UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Tolerance

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Discussion

Show need. If something like this ever crops up Arby's is there to solve it. Also, we really don't need something as subjective as this codified. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:24, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Agreed with cyberbob. The best way to deal with such crap is to simply turn your back on them and ignore them entirely, or mock them for it until they go away, as written this is entirely subjective, and no sysop should have the power to warn or ban anyone based on that. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:08, 18 May 2008 (BST)

It's only entirely subjective if there are no controls in place. We have a sysop team (who can and do question any decision they consider unfair), and Misconduct procedures, so there are controls in place. The fact of the matter is that this is a reactionary policy (I admit), based on the number of users currently freely using abusive language of sexual prejudice and not being policed. It gives the impression that such language is perfectly acceptable here, and that this is, in fact, a wiki that promotes such views openly. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Aaaah, Grimch the self-proclained Man of Logical Consistency contradicts himself??? I skimmed some convoluted arguments about there no such thing as total subjectivity, elsewhere. But here he says this stuff is totally subjective??? Amusing... Well... actually... in any event, it is not totally subjective. If it were, the law wouldn't be able to distinguish between libel/slander and free/protected speech. Or there wouldn't be laws (problematic though their application may be) which deal with such language. Or workplace/academy rules governing such language. No... there is (at the very least) an objective element underlying the subjectivity -- to steal Grim's own language... The fact that you, Grim, are denying its existence is a matter of shameless expedience in the service of supporting your personal prejudice... I am about to take back anything complimentary I said before about your own consistency.... --WanYao 21:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

To be fair, he did say "as written", and there is a strong issue of subjectivity here, which is probably the key reason why no civility policy has been employed on this wiki as yet. Well, either that or the majority of people here just like being offensive to one another. (Joke.) Still, other places manage to have civility policies (or equivalents), so why not this place? --Funt Solo ^QT 22:31, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Copy Wikipedia? They're more like... guidelines, though. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 18 May 2008 (BST)

There's this - it's all very sensible, and would work, if people were willing to pull together. However, see the "faggots" heading, below, for how ardently unpleasant some contributers are determined to be. Perhaps arbitration is the answer, but A/VB would be a quicker one. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:51, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Wan Yao, its impossible to perfectly define those terms, and so you get subjectivity being the tipping factor of the decision, making the important part of the decision pretty much entirely based on a subjective opinion of whats written rather than whats written itself. I didnt contradict myself, i just didnt feel the need to go into such great detail on something like this where that previous discussion had no bearing, because at heart i just didnt want to put in that kind of effort on this piece of shit. Where decisions have to be made based on opinions of opinions instead of fact, there is a problem as there is far, far too much variability in opinions. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:20, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Grim, I welcome your opinion on this policy, and would greatly welcome any help in improving or moulding it into something acceptable. I don't find it helpful of you to describe the policy as a "piece of shit", though, and would ask that you attempt to refrain from such abusive terminology when it's not necessary in order to get your point of view across. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:50, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Bullshit, to you my opinion here is about as welcome as an icy wind across your nethers. Cuss words have, over the last few decades, shifted from being primarily antagonistic to being something of emotive language. Given that languages constantly change over time, this is to be expected. Your policy belongs back in 1950, not 2008. We are all adults here, or in your case maybe, pretending to be an adult. How about instead of whining and moaning, you grow a thicker skin? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:07, 19 May 2008 (BST)

As I understand it, you've got that backwards. In 1950, in the UK, it was actually illegal to be homosexual, so I assume that homophobia was not just acceptable, but enshrined in law. As you probably know, in 2008, it no longer illegal (within certain age restrictions) to be homosexual, and homophobia is far less acceptable, especially public homophobia of the type we're seeing here on this wiki. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:31, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Im talking about your policy, not your stupid assertions of homophobia. Perhaps you should take a look at what you have posted there currently and get your facts right before posting red herrings. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:40, 19 May 2008 (BST)

"Obscene, vulgar, or offensive language" would include homophobia, so it's not a red herring at all. Also, note that more generally I'm suggesting the policy only when such "Obscene, vulgar, or offensive language" is "directed towards individuals or groups", not for just casual use. It's a civility policy, essentially, under the heading of "tolerance". To take another angle at the same point then (more generally, as you've requested), as Wikipedia have Wikiquette guidelines, I propose that the supposition that such a policy does not belong in 2008 is a false one. As I said to another user below, there is nothing intrinsically "adult" about accepting continual abuse. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:52, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Its nice how you're looking to be helpful, but, well, it's just unneeded. Currently, if there is such a problem, arby's takes it. Or if it such an extreme case, then VB could handle it I suppose, without it being a codified policy. I'm also sure a passerby would be able to tell that we don't promote those views, just the freedom of speech.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:37, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I can see the reasoning behind this, but won't people get a little vandal report crazy the momment someone says something bad? I would say arby's is a good place for this, but it never is. No one uses it, despite being asked and there is probably a reason for that. Maybe they don't trust the arbitrators, (perhaps they need to be voted in).--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:49, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Roleplay

Ever heard of it? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:14, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Well, there could be an exception made for areas of the wiki that are clearly part of the roleplay involved with the game. I'm talking about admin. areas and discussion areas (where it is not two characters conversing, but rather two users of the wiki). If that was made clear by the policy, what would you think then? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:56, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Examples?

Care to point out some current examples (links, please) of racist, sexist, homophobic, or heteronormative content on the wiki? I've really never noticed any (and I generally notice such things, being multi-ethnic, anti-patriarchal, and gay), but maybe I'm reading all the wrong pages... --Morgan Blair 16:55, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Suggestion:20080505 Nail Guns and Nail Gun Clips call me old fashioned but kill vote number 10 might be construed as a little sexist. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:09, 18 May 2008 (BST)

But this: Keep - ... So I vote keep because if I see a hot zombie chick, I want to be able to tell people I nailed her good. is fine with you? Love the double standard.

