Latest News Article

[Beltir]

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Why don't you, say, allow it in off-topic (where nobody really cares) but keep it out of the general MC forums? etc.

Because Off-topic isn't the primary focus of this forum. Why don't we allow slurs there as well? I'm sure no one minds casual use of that down there either.

Quote

STOP TRYING TO BRING THE MAJORITY INTO THIS. The majority doesn't CARE. And not everyone who hates the rule is brave enough to complain.

And not everyone that agrees with the rule posts either.

[Gatling_Tech]

Beltir, on 17 December 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Because Off-topic isn't the primary focus of this forum. Why don't we allow slurs there as well? I'm sure no one minds casual use of that down there either.

How is that not obvious? slurs are meant to degrade and discriminate, the only time profanity does that is when the context indicates it.

[cmpenney]

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

STOP TRYING TO BRING THE MAJORITY INTO THIS. The majority doesn't CARE. And not everyone who hates the rule is brave enough to complain.

What??!!!??? Stop trying to bring the majority into this?? I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

Listen, you can continue to beat this dead horse until you are blue in the face. It's been stated pretty plainly that if and when someone can give a valid reason that the use of profanity here makes this a better place then the situation would be re-evaluated. Until such time as that happens this discussion is pointless as we are just rehashing the same things we have been said over again and again.

[HempKnight]

cmpenney, on 17 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Yes. we have, repeatedly, but you chose to ignore them, repeatedly. Citricsquid just gave you a completely valid argument just 4 posts above. This is a forum for a game rated E10+. That means your audience is anyone from 10 years and up. If you where sitting in a room with that audience would you speak this way? I doubt it, so why is it ok here? There is no excuse for behaving differently here then you would in person. You can proclaim this strawman all you want but the audience is the same in both cases so please stop dismissing this as not relevant.



Based on what data? This is totally unsubstantiated information. If you look at the past discussions there about about 12 people that have argued against the rule, That's 24 out of hundreds of thousands..Best case that's .024% against the filter. Not even close to your 5-10%. And that doesn't even take into effect the 95% of visitors that don't create accounts.

I both would and do speak like that regardless of the chance that there's a child in the room. It would be a serious stretch, and very overbearing, for me to assume it's my place to parent a kid that is not my own. Children should be taught not to cuss and why not to cuss by their parents, not because they never hear or see those words, but I digress.

It was more like two or three dozen by my count but whatever makes you feel better. Valid arguments have been made, quite a few actually. That however is entirely beside the point because there is no possible way to convince the admins and moderators here that they may in fact be wrong and are reaching on this one.

[Beltir]

Gatling_Tech, on 17 December 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

How is that not obvious? slurs are meant to degrade and discriminate, the only time profanity does that is when the context indicates it.

Some slurs, especially more recently, are also casually used in a joking manner. A notable one refers to if a person is "new" or "old" on a website, and even if directed at yourself it isn't allowed.

[citricsquid]

HempKnight, on 17 December 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

It was more like two or three dozen by my count but whatever makes you feel better. Valid arguments have been made, quite a few actually. That however is entirely beside the point because there is no possible way to convince the admins and moderators here that they may in fact be wrong and are reaching on this one.

Yes there is. I've been saying this for months:

Show the positives that profanity provides that justify excluding even one single person from being able to view the forum.

If someone can explain to me how profanity provides so much value that it should be allowed even if it excludes just one person (the reality is much more, but you'll argue that point so I'll just go with one person for the sake of avoiding you focusing on that supposed flawed logic) I will genuinely consider reverting the rule.

The entire idea behind the profanity rule is that profanity doesn't provide enough value to justify excluding people from using the forum; if that premise is flawed then of course we'll consider removing the rule... same reason we don't allow porn, abuse, trolling... the negatives outweigh the positives.

[HempKnight]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Yes there is. I've been saying this for months:

Show the positives that profanity provides that justify excluding even one single person from being able to view the forum.

If someone can explain to me how profanity provides so much value that it should be allowed even if it excludes just one person (the reality is much more, but you'll argue that point so I'll just go with one person for the sake of avoiding you focusing on that supposed flawed logic) I will genuinely consider reverting the rule.

The entire idea behind the profanity rule is that profanity doesn't provide enough value to justify excluding people from using the forum; if that premise is flawed then of course we'll consider removing the rule... same reason we don't allow porn, abuse, trolling... the negatives outweigh the positives.

I could have Gatling post his giant list of dozens of people who were against it and all of their separate views but I'm sure your response would be "They didn't PROVE profanity was needed, only that they like to use it.". However some of those people have now left because of the ban which one for one outweighs your hypothetical scenario. I'll post any subject matter in a spoiler since it will undoubtedly have profanity in it if it's discussing profanity, hopefully that's okay with you.

