UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Language

I hope you think this idea is f***ing great, you f***ing wonderful person you. --Jon Pyre 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

May I please censor your censorship? -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Does this proposed policy solve an existing problem that isn't being solved by other means? Paul Brunner 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Add a disclaimer to the signup page or something (like what Kevan did with the actual game), but don't try and introduce censorship to the Internet. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Besides, Children shouldn't be protected from language. They're going to learn it whether we want them to or not. I learned what F*** meant when I was 8, and neither of my parents openly swore. :P --Sirens^{T RR} 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't just protect children. I think it's just better in general for everyone. And brutal censorship is of course a bad idea, which is why there are no strict guidelines. Cursing once in a while wouldn't be an issue. I'll do it right now. "Brutal censorship is shit". But an overwhelming amount of it is something that would be wise to avoid. And of course racial slurs are a completely different issue. --Jon Pyre 02:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck censorship.--Gage 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you be prevented from saying that. Nobody is going to take you to arbitration for saying fuck once in a while. This is just for more extreme situations. --Jon Pyre 02:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a zombie game. Zombie games are supposed to be rated due their gory nature _{(is that even a word, wow... spell checker says it is)} Therefore, people around here arent supposed to be kids, and so they should be free to say whatever they want whenever they want. Suck it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And... as a side note... kids these days might say and do things you dont even dream about, Jon, and that will scare the shit away from you if you know about. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is a wiki. And there are lots of things that are gory that don't have cursing. Yes it's a double standard to find language offensive and not fighting. But if I posted a graphic image of warfare that'd also be something worthy of arbitration. This isn't for common usage, saying "fuck" or "shit" once in a while. Ocassional usage doesn't hurt anyone. But imagine if on the suggestions page someone began calling a player a "Nigger" and kept making KKK jokes about hanging them? That's not against the rules. --Jon Pyre 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With Haggy and gage. Fuck children. Seriously, its not our problem if they see it. This page is probably visited by 13 year old children right after they watched hardcore porn. If they're smart enough to be on the internet, they'll see graphic language no matter what, and I won't be censored just because some little brats parents might get offended. So, with gage, FUCK CENSORSHIP, and FUCK CHILDREN, and jon, its called the first amendment, nothings stopping a racist asshole from speakin his mind, but nothins stopping the target of the attack to totally mock the dumbshit that says it --General Lee A. Dickhole _{Malton Rangers} 02:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a private wiki. The first amendment doesn't apply. We should follow it mostly, but there are limits in most sitations. You can't call your coworker whatever you want or you'll get fired, cursing in court will get you jailed for contempt, and most forums have language restrictions. Heck, even UD itself garbles curses over the radio. --Jon Pyre 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you flogging a dead horse? I remember a similar policy to this one that was shot down. That was, of course, back when Amazing was still around, but the userbase hasn't changed all that much. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, as much as I respect ya, this policy could be used to do things it was totally unintended for, if someone says something like I like unicorns, some asshole could be like, OMGUNICORNS=HITLER IM OFFENDED BLA BLA BLA. The mods can do it without a policy--General Lee A. Dickhole _{Malton Rangers} 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm not proposing strict rules. Just that language should be an acceptable issue to bring up for arbitration. In most cases, especially that one, the arbitrator would say "Cursing isn't that big a deal. Grow a thicker skin". Do you think you could already bring someone up for arbitration if they began posting swastikas on pages in ways that aren't vandalism? --Jon Pyre 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck this shit

Fuck this shit and go play Neopets. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dupe

Have you even read the new moderation guidlines Jon?

Moderators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, moderators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it.

There doesn't have to be a rule for everything anymore. This policy is unnecessary. If a user starts to get out of hand we have moderator discretion. We could ban him even though there are no rules in place that forbid his behavior. Please drop this. This is stupid.--Gage 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It does seem covered by the current rules. If people can already bring that kind of behavior up for arbitration then this issue is already taken care of. No need to put this up for a vote. --Jon Pyre 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? That means we don't have to make any more policies because the moderators can do anything they want, that is as long as they are supported by other moderators. That's what that line that Gage quoted is saying. Ain't it grand? - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 06:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the whole idea of letting us use our judgement, yes. Your point being? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 06:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That it doesn't prevent any bad faith abuse of sysop abilities or position. While idealy no one would abuse their position, and that people wouldn't support its abuse, it does seem that it's a very strong possibility. Take the Faerie Queen case for example, there is no doubt that the account was created just to stir up trouble (whats considered bad faith), yet there was nothing done about it. (Sorry that it was your case, but it's the most recent example and I didn't want to dig for others) - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You chose a bad example. We cannot disclose the results of CheckUser tests (except in the case of proxy accounts), so nothing can be done (much as we'd like to) without violating the privacy policy. You can't have it both ways, Jedaz. Either we're constricted to follow the rules rigidly, leading to overly punitive punishments, or we're allowed to use our heads and make the call on a case-by-case basis. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 07:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I'm refering to is that not that the sysops haven't revealed the users identity, but that an account, which has made only 5 edits, is being protected from warnings/bannings when it's intent is obviously bad faith. I'm not saying that you have to reveal the user behind the account, by all means protect their identity if you wish. Well, I'm not going to tell you what to do, but use your head, put away any petty arguments or disagreements, and do whats right if you were in Mathews position. I won't try to further my point because I belive that any further discussion from here on in will be fruitless. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 08:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being biased. Shit like that isn't VB-worthy; it's Arby's material. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 09:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jedaz, you must think we are evil people. :(--Gage 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just some of the sysops can be bastards at times and it can be very disheartening to see them get away with the same old tired crap every time, but that doesn't make them evil. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 06:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A General Idea Policy