It's a slippery slope that will only result in an insane amount of petty VB complaints that are just because some user got butt hurt over something said on the internet.--– Nubis 17:20, 18 May 2008 (BST)

theres a huge list i could have gone through. Just because I didn't list every single one does not mean I deem all the others acceptable. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:47, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Morgan asked for examples, so, in the case of homophobia alone:

• Saromu places a link to a web site called "God Hates Fags", which has nothing to do with the A/VB case in question but is left on the page, unlike other content irrelevant to cases, which is usually moved to the discussion page. (Never mind the fact that this link is allowed at all.)
• In this open community discussion, Katthew graces those he disagrees with "faggot", "faggiest" and "fagholes".
• In this policy discussion, Kid Sinister lets rip with "Faghat" and a couple of calls of "faggot", and Katthew throws in a "faggots" for good measure.
• Kid Sinister returns for this policy vote and can't resist a "faggot".
• On the A/VB discussion page, Showcase joins in with his own "faggot".
• During another policy discussion, DCC really goes to town by making what I assume may be accusations that are actually grounds for a criminal prosecution against him when he carelessly throws around terms such as "pedophile faggots" and "wiki fags".
• There's even a "faggots" template by Saromu.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to demonstrate that it's now considered, by many users, completely acceptable to engage in, not only abusive behaviour and language, but also criminal behaviour and language, when they accuse other users of this wiki of breaking real laws. I just don't understand why this is allowed. It's not a case for arbitration: it's a case where the sysop team should step in and stamp it out. Never mind that: the owner of this wiki should not allow such criminal behaviour. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:31, 18 May 2008 (BST)

The servers are locaated in the UK so it is not criminal. It is not criminal to call someone a faggot in the United Kingdom. Also, I would vote keep on this if I trusted the Sysop team, unfortunately I don't so there is no way I would give them this sort of power.--Thekooks 18:11, 18 May 2008 (BST)

It wasn't the term "faggot" I was referring to, regarding the criminal aspect, it was the term "pedophile". If I accuse someone in public of being, for example, a murderer, then I could be brought up on charges of slander, or possibly of wasting police time, if they decide to investigate the foundless accusations of criminality. (And, actually, there are laws in the UK against bigotry.) It would be simplicity itself to disallow such behaviour - all it requires is a modicum of sensible judgement, of which the sysop team here is eminently capable. The alternative is to do nothing, which is as much as admitting that this wiki supports homophobic rhetoric. If that's the case, so be it: at least I'll be aware of what kind of a community this is. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:28, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Well, they're pretty tough on homophobic performers (they will often bar certain performing artists from entering the country due to the content of their music), although I don't know what laws are used to do so. The in-progress Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill will criminalize certain forms of inciting homophobia, but at the moment I don't think there's much that would apply to the wiki.

However, I think what would really be most effective in our situation would be to propose a policy whereby obscene, vulgar, or offensive language (as designated by a an agreed upon dictionary, and including words, terms or names derived from that language), when directed towards individuals or groups, used to describe acts, or used as antilocution, would be considered vandalism. I really doubt such a policy would pass, as I think there are far more users on the wiki who use, or are indifferent to the use of such language then those who are against it. I'd support such a measure, even though it really wouldn't affect my wiki-use significantly, as I spend very little time on the pages where such language tends to be used (essentially, any page with voting, or dealing with conflict resolution). --Morgan Blair 18:46, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I'll give that a go: policy changed. (I hope you don't mind, as I used your wording.) --Funt Solo ^QT 19:34, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Lord help us. its like the time we had sex education in year 6 and they asked us to name all the words for sexual organs.

The problem with an a list is thats its never complete or exhaustive. And If i call someone a cock, (for example) i dont want to be treated differently from calling someone a kock.

But where to join the line. If its defined by whether you're offended by a comment directed at you, could that be open for more abuse(as a system)?

I'm not saying this isn't the best way forward, i'm just bouncing around some ideas. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I see your point: having a list does seem somewhat strange. However, without a list, it's subjective. With a list, we only need to discuss what goes on it. I don't find the word cock offensive, and I'm not sure why anyone would - it's only a sexual organ. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:16, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I wasn't aiming for offensive. just a word that could be used as an insult. Next time i'll be more explicit :-) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:18, 18 May 2008 (BST)

by making what I assume may be accusations that are actually grounds for a criminal prosecution The only way this could be criminal is if you actually killed yourself over it and if that is the case I'll take the hit for the team! You have seriously lost your mind.

You don't seem to understand the difference between criminal law and civil law. Nor do you seem to know the difference between someone calling someone a "faggot" and calling someone ["a homophobe"] which could both be considered your insane slander. Or better yet, your insane "criminal prosecution."

What I really like is the conversation you linked featuring me. The civil one I was having with Karek that you jumped in with "Fuck Me " right off the bat. Then resorted to "baby talk" Does ooze ikkle brain not comprehend English, widdums?

Is this what you consider intelligent debate? Is this how you think all discussions should be handled?

