A couple of Amendments

[Claudia]

I dunno, I just like being able to cuss like a sailor sometimes. 99% of the swearing and derogatory terms i've seen being thrown around since the censor was removed is stuff like "this is bullshit" or "what the fuck does that mean?", and the other 1% is people being dumb in BR joking calling people shits or whatever (which I don't condone, but when it's in a clearly joking context...)

[Episkey]

1% is people being dumb in BR joking calling people shits or whatever (which I don't condone, but when it's in a clearly joking context...)

Well, I don't condone it either. But sometimes it's difficult for the other person to determine whether or not something is a joke. I mean, look at sarcasm. Sometimes it's hard to detect it just via words.

One also has to recall that these inflammatory posts are either edited or deleted by the Moderator Staff.

Therefore, I'm more inclined to believe that the percentage of people actually using profanity directed towards another user is in the 5-10% range. It may not seem like much, but it's somewhat significant.

I only wish I had the ability to more accurately acquire data >.<

[Lie]

I actually did consider trying to test for a Correlation between profanity usage and fights ... but I decided against it because due to previous negative experiences. Not many people would be interested in hearing a bunch of Statistics and most would just gloss over it.

That's why I made mention of the Search bar, if you really are curious - go look it up for yourself. Of course, it's daunting but I did it - what I saw backed up my stance.

I try and skip over profanity as well, which is why it should be shocking that I even bring this up.

Just a comparison of perspectives then.

But again I have nothing against this, if it helps.

The issue is urgent, to a degree. Maybe not as much as the community reaction to TA - but I still firmly believe it's urgent.

The issue is, you can't fix "negativity". Unless, you change a person and their beliefs. You can change how a person expresses their negativity. Which, is what I'm proposing.

It's mostly a temporary measurement? My reasoning is partially due to, as stated, the excessive usage of profanity.
Which in turn - has resulted in more detrimental conflict.

Just because you change the direction of where smog will wade into, doesn't mean it'll get rid of the problem of what's causing the smog.

You say it's temporary, but then you also say we can't fix "negativity". I see that it's likely this issue will rise up again, as a means of "Why can't we use profanity because we're mature about it?" Because some members here will use profanity, regardless of the profanity censor.

That's why we have a punishment system as a means of saying "Fix that problem or leave." Why all of a sudden can we not fix "negativity" out of all things, but have to resort to relying on a profanity censor that can be bypassed easily?

1. The discussion of what words are acceptable and what are not.
2. Conflict that arises or is worsened by the usage of profanity.
3. Less infractions given due to a "lack of social graces".

I could probably think of more, but I'm frankly starving right now. My point is, placing a more rigorous word censor does result in more work.
But in the big picture, less work will have to be done and unnecessary conflict can be avoided.

1. Again, what's any difference in the big picture? It's still unacceptable to say "Fuck you" to another member in this forum, with the censor off.
2. Conflicts arise or worsen regardless of usage of profanity.
3. Profanity censor can be bypassed. With or without a censor, it would still be considered "lack of social graces".

Perhaps I'm being too much of a devil's advocate here, but there has to be something better than just a profanity censor. It's like giving batons to unarmed police officers going up against terrorists with guns.

I don't see anything quite significant happening if the censor is put in; the atmosphere will feel the same to me.

While I agree with this, most people will cite the ever-loving word "FAVORITISM!"

I think the Staff has been trying to deal with current issues less subjectively and more objectively, due to this reason. Of course, this is just conjecture.
In the end, I'm sure I can trust the Staff in delivering this in a way that fits the purpose of determent.

It's not subjective to study everyone as case-by-case. Rather, it's gives a more thorough analysis, which makes for a more proper and fair conclusion.

[Episkey]

You say it's temporary, but then you also say we can't fix "negativity". I see that it's likely this issue will rise up again, as a means of "Why can't we use profanity because we're mature about it?" Because some members here will use profanity, regardless of the profanity censor.

I actually am advocating for a permanent word censor, but due to reasons you just stated - if enacted, it would probably be temporary.

The issue is people can't use profanity because I've seen a lack of maturity in it's usage. Therefore, that point is irrelevant - until the general members of this forum can prove otherwise.