Perhaps its best just to leave a very loose guideline, maybe something like "There is no set restriction on cursing but something extreme enough may count as harassment or vandalism. Please avoid arbitration by using common sense." That way nobody should be prevented from saying what they want but if someone makes their lynching tribute page they can't say there isn't any justification to bring them to arby. --Jon Pyre 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hubrid Nox on the point that it would probably best just to leave a disclaimer somewhere on the wiki. At the top or the bottom of the main page would probably be best. As to what it should say, I am not exactly sure. -- 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What the FUG?

Is language even a problem? I've never seen anything on here that was so bad it required so much undue attention. --Ablesentinel 16:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon Pyre needs a certain amount of attention in order to keep functioning. Don't worry about it. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good one, Mr. Pyre!

Anyone remember the last one? Thanks for another shitstorm. No really, thanks. Let me pin a medal on your chest, Jon. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That one seemed to deal with flame wars and arguments. This one is more about preventing horrible racial slurs and really awful stuff. It wouldn't even prevent people from telling each other to "f*** off" now and then. But I don't think any users need to say "nigger" at any point while discussing a zombie game on the wiki. Except when saying that people shouldn't get to say it, like I am now. --Jon Pyre 03:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When has something like the situation you describe ever occurred? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. That's even worse. Did you see how the last policy along those lines went? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a player now named snownigger. I think the word should be banned.--Baruch 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ingame, or on the wiki? Because we can't do anything about conduct in the game itself. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just on the wiki. Kevan is already doing what's reasonable in game, for instance putting static over that stuff on the radio. --Jon Pyre 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-_- Daranz, I know that. My point was, that if "snownigger" is only in the game, we can't do anything about that. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck no

Don't you fucking touch my language, mon osti d'calisse de tabarnak. -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And besides, english has such an uncolourful and restricted repertoire of profanities... -Certified=Insane^☭ 13:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be pretty funny if this got passed and you started swearing in French.--J Muller 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you bet I would. I don't now, but that's cause I have no reason to... Other than perhaps the comment right above... Now, do you really want someone starting to cuss in french all over the wiki? -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit it would start out funny and get old after a bit. But if they ban English swear words, well... I'll start peppering my speech with German expletives just for the hell of it.--J Muller 07:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah for other languages! -Certified=Insane^☭ 15:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No

I warn you that if you do this, I'll make up an entire new repertoire of swear words, just to make your prudish life hell.--J Muller 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

needs work

i dont think any one would vote "yes" on this. but i wonder how people would feel if it was just the first rule.."Slurs based on race, religion, gender." i'd vote for that. but people here seem to like to swear alot.--Blood Panther 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, I think I only swear in policy discussion pages... Especially this one and the blood-sucking lawyer's. Urgh... fucking copyright freak... -Certified=Insane^☭ 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Godless, soulless, degenerate commie bastard...--J Muller 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, and proud of it. It seems you changed the content... I'm still against any form of censorship, even of the most degenerate psychotic dillusional bullshit people can think of. If you didn't, well, I'm still against, and I truly am insane. -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What the heck, that's it? I was sure it was something else... Ehh... Just ignore me... -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at ALL

This is the first time I've posted on discussions for UD, I've only been playing for a few months, but here's what I believe about censorship on the site. Kids are going to hear swear words. There's no way to avoid it. They're everywhere. Again, it ISN'T our problem, or our responsibility. Parents should be monitoring what their kids do online anyway. There's a general assumption about the internet being 'naughty', and about zombies being aimed at older ages.

When it comes to 'loose' rules, even... I don't think excessive swearing would be the problem. Doesn't it only become a problem if it's harassment? And for racial slurrs... well maybe this isn't the same problem, but I really don't understand why people are actually offended by racism. So some twatwad discriminates those who have a different ethnicity than they do. We all know it's wrong and stupid... being controversial on the internet is not the same as slaughtering jews in real life. So, if you're a minority and someone makes fun of your skin... does it actually hurt your feelings that this person clearly has perception issues? It's like someone telling me 'Pff, your hair is black. You must be inferior to me, as I have blonde hair!'.

So without saying... no censorship. --StanVEE 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this guy. Can we keep him? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this one's a keeper. Welcome to the wiki, Stan.--J Muller 07:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not needed

If people are using excessive language, take them to arbitration. – Nubis ^NWO 16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)