Don't forget this: Uhm, Funt, you started the belligerence about two indents up. He was actually being relatively civil before that.--Karek 11:04, 1 May 2008 (BST)

But this wouldn't be complete without your BRILLIANT justification for coming in like a raving fuckin loon: He's treating everyone else like an idiot - he should expect the same in return. --Funt Solo QT 15:23, 1 May 2008 (BST)

And come on - thinking the phrase "wiki fags" is criminal? hahahah You really do need to go outside and walk away for a bit. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 19:42, 18 May 2008 (BST)

If you read my reply to thekooks, you'll see that's not the phrase I was referring to. Anyway, that conversation was but one example of a clear trend. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:09, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Er, creating a comprehensive list of prohibited terms was not what I meant. Rather, if you look up a word in the dictionary, you'll see that some words (dependent on usage) are defined as "obscene", "vulgar", or "offensive". For example, say that The Rooster is "a cock" is not the same as using that word as vulgar slang for male genitalia. Likewise, since "kock" is probably not referring to a Swedish chef, or the Polish town, it obviously intends the same vulgar meaning. In contrast, the word "faggot" is considered to be offensive or derogatory in most cases. But the real problem is that, despite a wide variance in what people think is acceptable language on the wiki (and keep in mind, studies have shown that banning profanity can significantly reduce moral in an environment), we face the additionally difficulties posed by being an English-language wiki in a global environment. Not even looking beyond the UK and US, there are distinct issues. From the Wikipedia: "Where American usage of the word mostly refers to either female anatomy or (in extreme cases) an ill-tempered woman, cunt in the UK has attained the status of a gender-neutral insult." That line alone has changed my opinion regarding the use of any specific source to determine what words should be considered unacceptable. I've seen British TV where the use of "twat" seem to be acceptable slang for "idiot" or "fool" between good-natured acquaintances in informal situations, but in the US, even in largely impolite company, saying "twat" in any context would likely get you shunned by all. Anyway, I'm really at a loss, as to how extreme uses of flagrantly offensive language could be adequately prohibited on the wiki, without either being either overly legalistic, overly restrictive, or creating some tedious new system for gaining consensus or arbitrating improper usage... --Morgan Blair 20:57, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Oh, my bad: that makes much more sense. Policy altered again - it's definitely in the hashing-it-out phase. I agree, it's a difficult thing to police, but I want this at least to be discussed, so thanks for your helpful contributions. You're right, "twat" is synonymous with "idiot" in the UK. My ears still prick up (ahem) when I hear people in the US talk openly about their "fannys", because where I grew up a fanny is a vagina, not a bottom. I would prefer to target obvious hate language designed to offend, such as that which is homophobic, sexist or racist. I don't actually believe in placing expletives in "language prison", and find colourful language perfectly normal. That is, fuckitty fuck fuckitty, I don't think is offensive. Maybe I'm onto a loser, here, due to the subjectivity thing. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:33, 18 May 2008 (BST)

It's interesting how 4 out of 6 of your "examples" are goons. Why not just call it the "VB Goons" policy? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:43, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I actually don't know what the "goons" are, although I've heard the term being used by other contributers. To be honest, I found those examples simply by visiting recent admin. pages and doing a page search for the term "fag". If it turns out that most of the examples are from individuals who belong to a group then that is not my doing. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:53, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Think of the Children!

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Think_about_the_children

This is a wiki for a game where you can shoot other people in the head with Shotguns. If you can't take being called a faggort you shouldn't be playing the game. If you can't do the mature and adult thing and just shrug your shoulders and ignore the abuse you shouldn't be playing the game--Thekooks 19:52, 18 May 2008 (BST)

There's a difference between in-character roleplaying (where violence is a part of the gameplay, as may be the trading of insults) and on-wiki, out of game discussions. Why are you saying it's "mature and adult" to accept homophobic abuse? You could easily lay the same argument at the door of the people using the abusive language: that they should do the "mature and adult" thing, and stop being deliberately offensive. That's a circular, chicken-and-egg argument. What you're really saying is that you support homophobia, and that everyone should learn to live with it, rather than protest against it. I disagree with your stance. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:12, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not homophobic.--Thekooks 20:57, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Good. But, you do find the use of homophobic language acceptable? --Funt Solo ^QT 21:36, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I'm thinking he at least has the maturity to respect people's right to express themselves. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:38, 18 May 2008 (BST)

That's the same circular argument: that it's mature to accept continual abuse. As my examples above show, this isn't a one-off reaction to a one-off incident. There's a clear movement towards full acceptance of homophobia on this wiki. Why would it be a sign of "maturity" to accept that? Are you saying it's immature of me to want to even discuss it? That just makes no sense to me: if that's what you're implying. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:55, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Many people who are not—in fact—homophobic (or racist, or sexist, etc.), by their use and/or acceptance of bigoted language, create an environment where genuinely harmful behavior is accepted as being "normal". I'm generally not too upset by people making random bigoted remarks that could potentially apply to me, because my typical attitude is that most other people on this planet are severely lacking in basic intelligence, a deficit that is only equaled by their staggering ignorance. But as the years of my life go by, the continually repeated hate and venom do begin to wear on me, despite my exaggeratedly low regard for the sources. So in the case of bigoted language—directed at any group—I have gained the maturity to recognize that it is absolutely intolerable in any circumstance, and must be decried and censured at every occurrence. Some may think that it is a mark of maturity to silently disregard public bigotry, but they are mistaken: their silence lends bigotry their approbation, when it should receive no such thing. --Morgan Blair 23:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Put far more eloquently than I could ever manage. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:54, 18 May 2008 (BST)

E/N -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:00, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Context

This is a very subjective thing. And open to abuse, for example I often joke around with people I know fairly well, sometimes being sexist and sometimes questioning their sexuality, generally having abit of banter. I don't want to be whisked off to a/vb.--Thekooks 19:52, 18 May 2008 (BST)

