Acronym junction, what's your function?

[athanaric]

TBH, I'd never heard of the acronym MIFL or the 'term' milfy until I read this thread. Knowing now what the acronym stands for, I'm surprised that anyone here would advocate/need to inquire about its open use on this forum. Must be a Backroom thing?

Moderators at their discretion can always overlook expressions when the context is judged (by them) to be acceptable. I don't think a policy change is justified, but that's just me.

I agree with this, basically. Some additional points:

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13. Now teenagers are unfortunately very well acquainted with all sorts of horrible words, regardless of how sheltered they've grown up. While a certain level of unpleasantness should of course not be tolerated (words like "milf", which I didn't know before, but somehow find deplorable), I think that sometimes moderators have been on the verge of overzealousness around here.
I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

[Hooahguy]

Even if this is a forum for older folks, not using such language makes the .Org a nicer place to be, as others have said.
I fail to see why this is even an issue.

[Samurai Waki]

I don't particularly care either way; then again I'm not a mod so I don't have to be vigilant about these things. The only reason why I can think that "no." May be an acceptable answer is not because I'm afraid active members would abuse the policy, and push for further easing on the language rules. Rather, that it might take a bit longer in figuring out whether a new member is either uninformed about the policy, or whether they are simply trolling.

[Lemur]

I didn't expect such an even divide in opinion, just going by the poll. And to gauge by comments, the majority of Orgahs would rather retain strict language policies.

Okay. I feel very silly editing and warning for WTF and MILF and so forth, but if that's the will of the Orgahs, so be it.

[Samurai Waki]

if you combined the total votes for WTF Only + Both WTF or MILF you get 20 votes for WTF Only, and 11 votes for MILF. Whereas if you combined GAH + No to Either you get 19 votes... tough call... but it's yours to make.

[Lemur]

I dunno, seems to me that changing the policy needs a real, clear mandate from the Orgahs, which we don't have being demonstrated here.

[The Celtic Viking]

Seriously, if you really have a problem with reading "wtf" or "milf", grow up. In fact, you should get off the internet, because if you are that sensitive, it is impossible for you to use the internet and not be offended, and imposing your ridiculous sensitivities on this forum won't change that.

Of course both of them should be allowed.

[Arjos]

The org is not America, we are not entitled to free speech.

I believe that it's written somewhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights XD
But hey, if people are offended by this let the moderators deal with it, I didn't expect the org to have such issues...
In EB I've never seen such a language, and if it appear I will certanly just ignore it...

[Ludens]

I believe that it's written somewhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights XD

Freedom of speech means the government isn't allowed to silence you. However, you do not have the right to a publisher, or an audience. If you want to use the .Org's bandwidth and servers to express your opinion, you need the .Org's consent. You cannot oblige us to publish your material on the internet, because we too are free to publish what we wish. This has nothing to do with whether the .Org's servers are in the USA or not.

(For the record: I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure this is how it works in America and the rest of the Western world.)

[Beskar]

I didn't expect such an even divide in opinion, just going by the poll. And to gauge by comments, the majority of Orgahs would rather retain strict language policies.

Okay. I feel very silly editing and warning for WTF and MILF and so forth, but if that's the will of the Orgahs, so be it.

Why not use the Word Filter function on the forum? It would be simpler than you constantly having to edit.

Seriously, if you really have a problem with reading "wtf" or "milf", grow up. In fact, you should get off the internet, because if you are that sensitive, it is impossible for you to use the internet and not be offended, and imposing your ridiculous sensitivities on this forum won't change that.

Calm down Internet Tough Guy, because Hobo's don't shower and shave, should the President not present himself professionally to the public?

Because people have some standards and don't eat from a dogs food bowl, it doesn't mean they shouldn't get told to get off the internet.

[Lemur]

It reduces a person into an object intended for another's gratification.

