Again, there are no set "rules" on this in society, but it is pretty well understood. I think we both fully understand what could happen if you were to checkout at the grocery store and say "I'm glad I got you, that [word that rhymes with punt] over there is slow as [word that rhymes with duck]." The statement is not intended as an insult (in fact it's almost a compliment), but it's fairly safe to say they're going to be offended by the language itself.
How is calling someone a 'punt' (substituting these words is already getting very old) not an insult? It's fully intended as an insult, and in no way is a compliment. This part of your post made zero sense.
If that were the case, I could use the most foul language possible in front of anyone so long as I didn't mean it as an insult, and they should be fine. Obviously this doesn't hold true.
You're completely ignoring the fact that people take offense regardless if it makes sense are not. Don't trust people to always be logical or reasonable, especially when it comes to another person challenging the status quo. If a person simply utilized critical thinking, they would realize their shyness of these words, under proper context, is factually ungrounded.
This is not an equal comparison. You're saying people mildly upset over a bad word is the same as an entire group of people rioting and killing innocent people.
Wow. I didn't say that at all. That's almost a strawman right there.
What I said is that they're offended by it, just as people are offended by specific words. It's literally the exact same thing, because both are meta-physical compounds that offer no justification to be banned. It's a series of dangerous thinking that has propagated itself to a mass strength and hold. It should be the responsibility, at least, of the wise and intelligent to dissuade such archaic mentality.
This is technically off-topic now, I think, as I've clearly stated I understand and accept why the ban is in place. It's just that I'm personally not content with it on an overall level. We're mostly discussing social philosophy than anything else at this point.
I'm going to slap you. I am 14 years old and autistic, I try my BEST to refrain from cursing and did the same at 12. When I was 12 I was not an idiot, or even seemingly autistic. Your argument not only offends me, is insulting, is prejudice, but its also just as idiotic as these '12 year old autistic kids' you speak of.
Absolutely nothing. Hellfire just needs to quit being so offended by people, and most of all quit judging an entire group based on a few's actions.
Back on topic:
So I guess we can agree, I must say my whole look on this has turned. I think that the forum should ban these words, I mean sure they should never mean harm, but the fact of the matter is, we'll lose some cool new people, regardless of their age. I think we should however put a filter in the to-do list.
As I said in one of my previous posts autism tends to go away as you age (like aspergers) but it's more prominent at a younger age.
As I said in one of my previous posts autism tends to go away as you age (like aspergers) but it's more prominent at a younger age.
Autism has nothing to do with swearing, I know plenty of people with autism/aspergers syndrome who act perfectly normal.
Quote from Kaeetayel »
I'm still wondering why all mods who opposed the rule are now all for it.
Not all mods are for the rule, as well as all against. I can't speak for everyone (because I am not them), but even so a moderator's opinion holds the same merit as any other member of the community, I don't see any issue with a mod thinking something over what another user thinks. :p
Quote from Nerevar »
How is calling someone a 'punt' (substituting these words is already getting very old) not an insult? It's fully intended as an insult, and in no way is a compliment. This part of your post made zero sense.
He meant if someone said "that person over there is 'x' ", not calling it to their face.
You're completely ignoring the fact that people take offense regardless if it makes sense are not. Don't trust people to always be logical or reasonable, especially when it comes to another person challenging the status quo. If a person simply utilized critical thinking, they would realize their shyness of these words, under proper context, is factually ungrounded.
This also isn't coming from just one person. Many people are against swearing, and even so a broader point being missed is that this is a website for a children's (albeit "everyone") game, as such it should be something that everyone can access. If we have parents turning away their kids from the forums simply because there is swearing, then that needs to be addressed because that's where an appeal lies. People can post sensible things without swearing, and help keep the community clean (as we can even see right here ).
Citric, do you still have a course of action for implementation of a swear filter? Thought out with regard to predicted financial and logistical concerns (if any) and a timeline? I'm sure a lot of people would like to see that.
He meant if someone said "that person over there is 'x' ", not calling it to their face.
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an insult. you don't have to say it to their face for it to function as a negative statement. Apply this to the forum: If I called Critic a [redacted], but he himself didn't see the post, wouldn't I still be moderated for flaming/being insulting? Of course I would.
