Originally Posted by Nippelspanner (Post 2394397)

That is basically my whole point.
I totally understand why we can't write out certain words and although I was tempted to do it a million times by now, I prefer not to litter Subsim with this and to read mostly 'clean' posts.
Also, I agree with this rule since it makes a moderators job easier.
For example.
A new forum member arrives and goes crazy with these words.
Most people, including me, would consider this rude and "unfit" for Subsim, so a mod could point to the rules and act if necessary.
This would not be possible with a 4chan-like "everything goes" rule-set.

However, I do not see the point why I can't write ****!
Where is the harm?

I didn't write anything bad.
At best I gave everyone a puzzle open for interpretation.
Really, I can't think of any reason why the use of masking would not be allowed, it just makes no sense at all to me.



I feel you missed my actual point.
My point is not "let's cuss away!", my point is "let's not be silly!".
Things need to be balanced. If they are extreme in one direction or the other, they become crap. This goes for language too, in my opinion.

Honestly, implying or blaming people who use cuss-words of being "uncivilized" and immediately pointing towards one of the absolute extremes (Howard Stern, who is far from uncivilized btw!) is a little lazy, especially when applying a meme that actually defends one of the worst radical liars, bigots and hypocrites of our time.
You know, Stern might cuss like a sailor and sure crossed a line or two in his career when we talk taste, but he doesn't fake anything, is honest and I heard more wisdom coming out of his mouth in the 2-3 shows I have seen with him than out of Trumps dirty lying gush since...ever, so I wonder how accurate and therefore valid your examples actually are.

Which is something our species claims since way back to the early days of the Roman Empire... and we still don't have sex with our lawnmowers... well OK some actually do but come on, you get my point.
Cussing like a mad sailor doesn't make you uncivilized, it also doesn't say anything about your parents or how you have been raised.
While it is true that parents don't take enough responsibility for their kids anymore these days (just talk to ANY teacher...), they can't be blamed to 100% and how one expresses himself is just one tiny individual aspect that will be influenced by everything we do and learn for all our lives.
Just saying "cussing -> road to damnation" is a little too shallow, too easy for my taste.
Over my years here, I read some very disturbing posts full of hate, bigotry and inhumane opinions... they did not contain a single sign of foul language, yet also not any sign of being civilized at all when serious suggestions appeared to drop nuclear weapons on the middle east to be done with it already, for example.

Also, how "civilized" (highly subjective) are we if we are so strict over things ("masking" and maybe rare/soft cussing) that censoring it and/or punishing the poster becomes more important than the actual message?

Is a post someone creates automatically less true, less important, less funny or less thought-provoking - because the OP used some foul language?
Is a post automatically better because someone did not?

A painting doesn't get awesome because I use super expensive paint.
And it won't become crap just because I use low-quality paint - it is still up to me and what I do with it.
In the end, it depends on the poster and what he does with his words.
(I suck with analogies and such, sorry... sorry. :shifty:)

Guess we're in the same club then, no doubt! :yep:
However, I don't follow up with this if=then logic, as if only because we allow masking or even "light cussing" (example), we will end up like non-moderated YT channels.
This reminds me of the logic of some people when the gay-marriage debate was going on, painting pictures of Sodom and Gomorrah and Dooms Day... because a minority of people is now allowed to marry. :shifty:

The other way around would be:
"Neal! Not even masking foul language? What's next, a forced Grammar-Nazi-Club™ membership with a monthly subscription fee where you are the Führer and Steve your Propagandaminister?":timeout:

At least, that is how I see it.



Spot on.
One example could be to adjust the rules to allow masking like ****, while still not allowing writing out (actually saying!) the word in question.
This is easy to understand, follow and easy to enforce by moderators without them having to worry about a thing, since there is no room for interpretation or boundaries to push either, since things are clear.

Now, one (so you, Steve :D) might say "but right now the rules are clear as well: zero tolerance, so where is the problem?"
Steve, excellent question! :timeout:
Personally, I believe that not even allowing masking or actually harmless acronyms like WTF! are actually restricting a posters abilities of expression. This is no moot-excuse because I'm no writing talent, I'm totally serious about it.
We had our fair share of WTF! and similar words used in various topics and I find they can underline emotions of a post/poster very well, without becoming rude or bad in any way. Another example are pictures or memes we see in the funny picture thread. I found various hilarious pics in the past and while my initial thought was "I gotta put that on Subsim!", I was instantly reminded that I can't, because it contains the 'tools of the devil'.:shifty:

It's early morning in ol' Germania right now, not sure if I'm rambling, mumbling or actually make a little sense and you guys get my point of view.
Anyways, thanks for the open debate and sorry for the wall of text... ffs!
(kidding, kidding!) :D

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2394380)

Social morality is in a long, sad slide, I don't want to contribute to it.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2394380)

Social morality is in a long, sad slide, I don't want to contribute to it.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...pictureid=8736

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2394588)

The Victoria era has a image of prudence and frigidity which it really doesn't deserve. :O:

(I'm aware that 1906 is the Edwardian era, but my point still stands)

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2394489)

Wan't it the tip of an iceberg that sank the Titanic? :D

Originally Posted by vienna (Post 2394627)

"No, really, just the tip..."...

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2394489)

Wan't it the tip of an iceberg that sank the Titanic? :D

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2394510)

I will join in... :D
First and foremost, this is Neal's forum. He gets to make the rules. If the rules are unacceptable to me, I won't voluntarily participate in this forum. There is no freedom of expression on a privately owned forum.

That being said, and acknowledged....

If the goal is to protect and preserve social morality (think of the children) then in my opinion, swearing is the least of the problems here in GT.

Here in GT we have individuals denigrating other members based on their religious beliefs; their political beliefs; their personal philosophy beliefs. Personal attacks and denigration is common.

These type of comments, in my opinion are far more damaging to the morals because they stigmatize people and over generalize groups.

That's what I want the moderators to monitor. Not the occasional swearing. Now if a member were to engage in gratuitous or rampant swearing, sure, pounce on them... especially if that is one of Neal's rules. His site his rules.

But please don't do it under the guise of enforcing moral standards, when much worse, and much more damaging comments become common place.

Which is really more damaging to the morals of our members

1. "Conservatives don't care about babies after they are alive"
2. "Typical Liberal, They don't care about the country"
3. "You can't be a Muslim and an American"
4. The word "damn" used in a sentence

Why would number 4 be moderated while 1,2,3 and many more, and worse, examples, be allowed to be posted?

What is the priority of moderation and what should be the priority?

Only Neal can and should answer that. But I, respectfully, would like an answer and to have the forum rules updated so that members know what the rules are and the moderators know what the rules are and can enforce them equally and consistently.

I am all for moderation, and I want moderation. I visit one un-moderated forum and it is horrible. But, as a member of this forum, I want consistent moderation and i want moderation on the truly offensive posts.