Swearing

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

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. )

Guess we're in the same club then, no doubt!
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.

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?"

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 ) might say "but right now the rules are clear as well: zero tolerance, so where is the problem?"
Steve, excellent question!
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'.

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!)

I probably did screw uop and misunderstand where you're coming from, I will read your reply thoroughtly this afternoon when I get home, thanks

A week off is coming up in 6 hours.... yay!

[Skybird]

You can play foul by calling names and using certain improper words, and you can misbehave by acting underhandedly and using poisonous rhetoric tricks and traps.

Of the two, I take much greater offence from the latter. The barb goes much deeper, the trick is meaner, the wound hurts more.

As long as this discrepancy between foul words and underhanded rhetorics is not properly considered, I do not give overly much for rules just banning words. Fouls words are the lesser evil.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

I will join in...
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.

[Jimbuna]

My personal 'Moderators' opinion.

This is a really interesting topic/discussion and one I have discussed with Neal on occasion but a great many times more with Steve (Both in person and on Skype).

I can identify with the pros and cons of a few of the comments posted but two that particularly stand out imho are below:

Neal
I just want to keep this place a little classier than a YouTube or Live Leak comment section, you know.

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

Eichhörnchen
I'd want things to stay the way they are, allowing those of us who want to have a bit of fun with innuendo still to do so.
Some rude words do add greatly in emphasising a point, but once they're allowed then there's no going back and I agree with
Neal that current standards keep Subsim a cut above and a'classier' place to hang out.

A moderator whilst being aware that Neal prefers they act with as 'light a touch' whenever possible must also take into account that any actions they take are open to scrutiny by all forum members and as such must walk that fine line with the knowledge that they can never please everyone all of the time.

With the above in mind I try to adhere to the basic principle that this is Neals house and as such I agree with the FAQ & Rules as set out and in this case, this line in particular...

Always stay on the conservative side if you have any doubt. This forum is family safe.

All the above is obviously currently open to discussion and debate as well as potential change but I honestly don't see the need to change the wheel if it isn't broken.

Don't misinterpret the above as coming from somebody that is opposed to change because it is most definitely not.

[STEED]

According to medical research having a good swear is good for you to release stress tension and mild anger in a face to face situation, can it work on a heated thread?

Maybe to a point but the elephant in the room brings us to the known fact if you can go on and on and get more heated knowing full well the person you are having a ding dong with is not going to punch you in the face as their miles if not hundred plus miles way, so in steps the mod guys to throw some water on the fire.

Its Neal website and he sets the rules, that said I'm sure Neal believes in democracy here on subsims.

[MaDef]

Growing up, my mother always told us that, "the use of profanity is the mark of a small intellect".

While the use of profanity has it's time, place, and purpose it's very hard to have a meaningful conversation, be it spoken or written, when the other person sprinkles their ideas with copious amounts of profanity. Overuse of profanity tends to have the opposite effect from what's intended.

Just my 2 cents.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

Okay Neal, I promise not to post any more girly toons.

Except for this one.

[Oberon]

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

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

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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

Originally Posted by me

English is a fabulous language of innumerable facets and subtleties; let's stay creative-it's actually more fun.

INDEED at age 65 when I see 'em in their Victoria's Secret attire...frigidity is a genuine lifesaver!

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

More than one unfortunate outcome started with the phrase: "No, really, just the tip..."...







<O>

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by vienna

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

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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

Steamship or canoe it's all the same @VIENNA Yeah BBY! U-666

[Oberon]

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I will join in...
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.

Yeah, it's too common.

You want the moderators, all two of them, to manage other people's opinions and freedom of expression? I'm not sure what the solution would be to fit your wishes. It would take all of 3 seconds for the member who had his opinion censored to be accusing the moderator of bias. Let's just ban topics on politics and religion.

I will give you an answer, as best I can, as to the priority of moderation: We can discuss topics we feel strongly about, trying to make our point without attacking the person we are engaging. Attack the member's argument, not the member. That's always been my goal. Allow as much freedom to express opinions as possible and still maintain as much civility as we can.

But please, don't ask me or the moderators to clamp down on every expression you do not like. This is not a college safe space. There are a lot of members here, in addition to you, and you have to know that is too much work, and impossible at any rate, to make everyone happy.

[Oberon]

It's a shame that we lost Tarjak and CCIP on the way, Tarjak was a good bloke, if it wasn't for him I doubt I'd have made it to the Subsim York meet.