View Full Version : There has been too much foul language here of late.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2012, 00:55
I have to say, I'm very disappointed that certain distinguished members have sunk of outright profanity over the last few weeks, now new members are picking up the habit.
It's lazy and it lowers both the tone and the content of our debates - I think it should stop, or the mods should put a stop to it. We don't need to swear here to have grown up discussion, quite the opposite.
Strike For The South
11-14-2012, 01:01
I'm European, we have different attitudes toward language.
Also thank you for calling me distinguished. As more people get the senior member tag I need more ways to stick out from the crowd
Your protests have been noted and filed
spankythehippo
11-14-2012, 01:11
I've heard this argument before, and I don't get it. I don't consider any language to be ugly. It's not what is said, it is what is meant. If swearing is used with malicious intent, then there is reason to be offended (although this is subject to debate). In the end, language is just expression. Some people enjoy using certain words. I, for one, do.
What is offensive to one may not be offensive to others. People should just deal with it.
Rhyfelwyr
11-14-2012, 01:11
I've noticed this as well, I find it unpleasant. I don't have any airs or graces but I only swear once in a blue moon, and when I do I feel bad.
I've heard people try to defend swearing and its value, but I disagree. Below is Stephen Fry's take (warning, lots of swearing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM
I think the sole purpose of swearing is to let off steam. Beyond that I don't think it will help express anything effectively. The crude and harsh-sounding nature of the words make them inappropriate for intellectual or even normal discussion, while they are too widely used to have the shock value comedians often try to use them for.
Honestly, if I have to see another awful BBC comedy where the comedy value is supposed to come from posh English people swearing, I don't even...
a completely inoffensive name
11-14-2012, 01:12
I'm just an angry kid, but that is no excuse. I promise to reserve all swearing for Vuk threads.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2012, 01:14
I've heard this argument before, and I don't get it. I don't consider any language to be ugly. It's not what is said, it is what is meant. If swearing is used with malicious intent, then there is reason to be offended (although this is subject to debate). In the end, language is just expression. Some people enjoy using certain words. I, for one, do.
What is offensive to one may not be offensive to others. People should just deal with it.
I'm willing to bet I can outswear anyone here, including MRD when he's completely drunk.
The point is - swearing is intellectually lazy - in a debate you swear for emotive effect or to convey a sense of a point of view, an exclamation, or as a way of dismissing your opponent.
None of that actually contributes to the debate - and some of it is actually against Backroom Etiquette.
It has nothing to do withbeing offended by the words.
There aren't any women here, right? So who cares.
a completely inoffensive name
11-14-2012, 01:18
There aren't any women here, right? So who cares.
Already pulling out the ole sausage fest card are we? Might as well make a thread about how we all deal with morning wood.
spankythehippo
11-14-2012, 01:24
I'm willing to bet I can outswear anyone here, including MRD when he's completely drunk.
The point is - swearing is intellectually lazy - in a debate you swear for emotive effect or to convey a sense of a point of view, an exclamation, or as a way of dismissing your opponent.
None of that actually contributes to the debate - and some of it is actually against Backroom Etiquette.
It has nothing to do withbeing offended by the words.
If a person chooses to be intellectually lazy with their words, why should it matter to others? Just filter out the gist of the argument and move on. No need to dwell on individual words.
Swearing, as Rhyfhylwyr says, is a means of letting of steam. Or to further a point, often with the backing of opinion. You won't see a scientific article saying, "Natural killer cells are similar in many respects to motherfuckin' cytotoxic T cells." It just doesn't work.
Use swear words. Just don't abuse them. Then they become bland and cliche.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2012, 01:48
If a person chooses to be intellectually lazy with their words, why should it matter to others? Just filter out the gist of the argument and move on. No need to dwell on individual words.
Swearing, as Rhyfhylwyr says, is a means of letting of steam. Or to further a point, often with the backing of opinion. You won't see a scientific article saying, "Natural killer cells are similar in many respects to motherfuckin' cytotoxic T cells." It just doesn't work.
Use swear words. Just don't abuse them. Then they become bland and cliche.
They have no value in a debate forum online. Need to let off steam? Go kick a door, then post.
Major Robert Dump
11-14-2012, 01:49
If a person chooses to be intellectually lazy with their words, why should it matter to others? Just filter out the gist of the argument and move on. No need to dwell on individual words.
Swearing, as Rhyfhylwyr says, is a means of letting of steam. Or to further a point, often with the backing of opinion. You won't see a scientific article saying, "Natural killer cells are similar in many respects to motherfuckin' cytotoxic T cells." It just doesn't work.
Use swear words. Just don't abuse them. Then they become bland and cliche.
This thread is not about me as I have not been posting. Also, I do not swear.
spankythehippo
11-14-2012, 02:04
They have no value in a debate forum online. Need to let off steam? Go kick a door, then post.
I'm not saying that swear words are necessary. But as Stephen Fry said, it's not necessary but it's fun.
