Slave Carriers Update

[Linnunrata]

It came out that one of them worked for a very well known public company which fired him pretty much the next day. They ended up having to give him his job back because what he did was not on company time.

I'd hazard to guess that running a racist Discord directly linked to the company in question would fare less well as "something not done on company time".

 

[Vedmo]

I remember that bakery case and you’re right, the baker ended up winning. I believe ultimately it was because the Supreme Court refused to take the case.

There was a similar local incident a few years ago. If you remember there was an internet fad where idiots would yell obscenities while being interviewed by live reporters. It came out that one of them worked for a very well known public company which fired him pretty much the next day. They ended up having to give him his job back because what he did was not on company time.

The right to refuse service does get a bit more grey once money changes hands though, and all of those other companies refused service before that happens. TOS are pretty one sided and yes they can be enforced any time for any reason but there have been cases where courts have overturned them. They’re not laws after all, and consumers do have rights once they pay money, even though you may seemingly agree to give up all of them. Some rights are irrevocable and consumer laws have been enacted specifically for those reasons. Anyways none of that deals with any of the specifics of what happened here, which we don’t even fully know.

Maybe that’s why it was just a shadow ban instead of a complete ban.. probably makes it easier to justify.

A couple things on the Colorado baker and the Supreme Court ruling, in the interest of accuracy.

Quoting this post, but referring to others as well, and I'm not trying to call anyone out here.

A couple who were planning a wedding in Massachusetts (because they could not legally wed in Colorado at the time) went to a baker for a cake for the celebration upon their return to Colorado. The baker did not deny them service of anything available for sale in his store including pre-made or generic cakes, but he did refuse to bake them a custom wedding cake on the grounds that his custom cakes were an art form and he was not comfortable using his artistic skills to celebrate gay weddings due to his religious beliefs, just as he wouldn't use artistic outlets to make a cake for anything else he found opposed to his religious beliefs, be it in relation to gay issues or not, like he wouldn't make a custom cake for a Church of Satan get together.

Ironically, the actual case was an appeal by the baker against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who had ruled on a state level that the baker had broken a Colorado anti-discrimination act that prohibited any business open to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation (ironic because the same state wouldn't let them get married there at that time).

The Supreme Court did take the case and ruled 7-2 in his favor, but the basis of the ruling was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed hostility towards the baker's religious beliefs during the course of their investigation or whatever and did not treat their decision with neutrality or in a consistent manner with previous cases they had handled. The decision really didn't have anything to due with refusing service as a business on the basis of someone's sexual orientation, but rather that the state had discriminated against the baker on the basis of his religious beliefs during their investigation of him.

I guess after I got way too long winded there on a tangent I should at least try to get on topic and tie it into the Frontier/slaver issue, so much like the baker, Frontier isn't flat out denying service to anyone, but rather limiting what services they are willing to offer to those they deem racist (if that is in fact their reasoning).

 

[thelion]

Bally hell, this thread is spinning out of control, what what

 

[Sublime]

A couple things on the Colorado baker and the Supreme Court ruling, in the interest of accuracy.

Quoting this post, but referring to others as well, and I'm not trying to call anyone out here.

A couple who were planning a wedding in Massachusetts (because they could not legally wed in Colorado at the time) went to a baker for a cake for the celebration upon their return to Colorado. The baker did not deny them service of anything available for sale in his store including pre-made or generic cakes, but he did refuse to bake them a custom wedding cake on the grounds that his custom cakes were an art form and he was not comfortable using his artistic skills to celebrate gay weddings due to his religious beliefs, just as he wouldn't use artistic outlets to make a cake for anything else he found opposed to his religious beliefs, be it in relation to gay issues or not, like he wouldn't make a custom cake for a Church of Satan get together.

Ironically, the actual case was an appeal by the baker against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who had ruled on a state level that the baker had broken a Colorado anti-discrimination act that prohibited any business open to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation (ironic because the same state wouldn't let them get married there at that time).

The Supreme Court did take the case and ruled 7-2 in his favor, but the basis of the ruling was the Colorado Civil Rights Commission displayed hostility towards the baker's religious beliefs during the course of their investigation or whatever and did not treat their decision with neutrality or in a consistent manner with previous cases they had handled. The decision really didn't have anything to due with refusing service as a business on the basis of someone's sexual orientation, but rather that the state had discriminated against the baker on the basis of his religious beliefs during their investigation of him.

I guess after I got way to long winded there on a tangent I should at least try to get on topic and tie it into the Frontier/slaver issue, so much like the baker, Frontier isn't flat out denying service to anyone, but rather limiting what services they are willing to offer to those they deem racist (if that is in fact their reasoning).

Thanks for the clarification! It shows that there are still grey areas even with private businesses if they are open to the public. I think the baker probably gave his case a lot of credibility by still offering the standard goods while only refusing his personal artistic skills.

 

[Linnunrata]

by still offering the standard goods while only refusing his personal artistic skills.

That's basically my approach to PvP when ganked, in a nutshell.

 

[Sublime]

I'd hazard to guess that running a racist Discord directly linked to the company in question would fare less well as "something not done on company time".

I never brought up any racist Discord there so I’m not sure why you did. We don’t even really have the facts with that so I can’t really comment much on that beyond saying that‘s not even the apparent reason for the ban in the first place. According to the screenshots of the letter, their ban was against the “scamming” clause of the CoC. Nothing to do with racism.

 

[Linnunrata]

I never brought up any racist Discord there so I’m not sure why you did.