If it was banter with pals, you could explain that as part of the case, your pals would back you up and any sysop who punished you would be whisked off to Misconduct, so they wouldn't, so no problem. Common sense will out. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:14, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Thats far too much of a hassle. No way is that an exceptable answer in my book.--Thekooks 20:57, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Yet another version of the civility policy.... I firmly believe we need such a beast here, but good luck getting something through, sigh. In any event, to answer someone's objection to the impossibility of a "complete list", it's all about context. You don't need a list, you just need to be able to read and understand English. There would be guidelines... and sysops would follow them and make judgements much like they do a vandalism case... For example, we wouldn't ban BAD WORDS, but we should consider the use of offensive sexual or ethnic slurs in the context of a personal attack to be vandalism. Which would actually include someone using perfectly acceptable languge in a demeaning way -- and exclude the use of "bad words" in a manner which is obviously not intended to demean, e.g. thekooks' example of calling your friends "fags" or "bitches" or "yo! fuckface" ;P .... And, since it requires a target, the target can waive the penalty, so to speak, by saying they don't mind... --WanYao 21:22, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Problem is the current Sysop team would almost certaintly use it as an excuse to ban people they don't like.--Thekooks 23:00, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but that appears to be baseless conjecture. I can't see any benefit to individual sysops to openly try to rid the wiki of those they dislike. They'd surely find themselves in Misconduct and any abuse of their power overturned, don't you think? --Funt Solo ^QT 23:57, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I'm sure that nooooo sysop has evvvveerrr been put up in misconduct and gotten a slap on the wrist. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:02, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Well, that's a decision for Misconduct. The key point is that any user who was found to have been banned unfairly (which is unlikely, given our vandal escalation system), would be reinstated, if Misconduct had occured. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:09, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Where they would be let off by the sysop clique, like hagnat was in this case. All hail the all powerful clique because if you dont, they will fuck you over. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:12, 19 May 2008 (BST)

That case in particular (I'm glad you linked to it) is a key reason why some kind of civility policy or set of guidelines would be useful on this wiki. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:17, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Some people don't want this because it'd require them to act... ahem... like something other than 12-year olds in the locker room after gym class? Hmmmmn... Anywaaay... My "context" comment would address Grim's point, below, that people would be jerks in other ways, ways that don't involve crude language. Essentially, what's needed is a harassment policy. As oppossed to enforcing "civility" or banning bad words... Instead, a policy dealing with harassment of any and all sorts -- involving "bad words" or homophobic/sexist/racist slurs, or not. That doesn't censor people. It just puts something in place to deal with over-the-top, abusive shit. Perfectly reasonable... And I can't see why any rational, mature adult would oppose such a policy... --WanYao 07:16, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Moreover, I actually don't believe that being a jerk to someone in those "subtler" ways is anywhere near as damaging to the functioning of the wiki-community as offensive flaming/trolling is. Sure, the former may still hurt a user's feeling, waaaah cry... But its effect is pretty much isolated to that user, they're usually the only ones who'll notice it... and in any event, it can and should be brushed off, and it you can't, well, yeah: waaaaah. But the bullshit flaming and trolling, that affects EVERYONE who has to deal with it... It's anything but constructive and contributory, quite the opposite in fact. But, alas, the people who haven't got over their need to compensate for being bullied as kids and thus need to bully on the internet as "adults" ... won't let this fly ... And people think this is okay? Hmph ... --WanYao 07:26, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Jesus fuck WanYao, what is it with you and ellipses these days? Learn to use other grammatical structures, please. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:02, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Better

Liking it more.

So, I dont like what ive been called, i take it to vandal banning. Do I need to talk it out with the insulter first? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:41, 18 May 2008 (BST)

No, but you could. Reasonable people would probably warn the person to watch themselves, and point out the wiki policy. If it's a new contributer, they'll get an official warning (assuming the case is found against them), which they can easily work off under the current regulations. Really, it's only the same rules that exist in most institutions of society. What's key now is that it's directed, and not just casual, and there must be a complainant. This version doesn't put expletives in "language prison". --Funt Solo ^QT 21:50, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I've removed the "used to describe acts, or used as antilocution" part, to clarify the targeting aspect. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:54, 18 May 2008 (BST)

faggots

You fucking reactionary faggots, it's a fucking game holy shitballs. If you don't want to see fucking swear words, install netnanny on your computer and shut the fuck up. I WANT to be able to swear if I WANT to. Don't fucking tell me that this is a community edited resource for retards that can't handle reading a fucking word or phrase. "The Urban Dead wiki is a user-edited resource, containing factual information about the game of Urban Dead, and fictional in-character information about the players and groups within that game. As any user of the site can edit its contents, none of the information on this site should be considered to be 100% accurate or factual." -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:58, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Exactly. It's a game. Not a George Carlin monologue (as much as I love George Carlin....). Many games, and their forums/wikis/chats have rules, and even automagical censorship programs, in place to deal with offensive language. Compared to some of the games I have played and/or seen, the proposed policy is quite liberal. But since some apparently (or, we think....) fully adult people like to act like they're 6 year olds who just discovered a few new naughty words... well........ --WanYao 22:09, 18 May 2008 (BST)

To be honest, I was expecting the "faggots" post to occur sooner than this. Predictably, it's added nothing useful to the debate. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:16, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Sure it did. He's calling this out as being the over-reactionary & far-reaching BS that it is. Nothing overly dramatic occurred for the OP to submit this proposal. Rather, some cretin was bored & lonely one night & came up w/ this fuck-tarded idea, & submitted it for proposal in what was probably an ill-fated attempt to stroke his e-peen. Repeatedly stumbling upon wiki-debates such as this is become quite the bore. Stop attempting to police things that simply do not need policing. --Canker Sore^{|CK | GC | ZHU | MEM |} 22:40, 18 May 2008

Please, if you want to contribute to this discussion, try to refrain from being needlessly abusive, as it tends to cloud the point you're trying to make, which I think is that you don't see a need for this policy. I thought I made it clear further up in the discussion (with plentiful examples) that there is a trend of open homophobia on this wiki that I'm trying to combat with this policy proposal. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:00, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Say that again, but without the holier-than-thou faggotry. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 06:30, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I was already 10 once

This policy would turn the sysop team here into my mother when I was a kid. Next thing you know, they'll be telling you to stop picking your nose in public or not to walk around the house naked when company is over. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 22:13, 18 May 2008 (BST)