I grew up in Australia. I also went to a boys high school. It wasn't until I went to university, that I had to tone down my language. I also never knew that the "C" word (I hate calling it that) is considered the most offensive word of them all, until a lot later in life.
When posting online, I don't swear as much as I do in normal conversation. I am not a fussy person. And I don't riled up about my differences in opinion with others, unlike some people. I quite enjoy when people get riled up, and I'm the only sane person in the room (which is saying something because I'm never the sane one). Nevertheless, people should remember that swear words are just that. They are words. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone gets offended by what someone said, they need to get their priorities straight in life.
If everyone on the internet kicked a door for every swear words they said, this world will be door-less.
There is more swearing? I seriously didn't notice. :sweatdrop:
InsaneApache
11-14-2012, 11:49
There is more swearing? I seriously didn't notice. :sweatdrop:
Too busy hiding in your T-35 in Karelia I expect.
Pannonian
11-14-2012, 12:37
Swear words in a discussion are ugly. They can have a point in some kinds of discussion, but for the kinds of discussion in the Backroom, they have no point at all.
"Theres no such thing as bad language...i dont believe that anymore....its ridiculous, they call it debasing of the language..... no!, we are adults..... these are the words that we use to express frustration, rage, anger, in order that we dont pick up a tire iron and beat the sh!% out of someone."
- Lewis Black
HoreTore
11-14-2012, 13:15
Swear words in a discussion are ugly. They can have a point in some kinds of discussion, but for the kinds of discussion in the Backroom, they have no point at all.
There's a balance here. A swearword can underline a hardness of a comment, and that's sometimes important.
On the other hand, swearwords draw a lot of the readers attention, which can make the points being made unclear and forgotten.
What makes a swearword a swearword in the first place?
I'll keep it in mind, I am always having a hard time not sharing my rather particular sense of humour that might be seen as offensive. It isn't meant that way but it could be.
HopAlongBunny
11-14-2012, 14:07
- swearing is intellectually lazy -
I think that says it all. We have a complex language and a (reportedly) complex brain, it ought to be possible to merge these two wonders and express ourselves clearly and creatively.
That said, I can go for days existing in a space where every second word is pure filth...it's just one of those things :)
Ironside
11-14-2012, 14:22
There's a balance here. A swearword can underline a hardness of a comment, and that's sometimes important.
On the other hand, swearwords draw a lot of the readers attention, which can make the points being made unclear and forgotten.
It has its place even in written text (I occationally use weaker ones here), but in general using 2 or more in one post is a nono and I don't know, more than once every 1/20 posts is too often.
What makes a swearword a swearword in the first place?
It's handled by a specific part of the brain. Strong emotional content. I'm not sure if sexual and religious swear words are universal, but wouldn't be surprised. Negative body functions probably is.
Most of the odd ones has a religious backround, that comes from don't say the devil out lound.
Greyblades
11-14-2012, 14:49
I have to say, I'm very disappointed that certain distinguished members have sunk of outright profanity over the last few weeks, now new members are picking up the habit.
It's lazy and it lowers both the tone and the content of our debates - I think it should stop, or the mods should put a stop to it. We don't need to swear here to have grown up discussion, quite the opposite.
Really? We've got a guy spending pages on pages copy pasting content to try to win arguments that are techically impossible and you are complaining about something that is fairly rare and allways edited out by the mods? We cant even say hell without a warning because it's too close to some norse word with worse implications.
CountArach
11-14-2012, 15:07
Swearing to underline a point is perfectly valid. Swearing is also considered fine in informal discussion amongst friends, and what we have here could hardly be termed formal discussion.
If you hate swearing, you hate friendship.
HoreTore
11-14-2012, 15:38
Really? We've got a guy spending pages on pages copy pasting content to try to win arguments that are techically impossible and you are complaining about something that is fairly rare and allways edited out by the mods? We cant even say hell without a warning because it's too close to some norse word with worse implications.
"Hell" means "luck" in norse-speak....
Greyblades
11-14-2012, 16:01
"Hell" means "luck" in norse-speak....
It does? Maybe it was Turkish, all I know is that a mod got his knickers in a twist over it when I was still a newbie 2-3 years ago.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-14-2012, 16:57
What makes a swearword a swearword in the first place?
Profanity or Blasphemy - it's really quite an interesting topic.
Of the issues I have is that people have been swearing without understanding how to swear, which is just childish.
Really? We've got a guy spending pages on pages copy pasting content to try to win arguments that are techically impossible and you are complaining about something that is fairly rare and allways edited out by the mods? We cant even say hell without a warning because it's too close to some norse word with worse implications.
It hasn't been edited out recently, hence this topic, or it hasn't been edited out anywhewre near quick enough. If Strike used a mid level swear word six-12 hours ago it should be gone by the time I read his post.
TR is someone I can ignore, because he requires neither my time nor respect, and he's boring, so I don't care that he's here mouthing off.
Swearing to underline a point is perfectly valid. Swearing is also considered fine in informal discussion amongst friends, and what we have here could hardly be termed formal discussion.
If you hate swearing, you hate friendship.
You have got to be joking.
