Music and profanity

[Mise]

Please note that the forum rules (specifically the section on 'what is not allowed', including the 'inappropriate content' and 'inappropriate language' sub-sections) have been altered. The biggest change, and the change most relevant to this thread, is to 'inappropriate language':

Thanks, that looks fantastic!

 

[Camikaze]

I don't care about the Civ forums. People rarely post videos of any kind there, and I don't need a lecture on things I've known for years, thank you.

In other words, if I were to post an OP on a topic I would like taken seriously (ie. a science documentary series) and someone posts a video that's trollish, spammy, contains inappropriate language (one or any of them in combination), the moderators might take action if they deem it inappropriate, and who cares about the OP's opinion.

Got it.

My answer was for the benefit of all readers, so was more comprehensive than you individually may have required.

If someone posts a trollish or spammy video, it will be dealt with under the existing trolling or spam rules. You are correct, however, in identifying the moderators as the people who would make a decision on the matter. If an OP reports a post for trolling, it isn't automatically infracted just because the OP doesn't like it. Rather, moderators look at the post in terms of whether it breaks the forum rules. This will continue to be the case for inappropriate language. If someone posts a video containing some inappropriate language, and if it is not gratuitous, and if it is properly marked as 'NSFW', the complaint of the OP does not render it rule-breaking. If the OP makes it clear that they don't want such videos, and it appears the poster has posted the video simply to annoy the OP, that would be trolling.

__________

The important phrase from the rules to remember when thinking about posting something containing inappropriate language is 'so long as it is not gratuitous or completely out of step with the family-friendly nature of the forums'. The rules then state that 'Gratuitousness will be determined by the moderators on a case by case basis, but as a general guide, any inappropriate language should be incidental to the linked content, or in keeping with a spirit of civil and productive discussion'. To pre-emptively provide a bit more guidance in that regard:

• Posting a video in one of the serial music threads does not contribute to productive discussion, because they're not discussion threads. So inappropriate language in those videos will more likely be gratuitous than if you post the same video in a relevant discussion. The more civil and productive the discussion, and the more relevant the video, the less likely the language therein is going to be considered gratuitous.
• The above doesn't mean that anything goes so long as it's relevant. The exception to the one-click rule is still subordinated to the principle of this site as a family-friendly place. Directly relevant to this thread, you will still have to be selective about what music you post. Every second word being swearing will be considered gratuitous, no matter the relevance.
• It may be that even one instance of some particular words (e.g. racial slurs) is considered gratuitous, depending on the context.
• Because the inappropriate language must be incidental, you can't, for instance, link to a discussion centred around a particular swear word. The intent of the rule change is that you're able to link to an article on a topic, completely unrelated to the inappropriateness of certain language, which happens to include some inappropriate language.

 

[schlaufuchs]

So tl;dr:

NWA, Dr. Dre: still not ok.

Nas, Kanye West: probably ok.

Wu Tang Clan, Notorious B.I.G.: borderline

Is that correct?

 

[Camikaze]

I dunno, but theoretically, yeah, some will probably be okay, and some probably won't.

 

[Hygro]

Alright this looks promising.

 

[Zelig]

Yes of course, that should be mandatory. NSFW warnings are commonplace on the internet now anyway, so nothing people haven't come across before.

No need, Youtube terms of use cover this for us already:

12. Ability to Accept Terms of Service

You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in these Terms of Service, and to abide by and comply with these Terms of Service. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as the Service is not intended for children under 13. If you are under 13 years of age, then please do not use the Service. There are lots of other great web sites for you. Talk to your parents about what sites are appropriate for you.

 

[ori]

How does that cover whether something is suitable for work? Or family friendly in the context of this forum?

 

[s.bernbaum]

Youtube's terms of use #12, as quoted above, do exactly the opposite. The quote essentially says "this site is NOT family friendly, so go away if that is what you want"!

 

[schlaufuchs]

Youtube's terms of use #12, as quoted above, do exactly the opposite. The quote essentially says "this site is NOT family friendly, so go away if that is what you want"!

