Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And if children are playing, what provision could be made to stop them hearing obscenities?

Sensible arrangements would have to be agreed by all parties.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It isn't 'my plan', don't know where you've got that from.

Labels would be undesirable and innapropriate for a whole host of reasons, so aren't part of the initiative However, those with protected characteristics would still be covered by the appropriate legislation.

Well, it's the plan you are advocating, but you haven't addressed the question which is fundamental to that plan.

So you want certain groups of people to be protected from comments that most of us will not be protected from. The elephant in your room is that unless those minority groups are labelled, we won't know who we have to treat more carefully than those people that we speak to in a normal way. We can't be expected to treat some people more gently if we don't know who they are.

For that reason, it won't work as you have described it, but the whole thing stinks anyway, so it will not come about.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

What if I don't want that though?

What if I, as someone you class as 'vulnerable' due to my mental disabilities don't want to be treated any differently?

When I say "vulnerable" i'm referring to the descriptor used in (amongst other things) this initiative, as opposed to my opinion of you.

You don't have to disclose your disabilities to most people if you don't wish to and could certainly ask that any issues caused as a result of the affects of your disabilities is not taken into account or that provision is not made to take account of them.

Normally, the underlying reason to wanting to do this is because (like everybody else), disabled people have their pride and resent being thought of as less able than others or being treated any differently. The fact remains, however, that they are disabled and this will give rise to various issues during life. I've always found it best to just be completely honest.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, it's the plan you are advocating, but you haven't addressed the question which is fundamental to that plan.

So you want certain groups of people to be protected from comments that most of us will not be protected from. The elephant in your room is that unless those minority groups are labelled, we won't know who we have to treat more carefully than those people that we speak to in a normal way. We can't be expected to treat some people more gently if we don't know who they are.

For that reason, it won't work as you have described it, but the whole thing stinks anyway, so it will not come about.

You're concerns have been fully addressed in a previous response.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You don't have to disclose your disabilities to most people if you don't wish to and could certainly ask that any issues caused as a result of the affects of your disabilities is not taken into account or that provision is not made to take account of them.

Normally, the underlying reason to wanting to do this is because (like everybody else), disabled people have their pride and resent being thought of as less able than others or being treated any differently. The fact remains, however, that they are disabled and this will give rise to various issues during life. I've always found it best to just be completely honest.

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:10 ----------



You're concerns have been fully addressed in a previous response.

So those who wanted to be treated differently will be labelled so that they can be identified. That's the point I was making. Glad we got there in the end!

[heero_yuy]

Quote from OLD BOY:


So those who wanted to be treated differently will be labelled so that they can be identified. That's the point I was making. Glad we got there in the end!

Easily done:

[RichardCoulter]

Anyone in any doubt as to the challenges faced by various groups may find it useful to read this from a LGBT+ Jewish person and others. It relates to the forthcoming Trans Remembrance Day next Tuesday, where people murdered because of their differences are remembered:

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/our-wor...ay-remembrance

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So those who wanted to be treated differently will be labelled so that they can be identified. That's the point I was making. Glad we got there in the end!

No. Go back and read what I said properly.

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Easily done:

As a self identified gay man, i'm surprised at this. You will surely have come across the abuse (or worse) of others if not yourself.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Sensible arrangements would have to be agreed by all parties.

That really isn’t an answer, is it?

That’s the same as "something magic will happen"...

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

When I say "vulnerable" i'm referring to the descriptor used in (amongst other things) this initiative, as opposed to my opinion of you.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Your wording was pretty clear and encompassing:

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Groups that need extra protection are those vulnerable by definition, such as children, those with mental or physical disabilities

I'm in that group and I neither want or need protection (extra or standard-level) by you or anyone else. It really annoys the brown-stuff out of me when people take it upon themselves to decide I that I do.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As a self identified gay man, i'm surprised at this. You will surely have come across the abuse (or worse) of others if not yourself.

How about letting him (and myself) decide whether protection is wanted or needed?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That really isn’t an answer, is it?

That’s the same as "something magic will happen"...

There isn't a clear cut answer. Sensible arrangements would need to be made to ensure that the disabled person has their needs met, whilst ensuring that young children aren't exposed to obscene language.

How would you manage the situation?

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Now you're moving the goalposts. Your wording was pretty clear and encompassing:



I'm in that group and I neither want or need protection (extra or standard-level) by you or anyone else. It really annoys the brown-stuff out of me when people take it upon themselves to decide I that I do.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------



How about letting him (and myself) decide whether protection is wanted or needed?

You already have that right and this will not change. If you feel that you don't need or want any help, you aren't obliged to take it.

However, just because you believe that you don't need any help, doesn't mean that others in a similar situation should be denied it.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from Russ:


How about letting him (and myself) decide whether protection is wanted or needed?

Perhaps because I don't get on my high horse at any perceived slight, real or imaginary. I have never received any abuse from members here related to my sexuality. Maybe because I don't push the agenda there is live and let live.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

No. Go back and read what I said properly.[COLOR="Silver"]

I did, actually. You explained that people could choose whether to get special treatment. So how are we to know those who do if they are not labelled?

It must be a simple question for you to answer, given that comment. How do we know?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Perhaps because I don't get on my high horse at any perceived slight, real or imaginary. I have never received any abuse from members here related to my sexuality. Maybe because I don't push the agenda there is live and let live.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

I'm pleased to hear this, but it's disappointing that you prefer to walk away from discrimination. If others had of felt the same years ago, your life would be very different today.

---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I did, actually. You explained that people could choose whether to get special treatment. So how are we to know those who do if they are not labelled?

It must be a simple question for you to answer, given that comment. How do we know?

This has already been answered.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You already have that right and this will not change. If you feel that you don't need or want any help, you aren't obliged to take it.

However, just because you believe that you don't need any help, doesn't mean that others in a similar situation should be denied it.

I'm guilty of beating about the bush so let me direct.

I consider you ignorant and arrogant for deciding that I need ANY kind of protection. Rather than looking at people as individuals you're deciding people need protecting because of them being in a 'group'.

Seriously, get down off your high horse. Don't go declaring problems where there aren't any.

---------- Post added at 19:46 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This has already been answered.

Not rationally it hasn't.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm pleased to hear this, but it's disappointing that you prefer to walk away from discrimination. If others had of felt the same years ago, your life would be very different today.

---------- Post added at 18:41 ---------- Previous post was at 18:40 ----------



This has already been answered.

Except that it hasn't.

If I tell CF that I am vulnerable because I have learning difficulties and sometimes I cry when people disagree with me, what does the forum do to alert users to this fact?

If they don't label that person, what do they do? It's a fair question, surely.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There isn't a clear cut answer. Sensible arrangements would need to be made to ensure that the disabled person has their needs met, whilst ensuring that young children aren't exposed to obscene language.

How would you manage the situation?

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------



You already have that right and this will not change. If you feel that you don't need or want any help, you aren't obliged to take it.

However, just because you believe that you don't need any help, doesn't mean that others in a similar situation should be denied it.

I wouldn’t, because it’s an unmanageable scenario - people with Tourette’s can’t control if/when they may utter obscenities, on-line gaming is millisecond critical, so delays cannot be introduced without ruining the game, so the only option is to allow people with Tourette’s to play without microphones, so as not to allow the possibility of children hearing obscenities.

Remember, it’s all about reasonable accommodations in order to avoid a disabled person being placed at a “substantial disadvantage” compared with non-disabled people when accessing these services and facilities, not blanket responses, and the Game Server providers have a duty of care to the children.

It is about what is practical in the service provider’s situation and they will not be required to make adjustments that are not reasonable because they are unaffordable or impractical.