I only swear when I'm angry - there's no reason for me to swear infront of friends, or in debate. If I am in a debate and I'm angry enough to want to swear I try not to post.
Major Robert Dump
11-14-2012, 22:30
When a Filipina mixes her Ps with her Fs
And tells me to "Puck off for what I said on Pacebook about her Pamily"
Does that count as swearing.
There is no v in Arabic. It's a bile language.
I, for one, would like to see more archaic profanity.
To wit, you are all a bunch of consarned ninnyhammers. Strewth!
This thread cannot possibly be complete without Carlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd0FY1YGbnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzQkkjXgqoQ
CrossLOPER
11-14-2012, 23:48
I have to say, I'm very disappointed that certain distinguished members have sunk of outright profanity over the last few weeks, now new members are picking up the habit.
It's lazy and it lowers both the tone and the content of our debates - I think it should stop, or the mods should put a stop to it. We don't need to swear here to have grown up discussion, quite the opposite.
OUT WITH IT!
Which post was it that finally rustled your jimmies?
If any posts have itched you the wrong way, feel free to report them, and they will be bring to attention far quicker. Sometimes posts can slip by moderators attention.
The Lurker Below
11-15-2012, 04:31
If a person chooses to be intellectually lazy with their words, why should it matter to others? Just filter out the gist of the argument and move on. No need to dwell on individual words.
Swearing, as Rhyfhylwyr says, is a means of letting of steam. Or to further a point, often with the backing of opinion. You won't see a scientific article saying, "Natural killer cells are similar in many respects to motherfuckin' cytotoxic T cells." It just doesn't work.
Use swear words. Just don't abuse them. Then they become bland and cliche.
use of profanity is not all so bad. as stated by hippo here, it's real easy to simply ignore it and move on. personally if a poster has so little creativity and imagination that they so limit their vocabulary, i can know to filter that post(er) out and move on
I'm just an angry kid, but that is no excuse. I promise to reserve all swearing for Vuk threads.
Oh, a secret admirer! How cute!
use of profanity is not all so bad. as stated by hippo here, it's real easy to simply ignore it and move on. personally if a poster has so little creativity and imagination that they so limit their vocabulary, i can know to filter that post(er) out and move on
It probably is my fault this thread even exists but it's not intentional. You tend to take over expressions from other languages without really thinking about it. This is an international forum where English is the norm so accidents happen.
I haven't noticed this bad language..?
You have to define why swearing is or should be edited here:
1) For reasons of censorship (PG13 site, etc)
2) Because of the reasons PVC stated i.e.
"The point is - swearing is intellectually lazy"
"It's lazy and it lowers both the tone and the content of our debates [...] We don't need to swear here to have grown up discussion, quite the opposite."
"that people have been swearing without understanding how to swear, which is just childish."
Personally I think editing swearing and enforcement of a no swearing policy is a complete waste of staff time, ruins discussions, is intrusive and more likely to piss members off. It will kill debates more often than maintain them. If it's for PG13 reasons - then enable the word censor and be done with it, otherwise, you're just re-educating people which is not the role of a computer gaming forum...
Insults are another matter, it's possible to insult someone without use of profanity however...
You have to accept that some people are not as eloquent or as educated as some of the posters here (myself included), but still may have valid points to to make. This kind of thread simply comes across as plain old fashioned snobbery and may even send out a message to some that the .org is a "high brow" forum... :rolleyes:
That said, it says a lot about the .org when members simply volunteer to tone it down - rather that than staff involvement.
tl;dr - Much ado about bugger all...
Kralizec
11-15-2012, 13:23
I've noticed one or two instances that caught my attention lately, but never thought there was a pattern.
A couple of weeks ago I said that (paraphrased) "if the creationists don't like evolution in science textbooks, they can go to hell". If that's swearing, then it at least serves a purpose - it illustrates how strongly you feel about something, and it's brief. And it was overall a long post.
And I recall using the word "shitty" from time to time. I never understood why that's considered a swear word anyway, but then again that goes for a lot of them.
I guess I do swear every now and then, and I don't particulary care either way. If the mods decide to enforce Victorian speech taboos I'll abide by them. It's perfectly possible to be crass, and more fun, by using normal words instead of vulgar ones. "Dear sir, it seems you're suffering from verbal diarrhea. Please stop posting, I don't want to catch whatever you have".
Furunculus
11-15-2012, 13:57
* posts to see if his member is senior*
:(
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-15-2012, 16:00
You have to accept that some people are not as eloquent or as educated as some of the posters here (myself included), but still may have valid points to to make. This kind of thread simply comes across as plain old fashioned snobbery and may even send out a message to some that the .org is a "high brow" forum... :rolleyes:
That said, it says a lot about the .org when members simply volunteer to tone it down - rather that than staff involvement.
tl;dr - Much ado about bugger all...
Plain old fashioned snobbery?
Ah, well that would be an insult.
Swear words are either insults against a deity (blasphemy) a curse (duh) or a reference to bodily functions (profanity)
You can make a valid point without swearwords and in fact swearwords would contravene Backroom rules as well as the PG-13 rating.