Here we wander into the whole "objectification" realm of rhetoric, which I have always found to be a misleading cul-de-sac of thought. People do objectify one another, pretty much on an hourly basis. Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"? Pshaw. Objectification is neither negative nor positive. It just is. If we tried to grok every human being we saw or heard during the day we'd be unable to get anything done, hence the brain's reflexive protective maneuver; treat some people like objects. They are outside the monkeysphere. Attempting to police our language to prevent objectification strikes me as exactly as productive as calling money "coconuts" to prevent greed.

The f-word has nothing but negative tones in a sexual context

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

[Beskar]

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Doesn't really work, since they are different but related things. Even then, if it was the same thing, there are like 10 very negative terms for the female body part in one episode of inbetweeners.

[The Celtic Viking]

Calm down Internet Tough Guy, because Hobo's don't shower and shave, should the President not present himself professionally to the public?

Because people have some standards and don't eat from a dogs food bowl, it doesn't mean they shouldn't get told to get off the internet.

So you should be allowed to insult me, but I should not be allowed to say wtf because it "might offend someone"? How does that logic work?

Look, I'll say it again: if they use the internet, and they are offended by seeing a letter that they understand means a specific word they dislike, they will be offended whether this forum censors these words or not. It's unavoidable. Your analogies are laughable: both of them only answers why some would prefer not to swear themselves, which is fine, though I personally disagree with them. Neither of them even gets anywhere close to addressing the real issue here: that they are trying to impose this rule onto others. They also presuppose that swearing is something bad like not showering or eating from a dogs food bowl, which I flat out disagree with.

[Lemur]

others[/I]. They also presuppose that swearing is something bad like not showering or eating from a dogs food bowl, which I flat out disagree with.

Two thoughts:

(1) The Org is its own entity, and is free to impose whatever rules it likes, just as you are free to visit or not. As someone noted earlier, "Free speech" applies to the government's relationship to individuals, not to private associations.

(2) The issue at hand is not whether "swearing is something bad like not showering or eating from a dogs food bowl," but rather what sort of environment we, as a community, want to have. I would phrase the question more like this: Do we want to relax the language standards a bit, and if so, what will we gain and/or lose?

[frogbeastegg]

Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"?

No. I saw a human. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as I see when I look at anyone. And yes, I try to gain understanding of people, good and bad.

I'm not going to respond to the objectification thing. Suffice it to say I disagree completely, entirely, and fully. Also, the important part is the last part: intended for another's gratification.

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

[Drunk Clown]

I agree with this, basically. Some additional points:

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13.

Totally agree with you, children are out of the question. Eventhough that little girl called Isabell was here, this forum is in every way not for children.

I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

Agree again, how can WTF be negative? Not every word with F in it is negative (frogbeastegg), how could you even think that? How is WTF sexual? Please explain how this has anything to do with sexual activities?

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

THANK YOU, exactly what I wanted to say.

I won't cry. I will think that whoever used it is a contemptible, crude idiot. Just as I think anyone who wants a f*** should go find themselves a blow up doll (or vibrator, if female) because that's the best they deserve for aiming so low. Huh, at least aim high enough to want sex. At least that has some ambition and mutuality to it, even if it's still a long away from making love. All the different labels exist for a reason; they all have different connotations.

"the best they deserve for aiming so low?"

Okey I find this so disturbing. All what you wrote says so much more about you than why MILF is a wrong word. I mean I don't use it and don't find it necesary but this... this is just awful you have so much hatred.. about ...nothing.

[Lemur]

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Okey I find this so disturbing. All what you wrote says so much more about you than why MILF is a wrong word. I mean I don't use it and don't find it necesary but this... this is just awful you have so much hatred.. about ...nothing.

I don't know what you read, I doubt it is what frogbeastegg actually wrote. Anyway would you contend that to use the f-bomb for having sex is equivalent in its full semantic implications to referring to having sex or that to have sex is equivalent to making love? Having sex entails that it is simply for the entertainment of both, making love conveys a deeper emotional bonding in the act, and to use the f-bomb is completely dispassionate and little more than physical exercise with risk of contracting an STD.

[Drunk Clown]

I don't know what you read, I doubt it is what frogbeastegg actually wrote.

You can't spot some hatred in her post? Read it again, she even uses more swearwords than me, and that coming from a moderator. So yes, I interpret it as hatred.