You're perhaps not reading the policy wording: in order for a sysop to act, a complaint must be brought by a targeted individual. The policy is about basic respect for your fellow contributers, not being parented. There's a difference. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:19, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I'm pretty sure sysops aren't allowed in your house. Besides there a difference between abuse and offensive abuse. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:21, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Respect is earned, not granted by policy you stupid twat. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:30, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Even if this policy was enacted, taking someone through VB is unlikely to gain respect. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:34, 18 May 2008 (BST)

One can respect another individual in a discussion by not being deliberately abusive or provocative. The phrase "respect is earned" does not apply neatly to every situation. Also, Grim, please refrain from being deliberately and needlessly abusive: it's not really adding anything helpful to the debate process. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:03, 19 May 2008 (BST)

No, but it does apply to this situation! Get the fuck out you gay nigger pedophile and don't come back until you've earned some respect. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 07:12, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Nobody's ever going to respect you you sorry annoying piece of shit. Maybe you should just fucking get used to it instead of crying and bitching about some kind of inalienable right you think you have for people not to call you out on being such a bleeding vagina subhuman moron when that's exactly what you're being. --Riseabove 03:38, 20 May 2008 (BST)

You sysops can't tell me what to do! I'll walk around my apartment naked if I want!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:35, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I do. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:36, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Just make sure its definately your apartment first. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:37, 18 May 2008 (BST)

I have. Though occasionally I walk out of my apartment into the main complex, it's only because I forget I'm nude. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:48, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Ah. Is that when the Sysops can get you? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:51, 18 May 2008 (BST)

No, because I know the land lord guy.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:53, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Once again, Civility enforced at swordpoint

As i said the last time civility policies were brought up (Aimed at me and my own vulgar ways then), you cannot enforce civility at the point of a sword and expect people to be civil, especially with just barring cuss words. What you get are the people with extensive vocabularies, like me, hitting other people with our bigger brains.

That said, enforcing civility just bottles up tensions between users until one or the other explodes and then we lose a user. Allowing people to take shots at each other, while not tasteful, is an important safety valve in communities that helps reduce burnout.

Also, enforced civility is stupid, and you are stupid for proposing it, though in the latter case, this is hardly new nor suprising. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:55, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Would you find it more acceptable if it was a set of guidelines, such as those that Wikipedia use? If we take the A/VB part out and create a set of guidelines, then there's something solid for arbitration to work with. Also, I ask, for a third time, can you please refrain from being needlessly abusive, as it's not really adding anything to the discussion. Is it really "stupid" to attempt to remove homophobic abuse from this wiki? I've stated several times that is my core aim, here. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:07, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Faggot is being used here as a general insult, not as a statement of homophobia, so drop the fucking homophobic comments already, and no, i will not support any form of enforced civility. You are just giving sysops carte blanche to conduct a purge of anyone who isnt on their knees and giving them some oral gratification. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:16, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not attempting to give "sysops carte blanche": in fact, I just suggested a system of arbitration instead. There's certainly no suggestion of any sexual favours being required, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. And the continual use of a well understood derogatory term for homosexuals is homophobic: I'm not sure why you're claiming it's not. I found it helpful to look up "antilocution", to better understand the philosophy, so you might do the same. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:21, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Not attempting to, but apparently, unknowingly are. And the sexual reference comes from the fact that we're going to have to be face fucked if we don't want to get b&.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:25, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The current wording of the policy suggests A/VB as a solution, but see my first reply to Grim in this section, where I suggest reform of this policy to involve a set of guidelines from which to base arbitration rulings on. Would you find that more acceptable? (All I'm suggesting is that we adopt some simple netiquette/wikiquette/etiquette: I'm not really sure why anyone would be dead set against it.) --Funt Solo ^QT 00:36, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The beauty of Arby's is that we don't need a set of guidelines to deal with stuff like this. If somebody finds a comment directed at them to be offensive, they can start up a case. You're trying to fix a problem that is already solved. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:49, 19 May 2008 (BST)

No, arbitration is not a good solution at the moment because the result of any given case will be down to the opinion of the arbitrator, rather than an actual policy of this wiki. If we look at this discussion, we might imagine that if Grim were arbitrating a case where someone complained about an abusive contributer, he might well tell the complainant to grow a thicker skin. On the other hand, if HonestMistake were arbitrating, one might expect a more balanced judgement where the complaint was recognised as valid. Without a set of guidelines, there's no path for consistency. --Funt Solo ^QT 10:56, 19 May 2008 (BST)

So... lesson learned is to pick the right arbitrator. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:12, 19 May 2008 (BST)

That's hardly encouraging, as there's no path for consistency. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:24, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Pick the same arbitrator again the next time? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:32, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Cyberbob, there's no path for consistency for a new user, then, who doesn't know which one to pick. Just look what happened to the unfortunately named TerminalFailure. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:07, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but you just cannot use TerminalFailure as a typical example. His levels of idiocy and deliberately antagonistic behaviour (which is largely what lost him that case) go beyond that of any sort of reasonable standard. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:26, 19 May 2008 (BST)

If you wanted consistency, you should get rid of the subjectivity in the policy, otherwise its always going to come down to a judgement call, which depending on how the clique feels about you, will either be your doom or deliverance regardless of what your alleged violation was. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:39, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Never attribute to malice what can be counted as ignorance. It's not being done as a homophobic remark you dumb fuck, we're using it as a general insult towards faggots like you. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 06:36, 19 May 2008 (BST)