A couple of weeks ago I said that (paraphrased) "if the creationists don't like evolution in science textbooks, they can go to hell". If that's swearing, then it at least serves a purpose - it illustrates how strongly you feel about something, and it's brief. And it was overall a long post.
An excellent example - cursing someone to Hell is actually highly offensive if that person believes in Hell. You should see the blood drain when you do it, it's very shocking.
And I recall using the word "shitty" from time to time. I never understood why that's considered a swear word anyway, but then again that goes for a lot of them.
Profanity is the least serious form of foul language, but it's none the less unnecessary.
I guess I do swear every now and then, and I don't particulary care either way. If the mods decide to enforce Victorian speech taboos I'll abide by them. It's perfectly possible to be crass, and more fun, by using normal words instead of vulgar ones. "Dear sir, it seems you're suffering from verbal diarrhea. Please stop posting, I don't want to catch whatever you have".
Everybody seems to have forgotten - these rules used to be enforced, all asterisks, all the time.
Plain old fashioned snobbery?
Comes across as.
Ah, well that would be an insult.
Obviously, no insult was intended. Perhaps it came across as an insult, if so apologies.
You can make a valid point without swearwords and in fact swearwords would contravene Backroom rules as well as the PG-13 rating.
Everybody seems to have forgotten - these rules used to be enforced, all asterisks, all the time.
We've had all of this in the past and as an ex moderator I can tell you that moderating swear words is no fun at all and IMO was stifling this place... The constant rounds of editing, warnings, infractions, people playing reporting games, etc was ridiculous. Mods might miss the odd word, or one mod's idea of swearing might differ to another mod's, but in general most of the swearing which was spotted was the stuff which was being reported - and if someone is reporting on someone else, it's often due to some kind of history or bad blood... utterly pointless.
Personally I think it's good that you've raised this issue and that members have responded positively in that some of those involved are willing to tone it down. That is in my honest opinion the right way to tackle this, rather than resorting to the staff safety net approach.
An excellent example - cursing someone to Hell is actually highly offensive if that person believes in Hell. You should see the blood drain when you do it, it's very shocking.
Cursing to hell seems like flaming, more so than just language... but it depends on context, the intent and those involved. If it's just banter between two friends, then it's surely not an issue...?
This explains my view on profanity (and others here, judging by comments) pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbnAY9vbKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdZ05oUZ0sE
I'm surprised to see that this topic has received as much traction as it did. The Backroom is really running out of things to discuss.
a completely inoffensive name
11-15-2012, 18:37
The Backroom is really running out of things to discuss.
People say this, but I don't agree. The problem is just that old topics get rehashed instead bringing up more abstract concerns and claims.
I don't think many political discussion forums have a thread arguing over the way history should be interpreted, yet we do, and it was a big thread because it was new even though at face value it seems a silly thing to argue about.
I'm surprised to see that this topic has received as much traction as it did.
So am I.
To use excessive profanity for the sake of swearing is one thing, and here I would agree, it certainly does not enhance any sort of discussion or cordial discourse, but to ban it outright, is another. I have never uttered a swear word in these fora but I have indeed been tempted in the last few weeks as one or two posters have spewed such utter nonesense, it would have been more than deserving. 'Bullshit' comes to mind. But where do you draw the line? As someone has pointed out, this is an international forum wherein a plethora of opinions are voiced by people with vastly different backgrounds, ages, and creeds.
Are we being too politically correct? Do we have the right to be offended or to offend? A right to insult or be insulted? For me, the answer to all of these questions is a resounding 'YES'! Why can't we just say (write) what we really think of someone/something? We do it in everyday life also. To not do so, is simply being dishonest. There are plenty of people here who can hold their own. This is not to say that one can simply go on a disreputable spree of abuse and draw the line in the tundra when it should be drawn in the sand, but to forbid warranted attacks on moronic arguments with the use of expletives should, in my humble opinion, be allowed.
If people's feelings are hurt by someone else wishing them to hell - well then, quite frankly, my feelings are hurt because there are still people who hold true to such archaic tripe and I have to count myself to the same species as them. Get over it and, if you must, do not resort to name-calling or perceived insults yourself - be the 'better' person that you claim to be (surely must be) and leave the rest of us alone with your so precious beliefs.
So there - agree or disagree - I could not give a rat's arse :2thumbsup:
Quid
spankythehippo
11-16-2012, 09:14
An excellent example - cursing someone to Hell is actually highly offensive if that person believes in Hell. You should see the blood drain when you do it, it's very shocking.
Why is that offensive? Are they God? Do they have the power to curse someone to hell (assuming it exists)? Swear words are just words. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why is that offensive? Are they God? Do they have the power to curse someone to hell (assuming it exists)? Swear words are just words. Nothing more, nothing less.
In this specific case, it's not whether that person actually goes to hell, but that fact that someone would wish it upon them (even if it isn't done with serious intent).
