Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 20:12:03 GMT -5
Essentially saying something will happen or that there will be a problem based upon probability doesn't qualify the argument as correct.
And the bad apples shouldn't keep the law abiding members from using terminology that can be misused. It's punishing the good people for the acts of very very few bad people. Mods can clear up the very rare misusage if it happens. That's what they do.
Imagine shutting down six flags because that kid jumped fences and got hit by a roller coaster, same principal.
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Sept 25, 2008 20:20:17 GMT -5
Essentially saying something will happen or that there will be a problem based upon probability doesn't qualify the argument as correct. And the bad apples shouldn't keep the law abiding members from using terminology that can be misused. It's punishing the good people for the acts of very very few bad people. Mods can clear up the very rare misusage if it happens. That's what they do. Imagine shutting down six flags because that kid jumped fences and got hit by a roller coaster, same principal. We have been over this so many times.... But as has been said unless the stance has changed the swear filter won't. I understand people not agreeing the strictness of the filter, but its more a preventive measure. Do bad words bother me? No not really. But that dosen't mean they don't bother someone else. I just don't see the swear fliter changing.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 20:26:11 GMT -5
Wow we have been over this so many times.... I don't ever remember discussing it. What does that sentence even mean? Preventing the proper usage of words by good forum members rather than inconveniencing all the good members because someone might abuse it once a month? That's not a good strategy at all. A 13 year old that's bothered by the word reta rded is very rare. If you want to censor all words based on someone being offended then consider people like evangelicals, where even the word "dum dum" would offend them. We can't cater to the minority. You didn't really make any points, you just said that bad words bother people and that you don't see a change happening. I made this thread because its suggestions and that's what you're supposed to do if you have a suggestion. Most often suggestions involve changing things.
|
|
|
Post by username on Sept 25, 2008 20:26:35 GMT -5
It remains completely illogical based on the fact that the words themselves are not offensive. If I called someone stupid, would "stupid" be added to the swear filter?
And as for the probability thing, I have never heard worlds like penis being used in an inappropriate manner in a community like this.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 20:29:00 GMT -5
It remains completely illogical based on the fact that the words themselves are not offensive. If I called someone stupid, would "stupid" be added to the swear filter? You make a great point. Words like f*** and s*** are naturally offensive because they're considered swear words. Retar ded, isn't a swear word by any stretch of the term at all. So are a lot of the words included in the swear filter.
|
|
|
Post by night on Sept 25, 2008 20:29:14 GMT -5
I'll reiterate my post from the prior page.
If this is indeed a forum for people 13+, then why do you make such a fuss over words that would only be considered offensive to people younger than that? If anything, this forum should be PG or PG-13, not G. mentally challenged person definitely fits into PG at least. There really should be no issue on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Sept 25, 2008 21:27:17 GMT -5
You weren't here while the discussion were taking place. Well that I think people would understand where the staff stood on this issue and that we have been over this issue many times. Taking preventive measures is not a bad stragegy. Yes the wear filter is strict we are aware of that. [/quote] I made the point that we have gone over this issue amny times and I don't see the staff changing there minds. I think we need to remember a suggestion is not a guaranteed to force change. It remains completely illogical based on the fact that the words themselves are not offensive. If I called someone stupid, would "stupid" be added to the swear filter? And as for the probability thing, I have never heard worlds like pe nis being used in an inappropriate manner in a community like this. You must have missed one of the trolls we had a while ago.. The fact of the matter is the words have been censored because the staff felt they were or could be used to offend others. I'll reiterate my post from the prior page. If this is indeed a forum for people 13+, then why do you make such a fuss over words that would only be considered offensive to people younger than that? If anything, this forum should be PG or PG-13, not G. dum dum definitely fits into PG at least. There really should be no issue on this matter. Night this is not an issue at least for most, annoying but not a big problem. The staff has repeatedly given its stance on this issue. We have had this discussion several times and the conclusion has remained the same. The thing is the forum may be up to PG-13 but that doesn't mean it needs to be there all the time. Regardless of I or anyone esle feel its up the staff.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 21:40:08 GMT -5
You weren't here while the discussion were taking place. I also didn't see it in the suggestions forum. So unless this happened in SB or something I don't see how that's relevant. Once again, I can't find this magic thread. And it's not up for you to decide what side the staff is on. They'll make up their own minds based on the arguments in this thread. Part of discussing a suggestion is to convince people. Me, night and arlo have made a lot of valid points. "The staff wants it like that" is not a valid point. It is a bad strategy to punish good posters because someone might misuse it. Yes, that's like the fifth time you said this. No one ever said it was. But trying to convince people our suggestion is right isn't against the rules or a bad thing. This argument has nothing to do with the actual topic whatsoever. So one troll a while ago ruins it for all of us? I hardly see how one troll should be able to change entire forum policies as opposed to intelligent veteran members. The staff is there for a reason, they are capable enough to handle the very occasional troll Of course it was. No one ever said otherwise. We just said it didn't make sense. You're not debunking anyone's argument here. Listen, WE GET IT. YOU'VE MADE THIS POINT MAYBE 6 TIMES. I'VE DEBUNKED IT MULTIPLE TIMES. It's not up to you to tell us what the staff thinks, it's up to the staff. We are trying to change their minds with logic and reason. Please come up with a new point. No it doesn't have to be PG-13 all the time but removing "mentally challenged person" and "penis" from the filter wouldn't make it equivalent to a nonstop PG-13 fest. That's like, the most terrible slippery slope logical fallacy ever. Yes, so let them decide instead of trying to tell us all that their minds are made up and will never change.