In the real world ignorance of that sort would see you on the wrong side of a damn good kicking. Would you call someone a "faggot" if you were surrounded by gay men? How about shouting "Nigger" in an all black area of town? In fact would you be anything other than polite to a stranger until you had a feeling for how he might react to your insults? Because I will give you pretty much any odds you like that no matter how big or how tough you think you are, handing out abuse in the way that some folk here like to do would end up with you eating hospital food!--Honestmistake 09:40, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Nice subtle way of saying everyone here is gay. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 22:40, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Any policy or guideline that relies on Arbies is doomed, these days bringing a case is almost the same as asking to be hounded off the wiki! Last time this came up it faced all the same responses and it will again next time (and the time after that) I long since came to the conclusion that until the day arrives where you can be beaten up over the internet any civillity policy is going to fall flat here. Some people are jerks, put them in a real social situation and the same morons that find the word Faggot to be their favourite response will almost certainly be polite. Why? Because in the real world talking to people like that will get the shit kicked out of you, here on the internet they are safe in their moms house and feel they can say what they want. It makes them look like immature twats but there is little you can do about it because there are a lot of them and they want to be twats and they will vote down any attempt to stop them. --Honestmistake 09:40, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Don't be retarded and pick the right arbitrator then. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:49, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Wikiquette

See the link in the heading. Would something like that be more acceptable to people as a first step? (Note that there is no A/VB in such a system, and Arbitration is a last resort.) --Funt Solo ^QT 00:59, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Outlawing intolerance increases tolerance?

No, not really. It doesnt follow that people will become more tolerant if intolerance is outlawed, it just means that people will be less vocally intolerant. Instead of calling people, as an extreme example, "black jews" and insulting them for it, they will simply not mention the black jews part and be all brusque and rude to them, either ignoring their questions, or dismissing their requests etc. There are an awful lot of ways to hurt peoples feelings, especially if they are sensitive enough to want something like this.

Since the purpose of this policy is, as stated is to promote tolerance and it does so by outlawing anything deemed intolerant, it fails its stated goal, since outlawing intolerance just moves the intolerance into the background where people cant see it and deal with it rather than getting rid of the intolerance itself. It becomes hidden by new facades that cannot be easily stripped away. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:09, 19 May 2008 (BST)

There are degrees of tolerance: it's not a black and white issue. I know that there is an argument that to be truly tolerant, one must tolerate the intolerant. However, this wiki, like any institution, can bring in regulations to halt the use of, for example, open racism, without causing society as a whole to crumble by driving racism underground. You seem to be arguing that anything goes, but you know well that's simply not the case in most public places: and this wiki is a public place. What is the benefit of continuing to allow open racism and homophobia on this wiki, Grim: I ask you that? --Funt Solo ^QT 09:50, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I never said it was black and white. What i said was that any attempt to illegalise overt intolerance will only eliminate overt intolerance. The end rsult is people being rude because they are intolerant, but no way to prove its intolerance rather than them just being dicks or just plain not liking the person. As a result, banning intolerance does nothing of the sort, it just moves it from something everyone can see into something that fuels sniping instead of being the sniping. When people are genmuinely being intolerant even an amatuer can flame them off successfully because the ground is so favourable for that, or even better, a bunch of people can retaliate and hound the intolerant person off. Doing this is far more educational, as it states rather definitively that such crap is not wanted by the community and will get you torched, whereas setting it up as a rule will be seen as a challenge to rule breakers, and open season for trolls. Besides, your banning of intolerance is in itself intolerant of intolerance itself and thus a violation of the policy. Lets see you resolve that paradox. After all, how can you expect to promote tolerance when you are yourself intolerant of the opinions of others? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:29, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Of course I recognise the paradox: I mentioned it myself in my reply to you, right above your comment here. Of course, I was suggesting promoting tolerance of homosexuality by policing intolerance of homosexuality: and there, there is no paradox. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:31, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Your definition for policing is exactly the same as persecuting, which is pretty much intolerance incarnate. You cannot promote tolerance by instituting intolerance. It doesnt follow, all you get is people feeling bitter and victimised by a system. Just because they are morally wrong doesnt make it any less wrong morally to do the same to them. The problem with an eye for an eye is that sooner or later everyone ends up blind. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:51, 19 May 2008 (BST)

You're equating the punishment with the crime, which leads to a false conclusion. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:18, 19 May 2008 (BST)

How about instead of making an obscure ipse dixit you try backing up such a patently absurd assertion? I have explained the contradiction inherent in your proposal quite clearly, an unresolvable paradox if ever i saw one. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:32, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I thought it was obvious enough not to require a full explanation. Take the policing of murder as an example, and let's assume that everyone guilty of murder is caught and executed. It is not then true to say that everyone in the given society will either be murdered or executed for murder. Therefore, the non sequitur you use ("the problem with an eye for an eye is that sooner or later everyone ends up blind") is a false conclusion to your point, which itself is based on the same flawed logic of generalities and assumptions. For example: "all you get is people feeling bitter and victimised by a system" is another conclusion that does not follow on logically from the point preceeding it, as there is no way to determine that what you propose will be the case, unless you have some evidence not shown here to back up your supposition. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:04, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Ah, i see your mistakes now. You stupidly assumed the offhand comment poking fun at your paradoxical "Intolerance against intolerant users promotes tolerance" at the end was an argument. It wasnt, it was pretty much declaring that your stance is essentially the same as an eye for an eye, and the fact that its a recursive paradox means that you end up in a fucked up cycle, where any attempt at enforcing the policy is actually breaking the policy (Though you are choosing not to see this, thus far you have offered no way out of the paradox i have pointed out, just tried weasel words to pretend it wasnt there). If you are instituting intolerance of intolerance those people who are intolerant will be persecuted by the hypocritical double standard being used on them and they will get bitter and vengeful, they will, rightly, feel victimised because, to be frank, its a pretty stupid policy. Now funt, given your posting history, im not seriously expecting you to even try and properly resolve this paradox, but id most definately like to see you do something other than try and make it look like it doesnt exist by playing word games. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:13, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I'll add this point, as well: the person using hate-speech cannot be equated with the person who wishes them not to. One person is deliberately and wantonly causing harm, the other is trying to stop it. You can apply this to any crime: the murderer cannot be equated with the person who wishes them not to murder. Stopping a crime is not the same as commiting a crime. I don't think I can make it much clearer that there simply is no double standard, as you continue to assert.