Actually edit that, my point was that in your example of worker being illegally fired, the essence obviously was that what he did couldn't be connected to the company he worked. Had there been a connection (like running a racist Discord group, a humorous reference to the topic of this thread) I don't think he would've fared so well in court.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Yeah, but this is a British company, I imagine they operate within a British law framework. I doubt FD would ban gay Russian players because it is ‘forbidden’ to be openly gay in Russia.

Now I want Russians to invest in FDEV. We'll find out real quick how FDEV feel about it.

...for science?

 

[Linnunrata]

Now I want Russians to invest in FDEV. We'll find out real quick how FDEV feel about it.

Can we handle all the Cheeki Breeki? Only one way to find out.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

Can we handle all the Cheeki Breeki? Only one way to find out.

If Odyssey doesn't have slav squats I'm writing a very stern open letter.

 

[Morbad]

This could be considered just "in game actions" as long as the players agreed with the slave role in-game instead of being deceived and exploited.

I'd argue that a player consents to any actions that are within the bounds of the game, including the possibility of being deceived and exploited. Indeed, the game itself has had plenty of examples of this that doesn't have anything to do with other CMDRs, and I regularly have my CMDR engage in deception to accomplish his goals (I used to fill trade and exploration ships with undersized railguns to discourage interdiction, and still give cheeky names to my CMDR's unEngineered vessels to convince people that they are too fast to catch) and I will certainly have my CMDR bluff or outright lie through his teeth if that serves his purposes.

It's probable that these slaver players didn't have the best intentions toward their fellow players, and that is unfortunate, but unless they were violating the rules of the game it's also irrelevant. Indifference, or even antipathy, do not constitute harassment.

 

[galahad2069]

If you saw indisputable evidence (indisputable by your standards, no one else's) that someone had been racist in the last.....month. Would you like to be associated with that person?
Would you continue to provide them the thing you had been providing them?

Absolutely.
You know why?

Because I'm a medical doctor and not the goddamn court, therefore I'm not entitled to decide whether or not an evidence is indisputable, and it's not my job to decide whether or not someone is guilty of something.

Or do you really want me to stop "providing them the thing I had been providing them" (i.e. medical care), as soon as it has come to my attention that they had said something a month ago - something what I think was indisputably racist?

 

[theGunner76]

I see only one possible outcome of this... Fdevs will have to write the game in the direction of complete Empire anhilation. In the name of getting rid of slavery, and all...

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Absolutely.
You know why?

Because I'm a medical doctor and not the goddamn court, therefore I'm not entitled to decide whether or not an evidence is indisputable, and it's not my job to decide whether or not someone is guilty of something.

Or do you really want me to stop "providing them the thing I had been providing them" (i.e. medical care), as soon as it has come to my attention that they had said something a month ago - something what I think was indisputably racist?

A fair point in your example but most people are not doctors. I think it is a bit disingenuous to think that I plastered that hypothetical question over every single trade or job.

 

[Rat Catcher]

A fair point in your example but most people are not doctors. I think it is a bit disingenuous to think that I plastered that hypothetical question over every single trade or job.

You should have seen that one coming...

Perhaps we should all be supporting this kind of behaviour in fear of our overseas cousins being refused care by slaver supporting medics?

 

[Hellrider]

I guess we’re stepping away from ED here and going into philosophical discussions, I do like those so I’ll bite.

No, of course I would not want to be associated with such a person, on a personal level. But are the rules different for a business if those acts did not happen within their sphere of authority? I don’t know of the exact laws but we’re just being philosophical here.

And remember, let’s assume this person’s act did not happen within the realm of any specific business.

Should that person’s employer fire them? Should any other employer from then on refuse to hire them? Should the bank cancel the mortgage? Should the grocery store refuse to sell them food? Should the utility companies turn off their water, electricity, gas? Should a hospital refuse treatment? Why should any of those businesses associate with such a person?

Ah, but those are essential services you might say. Well what about non-essentials. Should they not be allowed to borrow a book from the library? See a movie? Should cable companies, streaming services, internet services all withdraw service? Where do you draw the line on where a person can be condemned for their actions?

I believe in this case it may not have been a ban simply because of the what happened on Discord. I think the argument may have been that it was ED related because the Discord channel was specifically for ED, discussing and planning in game actions, and all to do with ED. Maybe that’s why FDEV can choose to apply their CoC.

If suddenly a video comes out of a person doing bad things in some unrelated event and it turns out they just happen to also play ED in their spare time, I don’t think they would receive a ban.

And this is clue.
Today ban for game.
Tomorrow ban for water, because "they can do everything".

 

[Rat Catcher]

And this is clue.
Today ban for game.
Tomorrow ban for water, because "they can do everything".

Just shadow ban everyone, it would improve the game no end...

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

And this is clue.
Today ban for game.
Tomorrow ban for water, because "they can do everything".

Yes we're all painfully aware of your reasoning that you want to allow racism today because tomorrow they'll hunt people with a lisp but some of us feel that is a leap too far and that racism is wrong. The point being, it's actually the other way around, if you allow racism today, then you allow discrimination of anything in future.

 

[Hellrider]

Absolutely.
You know why?

Because I'm a medical doctor and not the goddamn court, therefore I'm not entitled to decide whether or not an evidence is indisputable, and it's not my job to decide whether or not someone is guilty of something.

Or do you really want me to stop "providing them the thing I had been providing them" (i.e. medical care), as soon as it has come to my attention that they had said something a month ago - something what I think was indisputably racist?

Yes, you should do it.
Ofc. with lorenzo's "logic"

 

[Hellrider]

Just shadow ban everyone, it would improve the game no end...

Totally agree.
I'm sure, that all of us in some place, in some tome break any law (yes, insulting other people still could be crime).