Also, if some members just HAVE to use profanity - then all they will get out of their labor is a bunch of stars. If they try to bypass it, they would be liable to judgement.

That's why we have a punishment system as a means of saying "Fix that problem or leave." Why all of a sudden can we not fix "negativity" out of all things, but have to resort to relying on a profanity censor that can be bypassed easily?

I'm not saying only have one or the other. Why not have both?

I mean - we do have a word censor, yet it only applies to two words. Again, if members continuously bypass the word censor without infractions - then there really isn't any point of having one.

What about the two words that are currently censored? Have you seen a rise in people trying to bypass those two words - of course not!

Then there is no reason to believe the constant "bypassing of the word censor" you believe in, will happen.

[*]Again, what's any difference in the big picture? It's still unacceptable to say "Fuck you" to another member in this forum, with the censor off.

Because threads like this won't happen. People know what is acceptable and what is not, that was my first point.

[*]Conflicts arise or worsen regardless of usage of profanity.

Incorrect. The usage of profanity on these forums has led to many misunderstandings and eventual fights.

When profanity is used it creates a more personal stance against the read - whether a personal attack was intended or not.
The issue is how people react to the usage of profanity.

Oh Look? What's this? Could this be ... a recent example?

Huh. And that's mildly tame - considering other posts that I've read.


Maybe Episkey isn't so crazy, after all?

[*]Profanity censor can be bypassed. With or without a censor, it would still be considered "lack of social graces".

Already have talked about the censor ad nauseam.

As for the "lack of social graces", profanity allows such "lack" to be made easier.

Perhaps I'm being too much of a devil's advocate here, but there has to be something better than just a profanity censor. It's like giving batons to unarmed police officers going up against terrorists with guns.

Pray tell, what do you propose to deal with the sudden excessive usage of profanity .... without using a censor?

Perhaps use positive reinforcement? Let me get my dog treats.~ (This is a joke. Haha)

If you are being the devil's advocate that's fine but ....

I don't see anything quite significant happening if the censor is put in; the atmosphere will feel the same to me.

If you don't believe any atmospheric change will occur - then why?

This being true, then a more developed word censor can only benefit everyone.

[Lie]

I actually am advocating for a permanent word censor, but due to reasons you just stated - if enacted, it would probably be temporary.

The issue is people can't use profanity because I've seen a lack of maturity in it's usage. Therefore, that point is irrelevant - until the general members of this forum can prove otherwise.

Also, if some members just HAVE to use profanity - then all they will get out of their labor is a bunch of stars. If they try to bypass it, they would be liable to judgement.

Because of examples on the forums? I don't think it's much of a stretch to say there are mature people who do use profanity, whether it's people in this forum or not.

For example, I can cite Osayidan and his usage of profanity. And I'm sure you can to. When has he caused conflicts with other members just because he used "fuck" to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value? And no, besides some rare events, the staff doesn't want to start conflicts with other members on this board.

A bunch of stars doesn't erase profanity; it says it's there (unless someone's trolling, but that's irrelevant to this matter). If your post consists of "**** you", it's not going to be any more pleasant to look at than if it was uncensored.

And it's still liable to judgment. The letters aren't there, but the thoughts conveyed to other readers are.

I'm not saying only have one or the other. Why not have both?

I mean - we do have a word censor, yet it only applies to two words. Again, if members continuously bypass the word censor without infractions - then there really isn't any point of having one.

What about the two words that are currently censored? Have you seen a rise in people trying to bypass those two words - of course not!

Then there is no reason to believe the constant "bypassing of the word censor" you believe in, will happen.

Having both wouldn't make sense, as one solution is the sum of the other solution and itself.

The first word, we all discussed that it was plainly offensive and nothing good can come out of that. The forum members who never saw this event happen, wouldn't even use that word in the first place, because they're expected to be well-mannered enough to not use such a word. The forum members who did partake in following the event already know the reason why such a word is offensive and thus won't use it. This is the same for the second word.

And this was all that was needed to stop people from using the words. The censor are there, but they weren't necessary, because the solution of fixing negativity in the first place made the censor obsolete. Which is why I said it wouldn't make sense to have both, when one of the solution encompasses the other's effectiveness.