I am fully aware of the philosophical paradox of being intolerant of people who are themselves intolerant, but as soon as one attaches more complex (realistic) labels to those people, the paradox dissolves quite neatly. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:27, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Oh, and please stop with the ad hominem attacks, as I'm only arguing a point of logic. Your poisoning of the well is not necessary or welcome. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:30, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Grim is not making any ad hominem attacks. I think you need to recheck your definitions. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:35, 19 May 2008 (BST)

He referred to my "posting history", as if referring to it at all lent weight and credence to his argument. It was a classic ad hominem attack, actually: wouldn't be out of place in a text book on the subject. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:59, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I did refer to your posting history, though not as an attempt to lend credence to my argument, but to call you on behaviour you have demonstrated in other confrontations with me before my hiatus, as well as what seemed to be starting here. The jury is still out on that. I just wanted to get it out in the open that you have a history. Just so you know, while arguing at the person is generally fallacious, it is not always invalid. This is one of those occasions as it refers to a clear and demonstrable personality trait of yours that directly impedes any debate or discussion with you. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:18, 19 May 2008 (BST)

No, it's an ad hominem argument, because it's foundless. Just because I have disagreed with you in the past, it does not logically follow that my arguments are incorrect, or that my logic is flawed. All it does prove, is that we've had disagreements in the past. Your personal opinion of me, and mine of you, is neither here nor there. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:53, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Please learn to spot the difference between a statement and an argument, it helps you look like you have a clue. As for the history, well, off the top of my head there is your conduct here. Theres a lot more, but im tired. That was in the middle of your vicious "jump on grim for whatever reason" phase. I still have no idea what inspired such vitriol. Maybe i Pked you? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:58, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I remember it rather differently, as you having a vendetta against Hagnat because he went against you in an A/VB case, and attacking me for pointing out a policy that would discredit one of your mean-spirited raft of Misconduct cases against him. We really are off topic now, though - and it's a subject perhaps best left out of this discussion, as it's not really relevant. Oh, and you're back in ad hominem territory with the "helps you look like you have a clue" statement, attached to a poor point about semantics. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:13, 19 May 2008 (BST)

That was not an ad hominem attack, you pathetic twat. Look up the fucking meaning before attempting to use it again. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:28, 19 May 2008 (BST)

As Cyberbob, please learn what is and what isnt ad hominem and learn the exceptions to the rule, you will see mine neatly slots into the exception column. The evidence has been presented to back up my comment regarding your debate habits. You can deny them, but its pretty damned hard to refute what amounts to a recording of you doing exactly what i say you do. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:39, 20 May 2008 (BST)

"The "ten hour debate" weakened my trust in him, further conversations have killed it. He is incapable of seeing viewpoints other then his own". --Funt Solo ^QT 10:05, 20 May 2008 (BST)

One person is using his right to voice his opinion, and others are punishing him for using that right. Its still persecution, and your rewording doesnt change that fact, it only hides it from a cursory examination. As for the paradox, you have not detailed how it dissapears, you have merely stuck with your initial ipse dixit and carried on as though there is nothing wrong at all in the world of funt. I have already countered your example by applying equally valid terms to the problem that serve to heighten the visibility of the paradox i have pointed out. The fact remains that fundamentally the policy is paradoxical and any attempt to enforce it would be a violation, and any half measures to try and force it to work would be hypocricy of the highest order. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:39, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The crime does not equal the punishment: therefore there is no paradox. It's quite simple. I've given various examples. That you refuse to accept it, means that we'll have to agree to disagree, or we will argue in circles. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:46, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The relative scale of the crime and punishment have nothing to do with the nature of the paradox. The mere fact that there is punishment is enough for the paradox to exist. So long as you are punishing people for being intolerant, you are being intolerant. The size of the crime is irrelevant, since its the same kind of thing regardless, and the scale of the punishment is irrelevant because all that matters is that there is a punishment. When applying this construct as an attempt to increase tolerance you are stuck. Your attempts to weasel out of it are doing nothing but fuel my amusement. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:50, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Ah, perhaps I misunderstood your angle: I thought that you were using the paradox to argue against this policy, and not just to amuse yourself. I have already agreed that, philosophically, the paradox is of course there. What I have been trying to point out (although perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough) is that the paradox does not impact on the policy. That is: it would not manifest itself, were the policy to pass (unlikely as that may be). Under the wording of the policy, someone guilty of intolerance could not then have their punisher punished for being intolerant of them. That is the point I was trying to get across. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:59, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Actually, they could, because thats the nature of the policy. You may not like it, but its just as justifiable, though it ropes in the ruling sysop as well for agreeing on that intolerance and actually enforcing the punishment, the reporter would be reporting the intolerance of the first party anjd thus be performing an act of intolerance of that persons opinion. Its all very, very messy. The idea you seem to be having is one of extreme hypocricy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:09, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not talking about the abstract nature of the policy: I'm talking about the actual wording of it, under which what you describe is simply not possible. Please, go and re-read it, because I'm confused as to why you think it is possible. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:48, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Under the exact wording of it, you get something impossible to punish. other have brought it up before, but as they said, its more than possible to be rude and abrasive without crossing those things. You end up having to block intolerance itself, or turn it into a weird kind of civility policy which, as i pointed out in another section, wont work when enforced at the point of a sword, not to mention such policies have been historically unwelcome here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:52, 19 May 2008 (BST)

