Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
(I'll give you a hint - the rule against swearing was created before anyone had swore on the forums)
Well, let's see. Do you get treated like a child on these forums when you don't do anything wrong? I certainly don't. So the only times you would possibly be treated like a child is if you had done something wrong. That means that being treated like a child is the effect, with acting like one being the cause.
A friend of mine, reading the site, wishes to add the following:
I agree with this comment, and I wish to add. This site has evolved far beyond being "Thunderfall's House". It has become the basis for a wide variety of mod teams. Without many of which we might not exist today. But we do. And we have a voice. If you choose to ignore it, so be it. Camikaze, if you wish to reply to him personally, PM me.
I do not think that this discussion needs to go to PMs. Nice of your friend to comment on the thread, and may I congratulate him or her on being able to extrapolate someone's entire political viewpoint from an avatar.
Look, I am not saying that the government should make swearing illegal, or anything ridiculous like that. I am saying that no swearing on a forum, a forum that is privately owned, is not too much to ask.
Thunderfall. Moderators decide. Simple?
Who determines the rules? How do you know if someone is following the rules or not ?
Everyone determines Karma, by how they post and how that post is received by the community. And if you feel someone is abusing the system, you inform the moderators of that fact and they investigate.
This is what moderators are for. The same system functions extremely well on any number of forums; There is no reason it would fail here.
This is what causes me confusion. Two contradictory answers. Is a karma system whereby the moderators decide your 'karma', or 'reputation', being proposed, or is a system whereby users decide your 'karma' being proposed? If it is the former, how would that be any different to what we currently have, particularly as it relates to swearing? If it is the latter, how would you protect against abuse and prevent elitism from creeping into the system? And how would reporting posts factor into the system in this case, given that users cannot see reports? And how would it actually prevent people from swearing?
The rule against profanity came before profanity was ever used. Therefore, we were never given a chance to prove that we could behave maturely.
So if there was no rule against profanity, no profanity would exist in the forums? That seems to be an odd assumption.
Oh, your forum rules are universal truth now, but just theory in the previous question ?
I would personally expect that to encompass less than a quarter of those who will curse. The others are those either actively wanting to, or mad enough to ignore the filter.
However, neither of has any firm data. So let us simply say that it will not stop those who do not wish to be stopped.
But you acknowledge that this autocensor will at least stop some people from swearing. It's a matter of whether the added impoliteness from indignant posters made at the forum for taking away their free speech outweighs the impoliteness prevented in this manner.
On the other hand, being able to rate up/down posts (IE, Karma) allows the community to rapidly eliminate undesirable posts which contain such content... Meaning those who wish to post such content will be stopped anyway, whether they like it or not.
How would up and down voting posts actually eliminate it? It would simply tell people that it is not considered acceptable to swear (assuming posts containing swearing were always down voted in the first place), which the forum rules do anyway. No one is going to be stopped from posting profanity anymore than they currently are.
Because it is not always childish. There are times when profanity gets a point across in a way that cannot be carried otherwise; There are also times when the word is not profane at all, which would be filtered anyway in the current system. This would not exist in a community-driven censorship system, as with humans behind it context can actually be picked up.
I dispute the claim that there are sometimes not better ways to get your point across. I for one have never had a need to resort to using profanity.
Context is important to some words, such as the one commonly in the same sentence as 'armour', but there are some words (the more notable and versatile swear words spring to mind) where there is no context in which it should be deemed acceptable to post. Context isn't important for these words, because no matter what the situation is, it isn't appropriate to post it.
No. The system insults me by it's very existence on this forum. I treat others with respect, and I feel I have every right to expect the same in return. Knowing that such a heavy handed system is hanging over the head of anyone frequenting this forum is repugnant to me.
As I have said, I do not care if I trip it or not. My opinion of it will not change. It is vile. It is repugnant. It leaves us assured that the moderators consider us naughty children who cannot be trusted to post without having a nanny give it the once over.
I can see where you're coming from here, but I think you're taking it the wrong way. This system should not make you feel like you are not being treated with respect, because it is targeted solely at those who use profanity. If you do not use profanity, it is not targeted at you at all. The moderators are not saying that you are a naughty child who can't be trusted to post without having your post looked over. They are saying that those who swear are. And the moment you introduce profanity into your post, perhaps the moderators have a good reason for not thinking you can post.
I myself am greatly opposed to collective punishment as moderator policy (in fact, I wrote quite a lengthy post about a month or so back stressing the importance of moving away from collective punishment). But this isn't actually preventing anyone from doing anything if they stick to the forum rules. It is only when you are doing something wrong that this rule affects you.
I wasn't directing that at you specifically, haven't really seen you do it.
The point remains that the first three or so pages are filled with it.
Edit: It is also a large reason I am posting in the manner I am. Such attacks are absolutely, blatantly unnecessary and as opposed to the idea of a polite atmosphere as cursing is. They have no place here, emphatically so amongst the moderators.
This is something we can certainly agree upon.
Yet it illustrates the point nicely, and shows quite effectively why several of us vehemently dislike this system. If it is desire of the community to prevent cursing, that is perfectly fine to me... But doing so in such a heavy handed manner is both undesirable and repugnant.
Perhaps the Hitler analogy is representative of what the opposition think of this system, but it falls down when you remember that this is a private forum in which it has been made very clear that free speech does not apply. And considering that you aren't affected by this unless you are actually doing something wrong, I don't really see how it is heavy handed.
There are better methods. There have been better methods for years. If the point of this thread is to discuss the changes made, then alternatives can and should be discussed here, rather than have easily avoided/dealt with flaws be thrown at it in order to prevent said discussion from taking place.
There are better methods in use on any number of forums. On any number of far larger, far more active forums. If they work there, there is no possible reason they will not function here.
I don't see how the karma system proposed is a better method. Particularly if success is measured by how much profanity is posted.
Anyway, it's been nice discussing.