Swear words don't physically hurt people, but they can hurt the sentiments of some people, who might not be thick skinned enough to withstand verbal blows. It's rare these days, specially online, but not non existent.
In this specific case, it's not whether that person actually goes to hell, but that fact that someone would wish it upon them (even if it isn't done with serious intent).
Swear words don't physically hurt people, but they can hurt the sentiments of some people, who might not be thick skinned enough to withstand verbal blows. It's rare these days, specially online, but not non existent.
My heart bleeds...
Quid
HoreTore
11-16-2012, 20:46
Why is that offensive? Are they God? Do they have the power to curse someone to hell (assuming it exists)? Swear words are just words. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am God, yes, but I like to keep my anonymity, so please don't make a big fuss. Usually I only reveal myself to the ladies at night...
Since this board is chock-full of history nerds, we should also avoid archaic terms for sexytime. Here, a helpful culling from the 1811 masterpiece, Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (http://theweek.com/article/index/236546/17-euphemisms-for-sex-from-the-1800s).
1. Amorous congress
To say two people were engaged in the amorous congress was by far the most polite option on the list, oftentimes serving as the definition for other, less discreet synonyms.
2. Basket-making
"Those two recently opened a basket-making shop." From a method of making children's stockings, in which knitting the heel is called basket-making.
3. Bread and butter
One on top of the other. "Rumor has it he found her bread and butter fashion with the neighbor."
4. Brush
"Yeah, we had a brush once." The emphasis here is on brevity; just a fling, no big deal.
5. Clicket
"They left together, so they're probably at clicket." This was originally used only for foxes, but became less specific as more and more phrases for doing it were needed.
6. Face-making
Aside from the obvious, this also comes from "making children," because babies have faces.
7. Blanket hornpipe
There is probably no way to use this in seriousness or discreetly, but there you have it.
8. Blow the grounsils
"Grounsils" are foundation timbers, so "on the floor."
9. Convivial society
Similar to "amorous congress" in that this was a gentler term suitable for even the noble classes to use, even if they only whispered it.
10. Take a flyer
"Flyers" being shoes, this is "dressed, or without going to bed."
11. Green gown
Giving a girl a green gown can only happen in the grass.
12. Lobster kettle
A woman who sleeps with soldiers coming in at port is said to "make a lobster kettle" of herself.
13. Melting moments
Those shared by "a fat man and woman in amorous congress."
14. Pully hawly
A game at pully hawly is a series of affairs.
15. St. George
In the story of St. George and the Dragon, the dragon reared up from the lake to tower over the saint. "Playing at St. George" casts a woman as the dragon and puts her on top.
16. A stitch
Similar to having a brush, "making a stitch" is a casual affair.
17. Tiff
A tiff could be a minor argument or falling-out, as we know it. In the 19th century, it was also a term for eating or drinking between meals, or in this case, a quickie.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-17-2012, 00:03
Why is that offensive? Are they God? Do they have the power to curse someone to hell (assuming it exists)? Swear words are just words. Nothing more, nothing less.
Basically, this:
In this specific case, it's not whether that person actually goes to hell, but that fact that someone would wish it upon them (even if it isn't done with serious intent).
Swear words don't physically hurt people, but they can hurt the sentiments of some people, who might not be thick skinned enough to withstand verbal blows. It's rare these days, specially online, but not non existent.
Spanky, you don't understand curses.
The Latin word is maledicto - an evil speaking.
"Go to Hell" is the same as "I wish you were dead."
spankythehippo
11-17-2012, 06:04
Basically, this:
Spanky, you don't understand curses.
The Latin word is maledicto - and evil speaking.
"Go to Hell" is the same as "I wish you were dead."
True, I don't understand curses. But the only reason I don't understand it is because curses don't matter to me. If someone wished I was dead, I couldn't care less. If someone was physically planning to make me dead, then that's a different story.
I understand that people get offended, I just don't understand WHY they are offended. Just ignore it and move on.
I understand that people get offended, I just don't understand WHY they are offended. Just ignore it and move on.
It is an admirable quality.
If every person in the world could be that cool, we probably could've avoided many wars.
Tellos Athenaios
11-17-2012, 21:09
Basically, this:
As I understand it the thing about curses is not just the wish but the magical thinking that the wish might just have that power to actually harm you. Of course for the full effect you need the recipient of your cursing to believe in magic. Which might explain why religious people tend to find it more offensive.
Still, I do not see why we would need to swear or curse at each other in here.
To be honest, we did loosen the language rules and became more lenient. This was well spotted by Philippvs.
It started mostly as some sort of experiment, to see where it would get us and has to be seen as part of a switch to a more "hands off" approach in moderation.
The reason not to communicate the change to the membership at large, was because we wanted to see things developping naturally and to avoid somebody ruining the experiment by abusing the leniency and making "f-bomb, f-bomb f-bomb lol f-bomb"-posts.
The .Org always presented itself as a place for a mature audience where mature people come together, have a good time and can be in good company in a civilised and friendly atmosphere. Over the years, our language policy became pretty strict. The reasons for it were good and reasonable: bad language gives the impression of a less friendly and civilised atmosphere. But the balance probably shifted a bit too much to the "clean" side.