I take your points about it being unwelcome: I think even a cursory glance at the headings on this page let us all know the general feeling. However, it's not impossible to punish under the current wording: in fact it's probably far too easy to punish under the current wording. If I were to call someone a "stupid fuck", I could be punished, because any dictionary chosen would list it as being offensive. However, perhaps that is another topic, as we seem to have exhausted the discussion of the supposed or apparent paradox. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:04, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Perhaps i was unclear, what i was trying to say is that the intolerance you are trying to punish with this policy is unpunishable with this policy because it depenmds on specific words when anyone with even a marginal vocabulary can get those same intolerant messages across without hitting on genuinely offensive language. Besides, with the language continuing to change at a great rate of speed, parts of your unlawful words list (If it ever shows up) would no longer be offensive within a couple of years, and new words would move in. Besides, suppressing one word just means that we would invent new words to carry the same meaning. You get the same problem. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:39, 20 May 2008 (BST)

In my opinion, calling someone a "retarded furry faggot" is less offensive than saying "No homosexuals are allowed in my survivor group, thank you. If you are one, and it comes to my attention, you will be kicked out." I feel this way because genuine homophobia (no matter how politely phrased) offends me. However, I would not consider it to be violating any banned "dictionary" words, nor do I support official arbitration/punishment against someone who wants to make a straights-only club (though I'd support trolling the fuck out of them, on a personal level). On the other hand, calling someone a "retarded furry faggot" is usually just the result of someone reaching blindly into a grab-bag of insults to say something with the intent of hurting the other person's feelings, or perhaps just making them pissed off. I personally am not offended by other people being mean, and thus couldn't care less if someone says something rude to another person.

Which would you consider more or less tolerant? Which scenario is more "deserving" of arbitration? Discuss. What if it was a "Hardcore Christians only, please. We don't welcome others into our group." club? Still allowed? Not allowed? What prevents that from being religious discrimination, if you ban it? Banning it will offend all its members.

Discuss. --Colbear 11:48, 19 May 2008 (BST) (Sorry about the edit chains, I'm a moron who forgets indents.)

You're making a lot of sense, Colbear. I'll probably switch to a civility policy, rather than trying to police generally offensive language (which was never really my key aim). --Funt Solo ^QT 12:31, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Then it will fail (not that it won't anyway), as did its countless forebears. Sorry. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:46, 19 May 2008 (BST)

A fuckin' shit idea.

i'm so lol.--xoxo 10:12, 19 May 2008 (BST)

WHINE WHINE WHINE THEY'RE BEING MEAN TO ME

This is a terribly whiny idea, and encourages people to bitch and whine if they don't feel they're being treated as nicely as they want. Where do you draw the line? Arbitrary words aren't going to help--if you ban calling someone a faggot, what stops them from calling them a *insert "codeword" here*. What makes, "loln00b" worse than "lolfaggot" worse than "fuck off and die"? Ban them all? Okay, then what about "go jump off a cliff"?

Ban "offensive" stuff? What prevents "I don't like his tone", or "I think he's being sarcastic at me", or "this is condescending", or "I don't like it when he talks to me it makes me feel bad about myself and now I have to whine about it baaaaawwwww", or even "I'm offended when people talk about killing me. Make the zombies go away and never talk about murder again."? Terrible, shitty, retarded idea. Not only is it fucking stupid to see this as a "problem", it's also proposing a completely retarded way of preventing/dealing with it--seriously, banning people because they hurt someone's feelings? Why?

This isn't supposed to be a carebear game, and I don't see why the community should roll over and let the people who whine the loudest and cry the hardest get the most say. And while yes, civility and politeness is nice and makes people happy, it's not exactly enforcable unless someone's being deliberately abusive--at which point you can bitch about harassment instead. Whoever thought a "dictionary" of banned terms would do anything but be nonsense should just go die in a fire.--Colbear 11:36, 19 May 2008 (BST)

The idea was that we would link to an already existing dictionary, which notes whether particular words are "vulgar" or "offensive". Only those words would count. This is largely dependant on dictionary. I'm not trying to sway you into thinking it's a great idea (you've made your position quite clear), but just pointing out that it was not (in the current form) supposed to tackle things like sarcasm, or insults that don't utilise vulgarity to achieve their objective. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:23, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Then it's a shitty idea. Banning words doesn't ban the sentiment behind them. "Please go die in a fire, you inbred troll,", for example, is about as offensive as calling someone a retard or a faggot. Therefore, this policy wouldn't DO anything. It wouldn't make people more respectful of each other, it wouldn't keep people from saying mean things to each other, and it would certainly not promote tolerance.

So what's the point? --Colbear 23:53, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Doubleplusungood

By removing the ability to articulate offensive thought, we remove offensive thought! Genius, by god. I look forward to the new era of hand-holding and clearthought by citizen Funt Solo and wish our forces well in their offensive against Eurasia, or was it Eastasia? Victory gin all round. --Deadtanian 15:03, 19 May 2008 (BST)

• Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia. Redead13 17:37, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Pointless

This is a bad idea - like, a monumentally stupid one - and I'm perfectly willing to say that. I wonder if it would be possible for people to stop trying to add new, arcane, pointless, and stupid rules and policies to this wiki? Hrm. I think I'll make a policy about that.--Jorm 16:46, 19 May 2008 (BST)

Chill out

Words are only as powerful as you make them. If I called you a flaming dick sucking cum dumpster with daddy issues, and that resulted in your being offended, it is not my words themselves that offend you, rather it is you who gets offended at my words. Adjust your attitudes, not my choice of language. --#19 - DrPain ^TMG 01:11, 20 May 2008 (BST)

Offensive Language

This has already been attempted. lol. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:22, 20 May 2008 (BST)

I found more [[1]] [[2]]. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:35, 20 May 2008 (BST)