Anyway would you contend that to use the f-bomb for having sex is equivalent in its full semantic implications to referring to having sex or that to have sex is equivalent to making love? Having sex entails that it is simply for the entertainment of both, making love conveys a deeper emotional bonding in the act, and to use the f-bomb is completely dispassionate and little more than physical exercise with risk of contracting an STD.

Are you serious? You think that when everytime a married couple have sex they do it because it conveys a deeper emotional bonding? That they don't do it for pleasure? Go ask your parents.

STD's? You get STD's from having One night stands, not just f---ing. F---ing is just another word for having sex like c---ing is another word for taking a poo or s---.

[Hooahguy]

Im going to pull a Tribesman here.

You can't spot some hatred in her post? Read it again, she even uses more swearwords than me, and that coming from a moderator. So yes, I interpret it as hatred.

Seriously, what? You might want to re-read the thread.

Are you serious? You think that when everytime a married couple have sex they do it because it conveys a deeper emotional bonding? That they don't do it for pleasure? Go ask your parents.

Are you seriously saying that married couples, when having sex, dont love each other?
Bollox

[caravel]

This thread seems to be drifting way off topic. Remember to debate the argument, not attack the poster.

Back on topic please gentlemen.

[Lemur]

In point of fact, I think the answer to my question is self-apparent, so the thread can be closed. There is no strong movement to change our language rules, so they shall remain intact, even if I feel silly giving out certain infractions.

I wanted to take the temperature of the Orgahs, see what the sentiment was on two acronyms. Were there a more-or-less unified desire to allow them, I would have presented the issue to the other mods and admins; since there is not, there is no point, and my question is answered.

[frogbeastegg]

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

That's how the words and labels apply where I live. It's not personal. Someone wrote WTF as part of a memo intended only for their viewing at the office I work in. Someone else noticed. There was uproar. Not a single person thought it acceptable, funny or harmless. This in an office of 70+ people who do swear and make crude or lewd remarks.

It's not the crudity that's the problem. Much like a certain word used to describe black people, it's not the crudity that causes the outrage, it's the baggage and connotations which go with it. That particular word is viewed lightly in some areas and very gravely in others. For crudity I can think of several words for sex that are worse, none of which carry the same baggage and so are overall more acceptable.

The org's a global site. What's acceptable in one country isn't always in another. We have to strike the best balance. That's why I chimed in; I don't know how many others live in areas where it has the same meaning as mine. However many there are they deserve to be represented as much as those who live in areas which have it as no more than a crude word.

[TosaInu]

..

Whatever the aim of certain developers who don't have any conscience, computer or console games are not for children. They'll only mess up children's sensory/motoric development at the expense of more useful activities like reading books or playing outside the house. Not to mention content-related concerns. In this respect, games are almost as bad as TV. I think therefore that gaming fora should generally cater to people above the age of 13. Now teenagers are unfortunately very well acquainted with all sorts of horrible words, regardless of how sheltered they've grown up. While a certain level of unpleasantness should of course not be tolerated (words like "milf", which I didn't know before, but somehow find deplorable), I think that sometimes moderators have been on the verge of overzealousness around here.
I see little problem with "WTF", since it's not a sexually-related expression anyway.

If you're going for all-out strict censorship, please be honest and say that it's in order to create a friendlier atmosphere, and not for the sake of some hypothetical kids who shouldn't be playing games anyway.

Hello,

It's both (and maybe more). The 'rule'/'tradition' was already there, but since I'm dutch I normally need more than one excuse to keep or drop stuff.

I'm not sure about games not being for kids: too much of a good thing can (!) be bad. We all need water, but not too much please.

There are risks with too much (clueless whether that's 0.25 or 25 hours a day) games, mental and physical, both for kids and grown-ups. Recently however, a good thing was discovered by accident. People playing computergames develop the skill to make fast decisions. I'ld think that is useful for kids when playing on their bikes outside on the street.

There are probably other benefits too, I agree however that a computer can't cover all and there should be other complementing activities.