A couple of Amendments

[Invertex]

The issue with that stance is that you already know of the rule beforehand. It's a bias - so to speak.

Imagine yourself as a new member, you wouldn't know something like that was frowned upon.

Maybe the see a new pet they want or an upgrade ... I can think of many situations.

I think it's sort of common etiquite not to beg for things over the internet. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I've always assumed.

Has there been any recent discussion? If so, please direct me to it.

Past discussion is somewhat a moot point - because the situation has changed. I also see why it will "stay as it is", realizing that for the longest time ... there was indeed a word censor present.

I'm trying to find the topics right now. Most of these occured right after the rules were changed around, mostly back in March. If that's recent enough, I'll continue to try to find the posts (as they're not located in dedicated topics). Though I'm fairly certain that most people were actually arguing for a complete removal of the censor as well.

Edit: Here, some of what I remember.

http://mabination.com/threads/51400-...ning-Bad-words)
http://mabination.com/threads/50766-...nal-censorship

[Episkey]

I think it's sort of common etiquite not to beg for things over the internet. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I've always assumed.

Ah no, I agree. Maybe it's my past years of playing Runescape that causes me to have my negative opinion on the matter. (People always begging for stuff ... *grumble* *grumble*)

I try not to make assumptions on something like this, because - it has happened before.

I'm trying to find the topics right now. Most of these occured right after the rules were changed around, mostly back in March. If that's recent enough, I'll continue to try to find the posts (as they're not located in dedicated topics). Though I'm fairly certain that most people were actually arguing for a complete removal of the censor as well.

March? ... Ehhh.
I'll look as well, but my point is more recent.

As in, after the word censor got removed. Since then, I believe that people have been generally not being "responsible" with their vocabulary usage.

[Invertex]

March? ... Ehhh.
I'll look as well, but my point is more recent.

As in, after the word censor got removed. Since then, I believe that people have been generally not being "responsible" with their vocabulary usage.

My main disagreement with this point is that the words themselves don't spark the arguements. Saying "You're an idiot cause [Blank]" versus "You're a fucking idiot cause [Blank]". Simply put people will continue to argue like this, filters in place or not.

Of course this is simply my view on it. The problem here is that everyone has a different opinion on profanities. Some people just use it so often that they actually have to make an effort to not use them, while some people refrain from using them at all. For the 16+ age group that this forum is for, more people will fall into the former. This is just one of those topics that it's really impossible to consider one opinion as being more correct than another, so we end up siding with the majority.

As a side note: I do believe this marks the first post on Nation in which I swear.

[Episkey]

http://mabination.com/threads/51400-...ning-Bad-words)

I remember reading this thread. However, this seems to be talking about being uniform in determining what is derogatory or not.

I suppose this is just testament to Lilith's point about including more things in our word censor.
If anything, this thread enforces the need for censorship.

http://mabination.com/threads/50766-...nal-censorship

The thread ended with a "Oh we can't do it right now - so tough luck." vibe.

The issue is ... well, it's an issue. As in right now.

You don't say to yourself, "Oh I called 911 - until they arrive I won't do anything about this medical emergency."
If you are bleeding due to a laceration, you are going to do your best to try and stop the bleeding.

It's an analogy, but the same concept applies.

My main disagreement with this point is that the words themselves don't spark the arguements. Saying "You're an idiot cause [Blank]" versus "You're a fucking idiot cause [Blank]". Simply put people will continue to argue like this, filters in place or not.

In actuality, I do agree with your point.
Whether or not there is a filter, people will argue. Yes, I understand that - though try and see past that.

It's ALOT easier to spark an argument with someone by cursing at them than by any other means.
Cursing is quick, effective, and serves to "enhance" your post. The issue arises that these curse words impact the reader more - causing them less likely to academically and properly discuss their views.

"If they start cursing me out, then I'll do the same."

Sure, Moderators will take care of any fight ... but I'm talking about preventing that and keeping User relations sound. We don't have to be all buddy-buddy, but curse words shouldn't cause such divides and fights ... which they have.

It'll only make everyone's life easier.

Of course this is simply my view on it. The problem here is that everyone has a different opinion on profanities. Some people just use it so often that they actually have to make an effort to not use them, while some people refrain from using them at all. For the 16+ age group that this forum is for, more people will fall into the former. This is just one of those topics that it's really impossible to consider one opinion as being more correct than another, so we end up siding with the majority.

Your view is your view, yes. And as a member of these forums, you have every right to have your opinion heard.
Which, applies to everyone else as well. I'm sure you know that - but this isn't something that can be decided simply due to "Majority".

A consensus must be reached then, if people don't wish to give up their right to swear! ... Wow. That's retrospectively quite silly.

I'm willing to agree with adding more words to the word censor, since I do believe it needs an adjustment.

[Invertex]

In actuality, I do agree with your point.
Whether or not there is a filter, people will argue. Yes, I understand that - though try and see past that.

It's ALOT easier to spark an argument with someone by cursing at them than by any other means.
Cursing is quick, effective, and serves to "enhance" your post. The issue arises that these curse words impact the reader more - causing them less likely to academically and properly discuss their views.

"If they start cursing me out, then I'll do the same."

Sure, Moderators will take care of any fight ... but I'm talking about preventing that and keeping User relations sound. We don't have to be all buddy-buddy, but curse words shouldn't cause such divides and fights ... which they have.

It'll only make everyone's life easier.