|
|
|
Post by username on Sept 25, 2008 21:43:32 GMT -5
Are trolls our standard sort of board member? The vocabulary used by a troll is irrelevant, they ultimately get dealt with by staff either way. The actions of a troll should have no impact on the rules imposed by normal members.
So far when I have seen words like retard being used, but censored, in the negative fashion we are opposing, it remains equally as offensive as when it is uncensored. If anyone considers it less offensive due to the censorship, all that means is it is less likely for proper action to be sought against the person who attempted to use the insulting word.
Moat of your post consisted of an argument revolving around "the swear filter won't change because staff says so." We are aware the staff chose to keep the swear filter the way it is now, the purpose of this thread is to debate that. You may as well say "the swear filter blocks words like retard, so we shouldn't use the word retard." It makes very little sense, and there's no reason to repeat that argument so much.
|
|
|
Post by godhunter on Sept 25, 2008 21:53:51 GMT -5
Grandi, so far you've claimed multiple times that it is up to the staff. The staff however has already made a statement, both GG and I have posted saying its been discussed and it won't change. There was a long discussion of the words on the swear filter in the SB not even a month ago, so it has been discussed and looked at. The staff has decided that those words should be there and it was reaffirmed recently, so I'm sorry, but it isn't going to change.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 21:59:05 GMT -5
Grandi, so far you've claimed multiple times that it is up to the staff. The staff however has already made a statement, both GG and I have posted saying its been discussed and it won't change. There was a long discussion of the words on the swear filter in the SB not even a month ago, so it has been discussed and looked at. The staff has decided that those words should be there and it was reaffirmed recently, so I'm sorry, but it isn't going to change. Me, arlo and night's veiw points were not available to you in your SB thread. Also you and gran are not the entire staff. Dismissing our ideas out of hand because of a precedence set when many of the staff members positions have changed through promotions and demotions is terrible policy. In fact, responding to our all points with "we've made up our mind" is terrible policy as well. A few of us have made very very compelling points that I don't see an easy rebuttal to. If you can make the rebuttal, please go ahead. If you can't then the logical recourse would be to change the swear filter. I was pointing out it was up to the staff in terms of the final decision to keep BB from tossing his weight around as a pseudo staff member. While yes the decision is ultimately up to you because you hold the power, you shouldn't be this resistant to change.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Sept 25, 2008 22:18:19 GMT -5
I think taking the word "mentally challenged person" or "mentally challenged" out of the swear filter is a good idea - mainly, because the subject needs addressing, and simply filling in the term "dum dum" isn't going to inform people who don't know any better *why* the term is offensive.
There are a lot of people who use "mentally challenged person" - in the offensive sense - who have no real clue why people might be offended. Covering it up doesn't solve the problem. They just wind up using it and getting the "dum dum" treatment, not knowing why. I think talking about it isn't a bad thing, and seriously - there are people (like myself, Grandi, others) who use the term "mentally challenged person," "retardation," and "mentally challenged" in the proper sense, and in doing so, we get a silly word that nukes our meaning and have to wiggle around the swear filter.