Because threads like this won't happen. People know what is acceptable and what is not, that was my first point.

If people already know what's acceptable or not, then the censor doesn't serve any purpose from that point on.

If a child is taught and knows that stealing is bad, that child does not need the rule book in front of its face when thinking of temptation, to be reminded of so.

There's also a reason why that thread was created in the first place; it was to complain about the censor and its effectiveness.

Incorrect. The usage of profanity on these forums has led to many misunderstandings and eventual fights.

When profanity is used it creates a more personal stance against the read - whether a personal attack was intended or not.
The issue is how people react to the usage of profanity.

Oh Look? What's this? Could this be ... a recent example?

Huh. And that's mildly tame - considering other posts that I've read.

Maybe Episkey isn't so crazy, after all?

Do you mean this: http://mabination.com/threads/54845-...l=1#post864156

Have you tried actually reading that without the profanity?

You're 21?
Get a job.
Or do what radionoise said. Honestly you have to have a High school Education...go find work. Sometimes Fast Food is the liable option in terms of work.

Don't leech off your mom...I mean honestly. If you get your head in the game you could do better then lower-middle class.

Didn't feel any different to me, with or without profanity. And the negative tone is still there, even when I took out the profanity.

The rest of the thread went on smoothly after that. I don't think it spiraled down into a fight to the degree you imply. And I'm sure others in that thread might feel the same, considering what they posted and the tone they posted in.

If you felt differently, then that's what I mean by looking at more examples, not just recent ones.

You also have to consider this while we're talking about that thread: http://mabination.com/threads/54845-...l=1#post864158

... shit

Now it just clued into my head what the situation is right now.

I feel bad.

Does that create any personal stance? Does that leads to any personal attacks?

Let's take a page from the outside. I had a few professors in my university that likes to curse when discussing topics.

I haven't seen any misunderstandings or fights. At least, in all my time there. Was it real, or was it sarcastic? I wouldn't know; I'm expected to treat my educational place as blankly as I treat the internet. It had the interesting side effect of putting pathos in teaching though.

I disagree that profanity will always cause misunderstandings and fights. All I've experienced on this forum and from outside this forum points back to what Invertex said: it's the negativity that's the defining issue here. This type of profanity you're talking about stems from negativity, or the root of the problem itself.

Already have talked about the censor ad nauseam.

As for the "lack of social graces", profanity allows such "lack" to be made easier.

Actually, it's the reverse. The lack of social graces makes using profanity easier.

A rude person is more likely to curse than a polite person, in an everyday environment.

A polite person without a censor isn't going to curse more than a rude person with a censor.

Pray tell, what do you propose to deal with the sudden excessive usage of profanity .... without using a censor?

Perhaps use positive reinforcement? Let me get my dog treats.~ (This is a joke. Haha)

If you are being the devil's advocate that's fine but ....

Perhaps discuss that those aren't acceptable and put them in the rules, like we did with the two words?

The censor was just insurance, not the actual fix, if I recall.

Also, I made it clear that I'm open to better suggestions than censors, from anybody. So you could ask other people too. I'm not the person with the ideas; I'm just the person pointing things out here, as I've done with my previous posts.

If you don't believe any atmospheric change will occur - then why?

This being true, then a more developed word censor can only benefit everyone.

I don't believe any atmospheric change will occur because I'm basing my assumption off of previous observation that spanned from Mabiguru to today, and from experience outside of it. And thus predicting I won't see any actual changes.

Again, I'm not promoting an easier way to be bad people here. But putting a bandaid on a huge wound and assuming it won't need further attention, isn't a way to resolve this when it can be worked around.

[Episkey]

Because of examples on the forums? I don't think it's much of a stretch to say there are mature people who do use profanity, whether it's people in this forum or not.

For example, I can cite Osayidan and his usage of profanity. And I'm sure you can to. When has he caused conflicts with other members just because he used "fuck" to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value?

Yes Yes. Not everyone is immature in their usage of profanity. However, I believe a great majority are - which is why I'm bringing this to attention.

Albeit an interesting example, the exception you quoted however is quite subjective. When Osay uses profanity "to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value", I can assure you there are some members who do value what he doesn't value.