Strict moderation on language conflicts somehow with the .Org being "mature" part. If the membership is mature, then surely it doesn't need somebody to tell them how to behave as such.
After reading this thread, I believe most of us don't mind a "bad" word here and there, but a few of you don't really like it. Some of you foul mouthers promised to tone it down, others said they don't see a problem with bad language and gave good reasonable arguments. I think we're all mature and wise enough to find some sort of unwritten agreement and compromise that takes into account everybody's desires. As long as nobody exaggerates, the lenient rules can stay, imo. The leniency doesn't mean everything goes, however. F-bombs will still be frowned upon and slurs will always be no. Excessive swearing with the sole purpose of provocation, without real substance in the post may still result in moderator action. But you can consider it offical that we'll be far less strict than we were in the past when it comes to language.
Our software also allows to use a language filter. How would you feel about such a filter? And if most agree on using a filter, would you prefer ***, :daisy: or another smiley to replace the filtered words?
I'll move this to the Watchtower, but will leave a redirect in the BR :bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2012, 10:52
Well, what's the age restriction on the Org now, 13 or 18? If it's 18 then people can drop as many f-bombs as they like and I'll laugh at them.
Otherwise, the Org should abide by the "PG-13" policy it has since I joined.
It's the web... there is rarely 100% "PG13" on the web and the .org never had any real PG13 enforcement anyway...
Proper PG13 enforcement involves the use of the word censor and bans for those who circumvent it. It's censorship to "protect" minors, plain and simple. You don't leave this kind of censorship to section moderators who have no powers over their colleague's sections and might not log in for hours (days, weeks...).
The .org in it's history never used the built in word censor, it simply deployed moderators painstakingly editing out swearwords and issuing infractions... This policy was more about educating members not to swear and maintaining the "prestige" or decorum of the site rather than censorship. I expect that many will disagree, but I believe this goes well beyond a moderator's role and what a gaming forum is all about...
Regardless, it was unfair and ineffective, as it's unreasonable to expect humans to read through thousands of posts scanning for obscene words and editing them out. Not only that, but the staff then have to deal with the inevitable fallout when it turns out that, though they edited member A's post, they completely missed member B's post.
As I commented earlier, if the manual editing of bad language is based on reports, it tends to be even less reliable. It's not a good system...
Andres makes the key point: If the .org is the maturer TW fan site, it needs neither the censor nor the nannies...
lol Didn't this very topic and changes were asked some time ago?
Imo people can say whatever they want, I personally dislike the format "whatever-bomb/word)", the moment you say it or write it, everyone is thinking that very term, you are trying to avoid: so well done accomplishing exactly what you didn't want to XD
I'm part of the "words are words" party I guess lol
Still the choice is up to the Org's admins and mods, I don't know whether they must abide by the law of the country hosting their server of if it's a personal room, so really up the owner...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-21-2012, 16:03
It's the web... there is rarely 100% "PG13" on the web and the .org never had any real PG13 enforcement anyway...
Proper PG13 enforcement involves the use of the word censor and bans for those who circumvent it. It's censorship to "protect" minors, plain and simple. You don't leave this kind of censorship to section moderators who have no powers over their colleague's sections and might not log in for hours (days, weeks...).
The .org in it's history never used the built in word censor, it simply deployed moderators painstakingly editing out swearwords and issuing infractions... This policy was more about educating members not to swear and maintaining the "prestige" or decorum of the site rather than censorship. I expect that many will disagree, but I believe this goes well beyond a moderator's role and what a gaming forum is all about...
Regardless, it was unfair and ineffective, as it's unreasonable to expect humans to read through thousands of posts scanning for obscene words and editing them out. Not only that, but the staff then have to deal with the inevitable fallout when it turns out that, though they edited member A's post, they completely missed member B's post.
As I commented earlier, if the manual editing of bad language is based on reports, it tends to be even less reliable. It's not a good system...
Andres makes the key point: If the .org is the maturer TW fan site, it needs neither the censor nor the nannies...
I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.
If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.
From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.
The Celtic Viking
11-21-2012, 16:35
Imo people can say whatever they want, I personally dislike the format "whatever-bomb/word)", the moment you say it or write it, everyone is thinking that very term, you are trying to avoid: so well done accomplishing exactly what you didn't want to XD
I'm part of the "words are words" party I guess lol
Hear, hear.
I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.
It's great until you're in the receiving end, then it's not so great...
"Ruthless moderation" creates and nurtures the kind of member that cannot exist without babysitting - the kind of member who simply does whatever they can get away with and then whines and complains when the staff do hit them. They are usually the same types of members who play "rules lawyer" and post reporting games.
I agree that for certain offences in the past, the penalties should have been both sterner and fairer to both members and staff alike. This would have brought into check certain members who were making a career out of dancing on the line...
The temp bans achieve nothing IMHO, they're never taken seriously and it's usually the same members wearing the infamous "-"... For the younger members - it's a "badge of honour", battle scar or entry into the "leet kewl kids club".
