and
		  3) no evidence at all of any offense taken by those overlooking in the trees.


LAW4
If a slur is directed at someone other than you, you may report only if true offense was taken and you are an active participant in the conversation. Therefore you must include heavy in-game evidence and timestamps. Mods are encouraged to close spite reports by bystanders of a conversation.

So, while ingame, the bystander should mention he's offended directly.
there is so much abuse with the system of HC. The mod should not rely on personal instinct, but lines that are used in the game.
If the moderator is unsure whether the bystander is offended, then the verdict should always lean towards NV.
The key is to avoid violations given to players out of turmoil and spite.

		Example report:
		X reporting Y - "Player Y said retard 2 times and im offended"
		Mods see that Player X is N1'd and isn't active in the conversation or involved with the flow of the game. He is also mad that the game was lost.
		Now the burden of proof is on the reporter to show he is actually offended.
		Mod uses in-game evidence only to decide if evidence is severe enough to justify a vio. Player X never mentions being offended by the slurs.
		Player x ends up losing the game in question and rages in postgame. It is clear to the mods this report was opened in spite.
		Mods are encouraged to look at the facts, which are: 1) Player X is a bystander and a GY spectator who didn't say anything all game or in GY, 2)
		he only showed anger towards the town for losing, 3) and he mentioned being offended only in the report he filed.
		A perfect verdict would be:
		"No violation. Report is clearly spiteful and the slurs weren't directed at you. Player Y also has no history of HC"


LAW5.2
Assume 2 slurs are used by one player with no reactions from players at all. The game carries on as usual. Players are playing standard as if the slurs were never used to begin with. A player who won the game reports the slurs.
Verdict:
"No violation. No one took any offense or even reacted at all."
because there is no reason to justify a vio when no player revealed any offense whatsoever.

LAW5.3
Assume someone uses 2 slurs and a player becomes irritated and begins to focus only on that player. They begin tunneling each other and they are focusing on things related only to the game itself. So he has not shown he's taken offense or even acknowledged the first player used the slurs at all. His irritation could be due to many variables, like an FoS on him. We should give the benefit of the doubt as often as possible in cases where games are rage induced and players are behaving irrational.
Verdict:
Note for HC. Noting this because there was slight disruption at the table.
Reasoning:
This case could be argued a full violation is deserved. However LAW5.3 says, "A note or a no violation may be given if the mod is uncertain if there was any offense taken at all." Based on the facts and game, it leans towards uncertainty so a note should be given.

----------------------------------
Voting System

New voting system to select words or phrases for the HC list
One mod will see a report for a word not on the list and decide it is worthy to vote on.
Mods will then vote together. The mods need a 70% majority to pass on to admins.
Both admins have to approve.
If at least one admin disagrees with the word being on the list, the word is veto'd.
The admin should explain why he chose to veto the word.

		Example:
		>15 regular mods vote whether to add "mentally challenged" to the list of HCs.
		>70% of them are in favor.
		>Admin 1 agrees.
		>Admin 2 disagrees thinking that would be too harsh.
		>"Mentally challenged" is not added to the list.

		Example 2:
		>Regular mods vote with 65% in favor of adding "mentally challenged."
		>Doesn't reach 70%, so "mentally challenged" is not added to the list.
		>Admins don't have any say in the matter.

		Example 3:
		>"Autistic" is voted by 90% of regular mods
		>Admin 1 agrees
		>Admin 2 agrees
		>Autistic is added to the list of HCs.