I think what he's saying is that because that's what the Terms and Conditions explicitly state, all youtube videos thereby have an implicit NSFW tag and anytime you press play on a youtube video, whether it's embedded in a "family friendly" forum or not, you have to assume it could be NSFW, and are, in fact, making that assumption as far as youtube is concerned from a legal standpoint.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think what he's saying is that because that's what the Terms and Conditions explicitly state, all youtube videos thereby have an implicit NSFW tag and anytime you press play on a youtube video, whether it's embedded in a "family friendly" forum or not, you have to assume it could be NSFW, and are, in fact, making that assumption as far as youtube is concerned from a legal standpoint.

By this logic, we have to assume that every post on CFC is NSFW, since you can't legally join unless you're at least 13 years old.

 

[schlaufuchs]

By this logic, we have to assume that every post on CFC is NSFW, since you can't legally join unless you're at least 13 years old.

No we don't. But by this logic we do have to assume every post on CFC is PG-13. Which it more or less is.

 

[Camikaze]

People should be able to assume that everything on this site will be family-friendly, and we enforce the rules so as to ensure the safety of that assumption. The prima facie presumption that a video on youtube may contain NSFW content is displaced through the act of posting it on a site where the previously mentioned assumption safely operates. As such, a further disclaimer is required to reinstate what would otherwise be the prima facie presumption of a youtube video's potential NSFWness.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

People should be able to assume that everything on this site will be family-friendly, and we enforce the rules so as to ensure the safety of that assumption.

Uh-huh. That's why I completely approve of everything in the "humor and jokes" section of this forum and loved the spam video somebody posted in the Cosmos thread that I'd intended to be a serious, respectful discussion.

'Cause it's all 100% family friendly and I wouldn't hesitate to show all of it to my neighbors' kids - all of whom are under the age of 11.

 

[Zack]

Uh-huh. That's why I completely approve of everything in the "humor and jokes" section of this forum and loved the spam video somebody posted in the Cosmos thread that I'd intended to be a serious, respectful discussion.

'Cause it's all 100% family friendly and I wouldn't hesitate to show all of it to my neighbors' kids - all of whom are under the age of 11.

Show them the babe thread first.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The babe threads actually do have rules that are usually enforced, although they should probably be reviewed every so often (at least that was my experience during my time on staff; since I am no longer required to be aware of the contents of those threads, I haven't bothered looking at them).

I think the staff needs to be more vigilant regarding family-friendly content, or ensuring that if something isn't family-friendly, it's at least properly labeled as being NSFW (or Not Safe For Kids). The minimum age for this forum is 13, but there's a lot of stuff on this site I wouldn't find suitable for anyone under 18.

Actually, there's stuff here I don't consider suitable for anyone at all - at least anyone with a functioning conscience, but that's another issue.

 

[Zack]

I don't understand why the babe threads are allowed but we can't swear.

 

[Mise]

I think the babe thread is a relic of an earlier age of CFC and the internet more generally. It's hugely anomalous on an otherwise family-friendly forum.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I think the babe thread is a relic of an earlier age of CFC and the internet more generally.

As is the swearing policy.

 

[ori]

confining questionably behavior to specific threads is quite a bit different from allowing other questionable behavior everywhere.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As is the swearing policy.

I used to be on a forum where they allowed unlimited swearing, but you'd get infracted for asking someone why they thought what they did (ie. I don't understand the appeal of <insert name of TV character>; why do you like him/her), and smileys and even the quote function were disabled. It gets ridiculous when some posts consist of nothing but variations of the same word that starts with the 6th letter of the English alphabet. And it adds absolutely nothing to fostering civil conversation, let alone productive discussion. I finally left that site in utter disgust.

I'm curious as to when the word filters here were last reviewed and if there are plans to review them in the near future. There are some normal words that are currently not allowed because in some instances they could be used inappropriately - yet this hinders discussion of perfectly acceptable topics relating to armor, log cabins, and botany. It seems to me that the fairest solution would be to remove them from the filtered words list, infract inappropriate uses, and let the normal uses stand.