The addition of profanity only serves to "put more emotion" into the conflicted reader. Just because a fight hasn't occurred because of Osay's usage of language doesn't mean one won't. It's partially due to many other factors ...

In addition, when other members have used profanity "to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value" - fights have occurred. So, what's the difference?

A bunch of stars doesn't erase profanity; it says it's there (unless someone's trolling, but that's irrelevant to this matter). If your post consists of "**** you", it's not going to be any more pleasant to look at than if it was uncensored.

And it's still liable to judgment. The letters aren't there, but the thoughts conveyed to other readers are.

What about the totally erasing the censored words?

Asterisks may not hide the conveyed feelings, but I'm willing to believe that a person is less likely to react negatively towards a bunch of stars.
Even if they knew that they were curse words, it's easier to just report the person and move on.

The first word, we all discussed that it was plainly offensive and nothing good can come out of that. The forum members who never saw this event happen, wouldn't even use that word in the first place, because they're expected to be well-mannered enough to not use such a word. The forum members who did partake in following the event already know the reason why such a word is offensive and thus won't use it. This is the same for the second word.

And this was all that was needed to stop people from using the words. The censor are there, but they weren't necessary, because the solution of fixing negativity in the first place made the censor obsolete. Which is why I said it wouldn't make sense to have both, when one of the solution encompasses the other's effectiveness.

Alright, but then ask yourself - why haven't any further "discussions" have resulted since then? This is why I'm bringing this up to attention, I could really care less about the means by which the problem is fixed. I'm open to any other solutions - but I don't have any other ones.

I also cast doubt on these discussions. If I believe that a certain word should be censored, what's not to say that my statement won't be rejected by the "popular" majority of members.

If what you say is true by members not ever going to use those two words, go ahead and remove the censor on them. Oh, but be sure to announce it to everyone! I guarantee you that a thread would be made in the following ten minutes superfluously exercising the ability to say those two words.

Such was the case when the word censor was removed. Humanity will simply repeat the same mistakes ...

Also, not everyone rejected the usage of the current two censored words. I recall some members avidly trying to revoke said word censorship.

If people already know what's acceptable or not, then the censor doesn't serve any purpose from that point on.

If a child is taught and knows that stealing is bad, that child does not need the rule book in front of its face when thinking of temptation, to be reminded of so.

There's also a reason why that thread was created in the first place; it was to complain about the censor and its effectiveness.

Children don't need to be reminded constantly, but they need a set of rules. The censor acts as a mitigation of damage, in a way.
The act has already been done (in your example, stealing) but let us have the act not affect that many people around us.


That thread was not to complain about the actual censor, although the discussion shifted as such.
The thread's purpose was to complain about the punishment of using a word that was not on the censor list.

Therefore, indicating that some adjustments need to be made! Yet, none have happened so far.

Do you mean this: http://mabination.com/threads/54845-...l=1#post864156

Have you tried actually reading that without the profanity?

Yes. I was referring to that post, I didn't want to bring specific attention to said post - but if you insist.

Didn't feel any different to me, with or without profanity. And the negative tone is still there, even when I took out the profanity.

The rest of the thread went on smoothly after that. I don't think it spiraled down into a fight to the degree you imply. And I'm sure others in that thread might feel the same, considering what they posted and the tone they posted in.

If you felt differently, then that's what I mean by looking at more examples, not just recent ones.

Read my post with and without curse words - then. Which version would you rather read?


Wow. I don't know how to fu____ respond to that fu____ bull____.

To say that you need a job, is heck of a lot different than .... You need a fu____ job.

There's no hostility or negativity in the first statement, it's actually sound advice.
But if the profanity didn't matter, then why did another member tell him to "Calm down" and also deemed intervention on Juno's part?

Simply put, the profanity did matter ... Oh - right.

You also have to consider this while we're talking about that thread: http://mabination.com/threads/54845-...l=1#post864158

This is something of a completely different caliber and is not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the excessive and immature (causing fights) usage of profanity that has been prevalent in our members.

I disagree that profanity will always cause misunderstandings and fights. All I've experienced on this forum and from outside this forum points back to what Invertex said: it's the negativity that's the defining issue here. This type of profanity you're talking about stems from negativity, or the root of the problem itself.