Spoiler:

http://goodmenprojec...e-of-profanity/

http://money.howstuf...ing-at-work.htm

http://www.scientifi...why-do-we-swear
Specifically this part of that link "But cursing is more than just aggression, explains Timothy Jay, a psychologist at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts who has studied our use of profanities for the past 35 years. "It allows us to vent or express anger, joy, surprise, happiness," he remarks. "It's like the horn on your car, you can do a lot of things with that, it's built into you."

http://www.msnbc.msn...t/#.UM9366yUTXQ
"Associated Press/Ipsos found that 74 percent of Americans acknowledged they encountered profanity in public frequently" So what exactly does censoring it here help then? "While not everyone swears, field studies indicate that those who do utter 80 to 90 taboo words per day, out of an average of 15,000 to 16,000 words we speak daily." You're messin' up my vocab for the day home skillet!

http://www.good.is/p...s-good-for-you/

Any of that have any impact?

[citricsquid]

HempKnight, on 17 December 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Any of that have any impact?

No, you're not answering the question. Why does any of that justify excluding people from using the forum?

I use profanity frequently in private, I'm well aware that it provides value to a conversation, I'm not arguing against that, what I'm arguing is that the value it provides is not great enough to justify excluding people from using this forum.

You're arguing as if we're just disallowing profanity because we dislike it and because we love to oppress you... instead of arguing it as if we're disallowing it because it's existence here has real quantifiable downsides. You need to take those downsides (people being excluded from browsing the forum) and justify them.

Showing me that profanity has value to your conversations isn't justifying it. Pornography has value too but do we allow that? No.

[HempKnight]

So does banning it justify pushing people away then? I see people leaving on nearly a daily basis because of the ban on profanity. CptPorkins just said he's leaving because all the regulars he used to chat with are gone and the RP section (Something you were warned would go downhill with the ban) is now garbage. So regulars are leaving because of the ban and then by association some of their friends who didn't care about the ban are now leaving as well. Is this justified?

People are being excluded now too. There are some who will choose to browse this forum due to the lack of profanity I imagine, there are also just as many people who will choose not to use this forum because of the ban.

[Ankenmann2]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

Show the positives that profanity provides that justify excluding even one single person from being able to view the forum.

Y'know what I've been saying for months too?

We're not directly excluding anyone by having profanity on the forums

We're not saying "okay, Timmy, there's swearing here, so you can't come on" and I'm sure if a parent saw PPNS they would flip.

Here's some pluses:

- Funny
- Allows us to vent anger without flaming
- Adds color to sentences

etc. I could go on.

Beltir, on 17 December 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Because Off-topic isn't the primary focus of this forum. Why don't we allow slurs there as well? I'm sure no one minds casual use of that down there either.

SLURS =/= PROFANITY. Slurs are always (or almost always) used to insult, eg. you're a n*****. That's completely different than "My texture pack is f****** awesome!"

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

Showing me that profanity has value to your conversations isn't justifying it. Pornography has value too but do we allow that? No.

Porn has NO value anywhere, it degrades women and incites vulgar sexual thoughts in men, so that makes sense. Swearing is NONE of that.

[citricsquid]

HempKnight, on 17 December 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

So does banning it justify pushing people away then? I see people leaving on nearly a daily basis because of the ban on profanity. CptPorkins just said he's leaving because all the regulars he used to chat with are gone and the RP section (Something you were warned would go downhill with the ban) is now garbage. So regulars are leaving because of the ban and then by association some of their friends who didn't care about the ban are now leaving as well. Is this justified?

People are being excluded now too. There are some who will choose to browse this forum due to the lack of profanity I imagine, there are also just as many people who will choose not to use this forum because of the ban.

So to confirm: it's better for some people to have no choice than it is for everyone to have a choice and for some to choose to leave?

Again as I explained before the goal was not to make more people use the forum, it was to make the forum available to everyone that wanted to use the forum. If that results in less people using the forum out of choice then so be it. I don't want people to leave, but I'd rather people have a choice to be here or not.

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

We're not directly excluding anyone by having profanity on the forums

yes, yes we are.

[Gatling_Tech]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

yes, yes we are.

Prove it.

[Ankenmann2]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

So to confirm: it's better for some people to have no choice than it is for everyone to have a choice and for some to choose to leave?

Yes. Yes it is. It's better for loyal members to stay than for loyal members to leave and new ones come in.

Call me stupid all you want, it's the truth, and you never seemed to care when people threatened to (and did) leave. If I was an admin I would actually care about loyal members.