Perhaps the offences they were banned for were far too minor and did not warrant staff involvement? Perhaps they've been given too many chances already and are in need of a longer time out?
If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.
But if you were in said club with a group of friends, in a corner, talking politics and one of you happened to let slip the f word - not loudly- and he was immediately thrown out...?
From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.
But perhaps editing and fear of censure was also keeping members off the board?
For what it's worth, speaking as a mod, I hate playing language cop.
The occasional "fark" and "shit", et. al (I won't go on) really shouldn't be an issue. If the content of the post is bad enough to cause offense then it really isn't the word itself but the underlying meaning where the issue stands. Being able to use the words signals a bit of maturity on the part of the community and if there are some guidelines about inappropriate usage such as a wall of swearing or anything directed at another person then the moderators should be more than capable of dealing with that. But the usage of an occasional strong word in the right situation can sometimes be a good part of mature conversation.
Furthermore, I am firmly on the side that being offended and stating as such does not give someone the right to enforce censorship over an entire community. Although this obviously does not extend to any racial, sexual or other forms of direct or indirect harassment.
A far worse problem is the recent trend of threads full of youtube clips...
A far worse problem is the recent trend of threads full of youtube clips...
Welcome in 2012.
We dance Gangnam style over here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
Perhaps we should write out a contest for best .Org Gangnam style parody :thinking2:
But that would be sooooo Summer 2012 and we're already November.
If we smile and nod, the above youtube poster might just go away of his own accord... :yes:
(:crazy:)
Aha, we have our first submission, from a certain mister caravel aka Sarrie the Camel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15SUFBIJ13o
Excellent.
I'm sure Martok would love it.
Count me towards the people who believe that not sole words are insulting but messages, sentences. Someone just using a swear word can be easily ignored, someone insulting you with something personal or claiming you to be something you aren't, can't be so easily ignored.
Still also these cannot always be moderated when you allow political, religious and moral discussions. At best though, a moderation/administration should try to prevent discussions to become too personal. Doesn't necessarily have to involve bans but temporarily closed threads may work, when a discussion becomes to heated. At an earlier state, when it becomes clear that a discussion becomes more and more personal, moderation (and/or other users!) could just remember not to derail further on this personalized discussion but go go back to the discussion of the topic.
I'm against language-filters, they are just silly and useless in my regard.
Just my two cents.
I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.
If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.
From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.
There's ruthless and there's ruthless.
We've always had a tradition to be patient with "difficult" members and to give them plenty of new chances. You make a fair point when you say we should be more ruthless towards persistent troublemakers, but you shouldn't focus too much on the case where it turned out to be a complete waste of time and effort. Many of the people we showed patience to, grabbed their new chances and are now among our finest people. It our those who convince me that it wouldn't be a good idea to become the sort of forum where you get banned (permanently or for a looooong time) automatically after x infractions. I think the way we have always did it so far, is the best way: use the banhammer carefully and only after long deliberation.
Then there's ruthless for minor stuff, like a bad word, getting personal in the heat of the debate. That's where moderating turns out not to be exact science. But generally speaking, you're either very strict or not strict at all. Finding a balance is not easy. Perhaps we shifted too much to the strict side and perhaps we will now move too much towards anarchy. That's when the membership comes into play and that's why threads like these are needed. It gives us as staff a signal and acts as a learning experience/evaluation to see if we're doing something wrong or not. I can't stress enough how important feedback like this is for us and I'm truly grateful you opened this thread (allthough the outcome may not be entirely to your liking, since the vast majority of the membership doesn't seem to have an issue with the occasional bad language).
:bow:
I think a lot of this needs to come from the established members, not via baby sitting. If you see swearing and you think it's out of place, then why not make that clear in any reply? What rule or regulation is stopping a member doing that? That's how the .org became what it is today - through the efforts of members over the years, not because moderators were tough on swearing. If the regulars in the backroom get together and say "let's try and keep the language to a minimum", then it will happen. Far more effective than the old moderation/censorship/slap on the wrist approach.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-23-2012, 22:28
Personally, I was always grateful for the infractions I received, even the ones I didn't agree with.
Writing isn't speaking - there's no excuse for the sort of profane ejaculation you get in conversation on a forum. I am of the opinion that if you swear you should get one warning, then an infraction, then once the infractions build up you get a temp ban.
If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.
If this is really a mature forum then there's no need to tolerate swearing.
If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.
And why are this completly disproportionate reactions a good thing?
Working place vs videogames/recreational forum, said mimicking a two-pan scale XD
I'm not encouraging swearing, but the way I see it, forbidding it, is just as wrong...
If someone wants to use it as an interjection, that's just fine: you find it cheap/lazy? Point it out, during the discussion :)
Find it offensive towards you? Get over yourself lol
Then of course, if those are specific and malicious attacks on a group/person, mods should get right on it...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-26-2012, 02:47
And why are this completly disproportionate reactions a good thing?
For my workplace, it's perfectly proportionate.