Already stated that it doesn't always cause fights.

My opinion is this. Until you remove all instance of negativity (Good luck!) - this word censor needs to be placed to prevent said instances of negativity.
If it does happen, then the resulting impact is lessened.

Actually, it's the reverse. The lack of social graces makes using profanity easier.

A rude person is more likely to curse than a polite person, in an everyday environment.

A polite person without a censor isn't going to curse more than a rude person with a censor.

This is assuming that a rude person is always rude and a polite person is always polite.
Social graces is something transient, it shouldn't be - but it is.

When faced with excessive profanity, people can do a 180 - which I have seen before on the forums.
I guess the only solution is to convert all rude people into "polite" ones? In a forum of this magnitude, that's impossible.

Other forums have word censors - I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not proposing something idealistic or impossible.

Also, I made it clear that I'm open to better suggestions than censors, from anybody. So you could ask other people too. I'm not the person with the ideas; I'm just the person pointing things out here, as I've done with my previous posts.

I understand that you are trying to point things out - which I'm somewhat happy (mixed feeling) about.

Yet, a censor makes sense. All what you've said about people's attitudes and intentions are correct - but without a change in ideals that won't change either. What we can change is how people express themselves and lessen the negative reactions others may have.

I don't believe any atmospheric change will occur because I'm basing my assumption off of previous observation that spanned from Mabiguru to today, and from experience outside of it. And thus predicting I won't see any actual changes.

I was also present in Mabiguru. I honestly believe that language-wise, everyone generally behaved.

Your prediction may or may not come true. I don't see any negative consequence arising from this, if indeed it becomes so horrible - then things can be reverted? I mean, that isn't difficult. Sometimes experimentation and shifts in ideology are necessary.

Rather than act on the pretense that "Nothing will happen", it would only make sense to act.
Because, I can assure you, if this is not given thought - the future of Mabination is not bright. If you look carefully, it's already becoming evident with isolated incidents.

I just don't wish to see in the future ... that one thread - where all Hell breaks loose.

[Lie]

Yes Yes. Not everyone is immature in their usage of profanity. However, I believe a great majority are - which is why I'm bringing this to attention.

Albeit an interesting example, the exception you quoted however is quite subjective. When Osay uses profanity "to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value", I can assure you there are some members who do value what he doesn't value.

The addition of profanity only serves to "put more emotion" into the conflicted reader. Just because a fight hasn't occurred because of Osay's usage of language doesn't mean one won't. It's partially due to many other factors ...

In addition, when other members have used profanity "to put more emotion into saying he doesn't value something that others value" - fights have occurred. So, what's the difference?

The difference is how members react. Which is why I pointed out profanity won't always cause a conflict.

Your comparison has many factors besides profanity. It could be sensitivity to faith, subjects, defense of values, etc.

Profanity is but one way to spark emotions. Fights can occur without profanity.

So what how one reacts to profanity put their way? (See next section)

What about the totally erasing the censored words?

Asterisks may not hide the conveyed feelings, but I'm willing to believe that a person is less likely to react negatively towards a bunch of stars.
Even if they knew that they were curse words, it's easier to just report the person and move on.

Would raise the issue of grammar, but that's another story. Word replacement (Seviraph's suggestion) would seem nonsensical at this point.

Ultimately, any censor I see in effect... I can't see anything fruitful.

I also differ from you on how we imagine what a person, in their shoes, would react to a censored and uncensored word. I'm not willing to believe asterisks will suddenly confuse me as to what word was said, nor let that lessen the intensity of tone. I don't particularly believe I'd let a word censor affect my line of thinking.

If I knew those were curse words, I'd had equal effort to report the person with or without the censor anyway. I'm not sure if a person is supposed to let a censor dictate how they should be feeling or what action they should be taking.

Alright, but then ask yourself - why haven't any further "discussions" have resulted since then? This is why I'm bringing this up to attention, I could really care less about the means by which the problem is fixed. I'm open to any other solutions - but I don't have any other ones.

I also cast doubt on these discussions. If I believe that a certain word should be censored, what's not to say that my statement won't be rejected by the "popular" majority of members.