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an insult. you don't have to say it to their face for it to function as a negative statement. Apply this to the forum: If I called Critic a [redacted], but he himself didn't see the post, wouldn't I still be moderated for flaming/being insulting? Of course I would.
Yeah, but if we're talking about the example here, the person we're worried about is the person that they are talking to with that language, not some word-smiting god from the skies. If you think about the reasoning behind the rules (flaming, posting gore/nsfw, and swearing alike), they're both there because people are offended by posts on the forums, and as such we state that they're not allowed. It would almost make sense to say "Don't make posts that offend other people because of vulgarity or insults", but in reality that's a little too obscure.
Yeah, but if we're talking about the example here, the person we're worried about is the person that they are talking to with that language, not some word-smiting god from the skies.
If you think about the reasoning behind the rules (flaming, posting gore/nsfw, and swearing alike), they're both there because people are offended by posts on the forums,
Except those generally have critical reasons for not being allowed. Flaming is people being intentionally cruel, thus it's not allowed. Gore isn't allowed because it's disgusting and usually tragic, and nsfw material isn't allowed because, most arguably, children and younger teens shouldn't be purposely exposed to that material. This is because the understanding and development of sexuality and interest in such material is important.
This isn't the same as being concerned about a word. "Oh, the word is bad because... uh... hm. Well, it just is!" That's some serious circular logic.
"moderators". i.e. the example doesn't have someone holding people's hands throughout it.
Except those generally have critical reasons for not being allowed. Flaming is people being intentionally cruel, thus it's not allowed. Gore isn't allowed because it's disgusting and usually tragic, and nsfw material isn't allowed because, most arguably, children and younger teens shouldn't be purposely exposed to that material. This is because the understanding and development of sexuality and interest in such material is important.
This isn't the same as being concerned about a word. "Oh, the word is bad because... uh... hm. Well, it just is!" That's some serious circular logic.
Depends on the word! :D
Sure, things like "damn" or "hell", stuff that isn't serious I personally don't have issue with nor do I think many other people will. But more extreme things like f-bombs, therein the problem lies.
"moderators". i.e. the example doesn't have someone holding people's hands throughout it.
Depends on the word! :D
Sure, things like "damn" or "hell", stuff that isn't serious I personally don't have issue with nor do I think many other people will. But more extreme things like f-bombs, therein the problem lies.
How is it more "extreme"? It's just a word as is damn and hell.
Citric, do you still have a course of action for implementation of a swear filter? Thought out with regard to predicted financial and logistical concerns (if any) and a timeline? I'm sure a lot of people would like to see that.
I wouldn't have done it had I known the list was incomplete. I was seeing if the option to turn the filter off even worked, which it doesn't, and to see which words constituted as being banned.
The answer is I agree with it, along with the staff that agree with it. No one is "sucking up" to citricsquid. When I was staff, if I disagreed with squid, I told him. I don't get anything by sucking up, it's useless to do.
How about this (Not directed specifically at you SkaterSam, but everyone posting here);
Why should we tell people who do still find swearing offensive to buzz off so you can swear?
What is gained by you being able to curse?
Why are people worried that there are going to be more young people, while there are "adults" that can't even follow simple forum rules like "No flaming"?
Why should we not make the forums comfortable for all people to use?
Why must you replace a word that accurately describes your feelings/the message you are trying to get across with a word that is thrown about randomly? (such as "Creepers are infuriating" rather than something a bit more insulting and less descriptive)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
Why must you replace a word that accurately describes your feelings/the message you are trying to get across with a word that is thrown about randomly? (such as "Creepers are infuriating" rather than something a bit more insulting and less descriptive)
I did alot of speaking throughout middle school-high school so I'll answer this.
Shock factor.
You can't get the same reaction out of saying crap than you can with an f-bomb.
How is calling someone a 'punt' (substituting these words is already getting very old) not an insult? It's fully intended as an insult, and in no way is a compliment. This part of your post made zero sense.