The point is - it has become an impulse to check your phone every fives minutes, even when you know it's off, but an adult should be able to curtail such impulses.
If Andre sticks a "no swearing, no nudity" sign on the Org door there's no reason members should not abide by that, none at all.
As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.
Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.
When was the last time that happened?
Edit:
I should like to make two further points.
1. I don't have to pay attention to Arjos' points if he is going to be rude and laugh at me, which is connected to the issue at hand.
2. Moving this to the Watchtower has probably reduced the number of members participating in this discussion, particularly the Backroomers to whom it originally pertained. This concerns me in so far as I think it demonstrates people don't usually pay attention to the Watch Tower.
Writing isn't speaking - there's no excuse for the sort of profane ejaculation you get in conversation on a forum.
I agree, there are no excuses for it.
I am of the opinion that if you swear you should get one warning, then an infraction, then once the infractions build up you get a temp ban.
Then you need to define what is and what is not swearing - internationally... you also need a team of moderators vetting every post, to edit out the swearwords and issue the infractions...
If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.
This is not your workplace.
If this is really a mature forum then there's no need to tolerate swearing.
On a "mature forum", the members are supposedly mature enough not to swear, that's the point being made here.
As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.
Obviously there is going to be a spike in language related incidents and certain people are going to fall foul of that. The staff have always used discretion here, not black and white my way or the highway approach. My opinion is that if someone slips in a mild expletive into a post which otherwise has good content (no personal attacks or slurs), the staff should let it go - but for posts which are simply a string of bad language the post is not even worth the edit - delete it and hand out an infraction.
It's far better if members regulate their own language rather than the nappy/diaper change approach... if you like this board, like to participate here, why would you want to turn it into a cesspool? If you see some new member using foul language, why not politely remind them to moderate it? Why does a mod need to do this on a board with many mature long term members, senior members and especially in the backroom where you have a lot of regular people who have been around for years.
Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.
When was the last time that happened?
Who? Just because one person lacks self control, it does not mean that every member needs blanket treatment. Would the previous rules have prevented this, stopped him swearing? It would have meant a nanny running around after said member editing his posts. No one should be expecting this from the staff in 2012.
As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.
Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.
Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that crossing the language line is the reason why he got temp banned (I'm not saying it is what got hm banned, disciplinary actions are always between staff and member, private).
I'm not going to impose draconic language rules and punish everybody else by forbidding even the most minor bad language (like "ass" or "piss"), because one member made a mistake. I'm also not going to punish that member for his mistake, by imposing those same draconian language rules on him as well and keeping a close eye on him in particular, with my finger on the infraction button, ready to push it at the first hint of something that resembles the f-bomb.
I simply won't do that. Mistake made, short ban triggered, after 3 days, you're welcome back and let's forget about it. Accumulate 10 temp bans in a few months time and you're an exception compared to the other members, ok, we'll talk openly, freely and blunt; in private of course. Did 50 members got temp ban after temp ban after the new rules were introduced, then clearly Andres is an idiot and needs to clean up his act or step down.
As an aside, the fact that the member in question is a "long standing senior member" is irrelevant, certainly when it comes to something silly and minor as 3-day ban for a few bad posts. The senior member title is a honorific you get for your contributions to the .Org community. It's a "thank you for all the good things you did around here". It's nice to hand out and nice to receive, but it's nothing more than that. It doesn't make you special. In fact, if you start walking next to your shoes, feeling special and thinking you are entitled to preferential treatment because you got the SM title, then you should hand it in again for missing the point about what this place is about.
And for your information: plenty of long standing (senior) members have served temp bans here before the language rules were loosened, so it's not like loosening the language rules has led to something that has never happened before :shrug: In fact, with the stricter rules, there were probably more temp bans of long standing senior members than we see now with the more lenient rules.
I don't have to pay attention to Arjos' points if he is going to be rude and laugh at me, which is connected to the issue at hand.
Just found funny the comparison between an office and this forum...
As for the rest, imo it isn't healthy, nor has any ground to take offence from a random swearing, aimed at no one in particular...
As for the rest, imo it isn't healthy, nor has any ground to take offence from a random swearing, aimed at no one in particular...
IMO it's not simply a matter of taking offence...
For some members it's a matter of pride in the .org and it's traditions and I respect that. This is your board, everyone's board, not just the staff's, but the staff are members also.
I agree with the end to editing however, because even though it wasn't obvious, swearing was still going on, but staff were having to run about playing censor and editing it. Back when I was a mod, the majority of this would not involve infractions or would come in the form of 0 point warnings - so no incentives to stop and the result = even more editing... (luckily for me, there was virtually none of this in my section (MTW and STW) - why? Maturer members who respected their fellows and their subforum), but fellow moderators were kept quite busy).
A "relaxed" approach to language should make it all too clear. Those abusing this and seeing it as a "licence to swear" should not be surprised at all at the results...
Guess the staff could set a bar and act accordingly. It will anger some, for how high it is and at the same time vex others, for how low it is :P
Strike For The South
12-04-2012, 23:24
et tu Phillip?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.