If what you say is true by members not ever going to use those two words, go ahead and remove the censor on them. Oh, but be sure to announce it to everyone! I guarantee you that a thread would be made in the following ten minutes superfluously exercising the ability to say those two words.

Such was the case when the word censor was removed. Humanity will simply repeat the same mistakes ...

Also, not everyone rejected the usage of the current two censored words. I recall some members avidly trying to revoke said word censorship.

The discussion was finished. The censor was removed, except for the two words that either forum members were told not to use because of the reasons why, or because it was expected of forum members who didn't know what went on.

It's only been 2 months since the removal of the censor. There wasn't a need to have another discussion, until this one. Which was a result of lack of social grace in which profanity was one of the results.

If you believe a certain word is offensive no matter what context it is used in, then you have the right to present it as a matter before the staff and community, and tell them why it's the case. Tell them why it's so, instead of just saying "Just need to put this on the censor list just because it's offensive and I happened to notice people use it in fights." Tell the community why it's historically offensive, rather than "It makes people want to attack each other."

It gives the community a good reason and understanding why not to use the word. That alone stops the community from using it without resorting to the censor. It's why, before the censor was removed, the community wasn't as antsy around people using "fk" compared to people using "n*gger".

Why the dancing around and avoidance of one profanity more over another? Why did it seem okay when people said "sh*t" for Bean Rua threads, but not "f*g"?

In fact, it led up to the reason why those two words were banned. Because those two words were something the community understood it was more offensive than they can handle, even when using them as insults. They don't need any more reason (like a censor) to tell them why it's a no-no to use those words.

Your example of threads being made if a censor was removed on a word would be baseless, because...

1. It'd still be agreeably offensive in any context, and the community wouldn't be as insensitive as that to include it as an insult.
2. It'd be used as a joke. Not a personal attack or a means to provoke.

As for those who actually prefer to be allowed to use those words and want the censor off to feel entitled to do so... It's not the censor stopping them (because if they really wanted to, they could bypass it), but the reason already established by the previous discussion of profanity censorship.

There needs to be clear and concise reasons why profanity isn't nice to use. Not just whitewash it with a censor... with holes gaping out.

Children don't need to be reminded constantly, but they need a set of rules. The censor acts as a mitigation of damage, in a way.
The act has already been done (in your example, stealing) but let us have the act not affect that many people around us.

That thread was not to complain about the actual censor, although the discussion shifted as such.
The thread's purpose was to complain about the punishment of using a word that was not on the censor list.

Therefore, indicating that some adjustments need to be made! Yet, none have happened so far.

I agree it's a mitigation. But I also agree it's like a door with no lock to a child. They can't go behind the door, but it's easy to.

Stealing affects at least one person, right? Using profanity in a post to a poster's thread is no different in number and direction.

Yes, my oversight. The thread's purpose was to complain about the punishment of using a word that was not on the censor list. However, the point about complaining about the censor still stands, because it led to the larger problem, the bigger picture. And it did address the state of the censor and how it wasn't as useful as it was thought to be.

There was an adjustment. It was simply removing the censor, while agreeing that these profanity words are related to the context of the poster, not by itself. And it also dealt with having the two specific words banned.

Yes. I was referring to that post, I didn't want to bring specific attention to said post - but if you insist.

Read my post with and without curse words - then. Which version would you rather read?

Wow. I don't know how to fu____ respond to that fu____ bull____.

To say that you need a job, is heck of a lot different than .... You need a fu____ job.

There's no hostility or negativity in the first statement, it's actually sound advice.
But if the profanity didn't matter, then why did another member tell him to "Calm down" and also deemed intervention on Juno's part?

Simply put, the profanity did matter ... Oh - right.

Still the same to me. It doesn't matter which version I read, as long as I understood the meaning and connotation.

Like so:

"Wow. I don't know how to respond to that."

Context. That's all that is needed (as in, read the whole conversation and the whole tone it is going). If I knew that the tone of the posts before that were negative, profanity doesn't matter in the long run.

And to be clear... even with profanity, it'd still be sound advice. The point was to "get a job." With or without profanity, that point is clear.

Compass is affected by the profanity. I agree with that, because I know people take offense. But he's one compared to all the others who posted. Also, he didn't spiral the conversation into a fight either.