I propose taking "mentally challenged person" and all its incarnations out of the swear filter and starting a thread in CT about it. That will gear up the dialog about its possible meanings and the offense that can be taken from it. Most of the people here are plenty capable of policing themselves, and explaining things to others, so I don't see the problem. It's just a matter of trusting members to act in a mature fashion, which I think most are more than capable of doing.
If there's discomfort about it, something can even be stickied at the top of each thread explaining how certain words are to be used. Most people here follow the rules.
I also think "twig" should be taken out, because quite frankly, it's a common name, and it's just silly for it to be replaced with "twig." Our current Vice President has the name (as mentioned upthread), and so do millions of other people.
|
|
|
Post by godhunter on Sept 25, 2008 22:19:51 GMT -5
Grandi, you say you've stated very compelling arguments, but they really aren't all that compelling from where I sit. I understand that the opinions of the three of you weren't there in the thread discussion this, but that doesn't mean that because you want to push this through it'll work out because you feel it is the right thing. If you don't like it then avoid it. Honestly, how often do you use he word 'retard' in your posts on the forum. Is it really that much of a problem for you?
This isn't an important issue and unless you plan on using these words on a daily basis on the main boards I feel that you're just trying to be argumentative in an effort to make the staff policies look stupid. I'd like to think that is not your goal, but do realize that at least from where I sit it looks like you simply want to argue with the staff. If you don't like the fact that you can't say mentally challenged person, I'm sorry. It was put in effect because people abused the word when it wasn't on the filter. Expecting a different result now doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If it was a more common word I'd be more than happy to change it, but mentally challenged person is not a commonly used word by the general populace in its appropriate meaning.
If it really bugs you that much I can wait a week and then you can list to me all the times having this word in the swear filter distorted a post if you wish. This really isn't an important enough issue for things to get so heated, so I'm closing this discussion for a week. I won't lock the thread or anything, but as an admin I have the power to speak for the staff and to say that mentally challenged person won't be erased from the swear filter unless you can bring me examples.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 25, 2008 22:23:19 GMT -5
Wow we have been over this so many times.... I don't ever remember discussing it. distanthorizons.proboards31.com/index.cgi?board=dhsug&action=display&thread=20588Aptly named 'Swear Filter' I am assuming the rest got deleted or trashed because they are incredibly repet4etive, non productive and tend to deteriorate. Because the kiddies don't get their way in swearing. And incidentally, the good members fond other words to express their views, not those which have in recent usage been tainted with unfavorable meaning. And I know enough 13 year olds who will be very offended when the word 'ret arded' is used against them. And by now everybody knows how to side step the swearfilter anyhow. So the huff is all about what?
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 25, 2008 22:33:46 GMT -5
Grandi, you say you've stated very compelling arguments, but they really aren't all that compelling from where I sit. That's an excellent way to not respond to any of the arguments. Like I said I can't see any reasonable intelligent way to respond, but instead of admitting that you call our points not compelling without any direct references. Never expected it to work out because of my personal feelings. It should work because there has yet to be any opposing insight can't be easily refuted. It's not just about the word ret ard if you haven't gathered that yet, it's the policy of filtering words that aren't actually offensive. T The entire swear filter being out of wack isn't completely unimportant. And if it's such a small deal why would you be so resistant to changing it by writing a huge response? Why wouldn't you just do the logical thing as pointed out very articulately by the people here. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm trying to stir something up. You need to get out of this whole GH vs Grandi mindset. I know you aren't a big fan of me but it shouldn't affect legitimate suggestions. And yes it is affecting it. I didn't make this thread to argue with you. Frankly debating you isn't incredibly fun when I have to keep reiterating points. Once again, this is about words that aren't considered swears. That was heavily implied, Arlo even pointed it out several times. I had it distorted earlier today and that's why I made this suggestion. Actively counting it would of course distort results. No one was heated. I'm just not going out of my way to be nice. I haven't insulted anyone or broken any rules aside from obviously bypassing the swear filter. Once again, not just about ret ard, also once again examples would be meaningless due to a variety of factors (people not using words to avoid looking dumb, people accidentally using words and realizing it then editing them out) Several very smart very articulate people have made multiple points, people who have been on the forum for 2-3 years. We aren't lying or making stuff up just to start an argument. Please respond to points if you are able to refute them. You're using a the "BECAUSE I SAID SO" mentality in this argument while implying that it shouldn't be done because you think I'm trying to cause trouble. This thread isn't about me or you. I hate to say this but you're really veering off topic.
|
|