For the record, I feel excluded, because nobody cared about our arguments.

[HempKnight]

Alright citric, I'm not trying to be an A hole here, I'm just arguing the point from the other side. Your point is some people may not want to browse it if they see profanity, my point is some people are leaving because of the stink this has caused and others are too by association.

So I'll compromise and we can end this debate. You, me, five minutes in a steel cage. The winner decides which way this rule goes. Deal?

[citricsquid]

HempKnight, on 17 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

Alright citric, I'm not trying to be an A hole here, I'm just arguing the point from the other side. Your point is some people may not want to browse it if they see profanity, my point is some people are leaving because of the stink this has caused and others are too by association.

No, my point is people want to browse the forum but cannot due to profanity (either web filters, parents that don't like profanity etc). If someone personally chooses to not like profanity and refuses to browse the forum from it that's unfortunate, but it's their choice, just like it's your choice to leave because of no profanity.

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Yes. Yes it is. It's better for loyal members to stay than for loyal members to leave and new ones come in.

Call me stupid all you want, it's the truth, and you never seemed to care when people threatened to (and did) leave. If I was an admin I would actually care about loyal members.

For the record, I feel excluded, because nobody cared about our arguments.

Loyal members? Loyalty would be sticking with the forum when a change is made for the greater good, loyalty is not quitting the forum when a rule is changed that you dislike. Every time we change the rules people threaten to leave (and some do) and that sucks, but my ultimate goal is to make the forum available and usable to as many people as possible, not to cater to those that decide to leave just because they can't do something they want to any more.

I care more about 100 people that want to use the forum but can't because of something we're doing wrong than 100 people that are willing to quit the forum in protest of a decision they don't agree with and can't explain why we should actively exclude people.

Loyalty would be not forcing me to waste many hours of my day justifying a decision that was made for the greater good to try and stop you from wasting my co-workers time trying to get me fired.

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Porn degrades women and incites vulgar sexual thoughts in men, so that makes sense. Swearing is NONE of that.

I wrote a long reply to this explaining how insane what you're saying is, but I don't want to devolve this attempt at a discussion into one about pornography, but for now I'll just assume you're a teenage boy that has never spoken to a real woman in their life.

[Ankenmann2]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

No, my point is people want to browse the forum but cannot due to profanity (either web filters, parents that don't like profanity etc). If someone personally chooses to not like profanity and refuses to browse the forum from it that's unfortunate, but it's their choice, just like it's your choice to leave because of no profanity.

Le filtre optionelle.

Quote

Loyal members? Loyalty would be sticking with the forum when a change is made for the greater good, loyalty is not quitting the forum when a rule is changed that you dislike. Every time we change the rules people threaten to leave (and some do) and that sucks, but my ultimate goal is to make the forum available and usable to as many people as possible, not to cater to those that decide to leave just because they can't do something they want to any more.

I care more about 100 people that want to use the forum but can't because of something we're doing wrong than 100 people that are willing to quit the forum in protest of a decision they don't agree with and can't explain why we should actively exclude people.

Loyalty would be not forcing me to waste many hours of my day justifying a decision that was made for the greater good to try and stop you from wasting my co-workers time trying to get me fired.

More than 100 people have quit or plan to quit.

Quote

I wrote a long reply to this explaining how insane what you're saying is, but I don't want to devolve this attempt at a discussion into one about pornography, but for now I'll just assume you're a teenage boy that has never spoken to a real woman in their life.

Uh, that's just immature.

[Gatling_Tech]

citricsquid, on 17 December 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I care more about 100 people that want to use the forum but can't because of something we're doing wrong than 100 people that are willing to quit the forum in protest of a decision they don't agree with and can't explain why we should actively exclude people.

you can't even explain why you actively exclude us for censoring our own posts.

I find it amusing that the only post you didn't reply to was mine.

[Ankenmann2]

Gatling_Tech, on 17 December 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

you can't even explain why you actively exclude us for censoring our own posts.

Even for supporters of the rule/filter this has gone way too far.

[cmpenney]

Ankenmann2, on 17 December 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Porn has NO value anywhere, it degrades women and incites vulgar sexual thoughts in men, so that makes sense. Swearing is NONE of that.

I'm sure that there is a percentage of people here that don't have a problem with it. Perhaps we should listen to them too and allow it. Sure its a minority but since the majority is irrelevant and shouldn't be drawn into the conversation.......

[Ankenmann2]

cmpenney, on 17 December 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I'm sure that there is a percentage of people here that don't have a problem with it. Perhaps we should listen to them too and allow it.

Don't have a problem =/= want it. What I've been telling the staff for 2 months now.