Plus, it goes back to the question: would he have said the same thing if it was "You're 21?
Get a ****ing job."

Juno intervened because of the tone azurekit was pointing at Compass, not because of the profanity.

You're also missing my point: I said I am not affected by this. But I never said anybody else wasn't (They might, but that's a guess to defer "all" or "none"); I only said the thread didn't spiral down like you imply. I never said the censor was what stopped people from being like your example.

Which again goes back to my point that the profanity censor wouldn't have mattered. The problem was the tone, the negativity. It didn't matter if it was "fucking" or "****ing"; the tone and message conveyed is the same.

I doubt a censor would have prevented Compass and Juno from intervening.

This is something of a completely different caliber and is not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the excessive and immature (causing fights) usage of profanity that has been prevalent in our members.

And I already stated that profanity is a result, not the cause.

Because of that, my example does have relevance, because it refers to your stance that profanity is the troublemaker for these fights.

Already stated that it doesn't always cause fights.

My opinion is this. Until you remove all instance of negativity (Good luck!) - this word censor needs to be placed to prevent said instances of negativity.
If it does happen, then the resulting impact is lessened.

I never said I was against having the censor in the first place.

I said it wasn't effective, or at least as effective as you believe it is. And I gave you examples and reasons as to why.

I do not believe it will prevent said instances of negativity, because again I do not believe profanity can cause negativity, but the other way around. As for lessening the resulting impact, then by all means, I want that.

I'm only here to point out why your fourth amendment isn't as effective as you think it is, and perhaps why you should rethink about it to make it actually resolve the underlying issue.

This is assuming that a rude person is always rude and a polite person is always polite.
Social graces is something transient, it shouldn't be - but it is.

When faced with excessive profanity, people can do a 180 - which I have seen before on the forums.
I guess the only solution is to convert all rude people into "polite" ones? In a forum of this magnitude, that's impossible.

Other forums have word censors - I don't see what the big deal is. I'm not proposing something idealistic or impossible.

I never said or assumed always, nor are social graces transient. My examples exist within instances, like yours.

I agree that polite people can turn rude in an instant. So why settle for something insignificantly useful as a censor? After all, many factors flip polite and rude people.

I'm not saying convert the rude people to polite ones. I already mentioned why the community doesn't use the two banned words, and that was not impossible.

I go on other forums too, especially the official forums for video games. And those forums are generally considered by the internet to be notoriously filled with negative posts, even with a censor on.

It's a big deal. It points back the community: the negativity of the community itself is what brought down those forums, not profanity (which they can easily circumvent, and even when infracted).

I understand that you are trying to point things out - which I'm somewhat happy (mixed feeling) about.

Yet, a censor makes sense. All what you've said about people's attitudes and intentions are correct - but without a change in ideals that won't change either. What we can change is how people express themselves and lessen the negative reactions others may have.

If that's fine by you. I'll be willing to use anything at this point.

I do believe that a forum community can change, without using a lifeless artificial bot like a censor. Especially if we care about one another... which we obviously do if we care so much about not being negative with each other.

I was also present in Mabiguru. I honestly believe that language-wise, everyone generally behaved.

Your prediction may or may not come true. I don't see any negative consequence arising from this, if indeed it becomes so horrible - then things can be reverted? I mean, that isn't difficult. Sometimes experimentation and shifts in ideology are necessary.

Rather than act on the pretense that "Nothing will happen", it would only make sense to act.
Because, I can assure you, if this is not given thought - the future of Mabination is not bright. If you look carefully, it's already becoming evident with isolated incidents.

I just don't wish to see in the future ... that one thread - where all Hell breaks loose.

I understand. Don't worry, I don't want the same thing either.

[Episkey]

Thanks for your post, I think it helped me understand the situation better.

If you believe a certain word is offensive no matter what context it is used in, then you have the right to present it as a matter before the staff and community, and tell them why it's the case. Tell them why it's so, instead of just saying "Just need to put this on the censor list just because it's offensive and I happened to notice people use it in fights." Tell the community why it's historically offensive, rather than "It makes people want to attack each other."

I will probably take this bit of advice - let's see how well it goes!

[Lie]

For the time being, I don't mind the word censor.

I'd take a small bandaid over nothing any day.