You're completely ignoring the fact that people take offense regardless if it makes sense are not. Don't trust people to always be logical or reasonable, especially when it comes to another person challenging the status quo. If a person simply utilized critical thinking, they would realize their shyness of these words, under proper context, is factually ungrounded.
Wow. I didn't say that at all. That's almost a strawman right there.
What I said is that they're offended by it, just as people are offended by specific words. It's literally the exact same thing, because both are meta-physical compounds that offer no justification to be banned. It's a series of dangerous thinking that has propagated itself to a mass strength and hold. It should be the responsibility, at least, of the wise and intelligent to dissuade such archaic mentality.
This is technically off-topic now, I think, as I've clearly stated I understand and accept why the ban is in place. It's just that I'm personally not content with it on an overall level. We're mostly discussing social philosophy than anything else at this point.
As I said in one of my previous posts autism tends to go away as you age (like aspergers) but it's more prominent at a younger age.
Autism has nothing to do with swearing, I know plenty of people with autism/aspergers syndrome who act perfectly normal.
Not all mods are for the rule, as well as all against. I can't speak for everyone (because I am not them), but even so a moderator's opinion holds the same merit as any other member of the community, I don't see any issue with a mod thinking something over what another user thinks. :p
He meant if someone said "that person over there is 'x' ", not calling it to their face.
This also isn't coming from just one person. Many people are against swearing, and even so a broader point being missed is that this is a website for a children's (albeit "everyone") game, as such it should be something that everyone can access. If we have parents turning away their kids from the forums simply because there is swearing, then that needs to be addressed because that's where an appeal lies. People can post sensible things without swearing, and help keep the community clean (as we can even see right here ).
They understand
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an insult. you don't have to say it to their face for it to function as a negative statement. Apply this to the forum: If I called Critic a [redacted], but he himself didn't see the post, wouldn't I still be moderated for flaming/being insulting? Of course I would.
Which, as I've already pointed out, doesn't mean anything. It's still unnecessarily subjective.
Yeah, but if we're talking about the example here, the person we're worried about is the person that they are talking to with that language, not some word-smiting god from the skies. If you think about the reasoning behind the rules (flaming, posting gore/nsfw, and swearing alike), they're both there because people are offended by posts on the forums, and as such we state that they're not allowed. It would almost make sense to say "Don't make posts that offend other people because of vulgarity or insults", but in reality that's a little too obscure.
... what?
Except those generally have critical reasons for not being allowed. Flaming is people being intentionally cruel, thus it's not allowed. Gore isn't allowed because it's disgusting and usually tragic, and nsfw material isn't allowed because, most arguably, children and younger teens shouldn't be purposely exposed to that material. This is because the understanding and development of sexuality and interest in such material is important.
This isn't the same as being concerned about a word. "Oh, the word is bad because... uh... hm. Well, it just is!" That's some serious circular logic.
"moderators". i.e. the example doesn't have someone holding people's hands throughout it.
Depends on the word! :D
Sure, things like "damn" or "hell", stuff that isn't serious I personally don't have issue with nor do I think many other people will. But more extreme things like f-bombs, therein the problem lies.
How is it more "extreme"? It's just a word as is damn and hell.
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
uh...
it's already implemented.
I think they might be sucking up to you.
Just testing the filter. Seems it blocks the profanity regardless of what setting we have.
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
"testing the filter" doesn't justify saying that. Yes, the filter is missing some words, they will be added over time.
Please don't do that again.
I don't know...
How about this (Not directed specifically at you SkaterSam, but everyone posting here);
Why should we tell people who do still find swearing offensive to buzz off so you can swear?
What is gained by you being able to curse?
Why are people worried that there are going to be more young people, while there are "adults" that can't even follow simple forum rules like "No flaming"?
Why should we not make the forums comfortable for all people to use?
Why must you replace a word that accurately describes your feelings/the message you are trying to get across with a word that is thrown about randomly? (such as "Creepers are infuriating" rather than something a bit more insulting and less descriptive)
It's hard to follow your dreams when you run from your nightmares. --
I did alot of speaking throughout middle school-high school so I'll answer this.
Shock factor.
You can't get the same reaction out of saying crap than you can with an f-bomb.