I'm only replying to this as I feel this is the core of the arguement right now, everything else sort of stems from this.

I simply don't feel that swearing actually acts as a catalyst for fights. If I can use the analogy of which comes first, the chicken or the egg: the question here is really if the swearing or the fighting comes first. My opinion is that the swearing simply comes out of the negativity, and the negativity is really what causes further arguements.

I can see why you think the two feed into each other though, but I still believe that the majority of the arguements that have broken out have not been because of the swearing. It's all simply due to other things people just can't put aside.

But I will admit I am terrible at arguing for or against a censor, simply because I am neutral about these things.

[Seviraph]

I can see what Episkey means by the profanity, they may not be the start of arguments, but the tone that comes with them could intensify conflicts

and if the word censor does come back, I suggest

 Spoiler:

maybe turning derogatory words into really silly/funny words, maybe in hopes of "forcing" a laugh out of people to (I'm not sure what's wrong with me lately, hard to find the words I'm trying to words)

basically I mean to maybe (unlikely, but on the off chance it works) to calm people down

[Zid]

I'll have to take Invertex's stance here. I do think it's the negativity that's the real cause of this. Bear in mind, every heated argument has been consistently made before this censor removal was implemented. Was quite so before TA was part of the admin staff.

Anyway, I don't see how putting back in the censor would help much, when all it takes is a period or a respelling of the curse word to bypass the censor. Effortless, and doesn't significantly make a difference in attacking other members easier, when all it takes is a keystroke. If you made the effort to type out "fuck you", then it takes less effort to type "fk u".

The only effective curse word censor is human moderators. And we all know how that will go.

On another note, I'm so-and-so with Amendment 3. Seeing how many points to a specific punishment may deter members, but it could also work the other way (Makes it seem easier to cause trouble and flee at the last moment), especially in a system that gives out warnings first before infractions and where punishment points can expire. The fear of the unknown is a historically proven and effective tool in controlling others.

But I can live with all the amendments if they were passed. It does not affect me, how others affect me, or how I perceive others.

[Episkey]

I simply don't feel that swearing actually acts as a catalyst for fights. If I can use the analogy of which comes first, the chicken or the egg: the question here is really if the swearing or the fighting comes first. My opinion is that the swearing simply comes out of the negativity, and the negativity is really what causes further arguements.

I think it's mostly context-driven.

If you read threads in which fights have broken out, it's sort of a mesh between the two. The hostile post is made and the cursing only exacerbates the issue. It's mostly the reaction of others towards the cursing that seems to be causing the problem.

It's a bit more difficult to just report a post and move on - when you have a curse word being thrown left and right.

I can see why you think the two feed into each other though, but I still believe that the majority of the arguements that have broken out have not been because of the swearing. It's all simply due to other things people just can't put aside.

But I will admit I am terrible at arguing for or against a censor, simply because I am neutral about these things.

Well, that's fine. I'm not really saying that curse words simply cause arguments, because if you were to type a bunch of curse words in a post with no other words - nothing would probably arise from that.

My stance has simply been that excessive profanity encourages hostility between members. An adequate usage of said profanity has not been used, in my eyes, therefore something needs to be done about it.

I can see what Episkey means by the profanity, they may not be the start of arguments, but the tone that comes with them could intensify conflicts

Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about - sort of.

I also believe, profanity has started arguments because it creates a more personal attack against a person.
It's harder to just ignore the post and report it - you feel compelled to answer back in retaliation ... probably with some more curse words.

It's a cycle that doesn't stop until a Moderator has to come by and lock it.

But yes, intensifying conflicts is also another "side-effect" - so to speak.

I'll have to take Invertex's stance here. I do think it's the negativity that's the real cause of this. Bear in mind, every heated argument has been consistently made before this censor removal was implemented. Was quite so before TA was part of the admin staff.

This issue is that now, there has been a shift in the tone of recent fights. Sure, fights have broken out before ... but the constant and excessive usage of profanity is making fights more commonplace.

Verily I say to you, the removal of the word censor has not helped Mabination at all. It has merely been the cause of more conflict, at what cost?
Just so everyone can say a few "expressive" words? There are better ways to do as such.

Anyway, I don't see how putting back in the censor would help much, when all it takes is a period or a respelling of the curse word to bypass the censor. Effortless, and doesn't significantly make a difference in attacking other members easier, when all it takes is a keystroke. If you made the effort to type out "fuck you", then it takes less effort to type "fk u".

I thought of that as well ... but then I noticed this.
Wait? I could have sworn there was something in the rules that said that bypassing the word censor is a no-no!

Ah. Well, in any case - if someone does indeed do that then a Moderator can simply take care of that. If people are bypassing the word censor left and right without any repercussions, why even have a word censor to begin with?

Besides, If I saw "fk u" ... I'm less inclined to take it seriously to the point of retaliating against that post. Although, that's somewhat of a personal bias on my part.

On another note, I'm so-and-so with Amendment 3. Seeing how many points to a specific punishment may deter members, but it could also work the other way (Makes it seem easier to cause trouble and flee at the last moment), especially in a system that gives out warnings first before infractions and where punishment points can expire. The fear of the unknown is a historically proven and effective tool in controlling others.

I don't think using fear of the unknown is an appropriate way of doing things here on Mabination. It may have its success in the real world - but so far ... I haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise.

If you murder multiple people, you a likely to get a life-time or perhaps even get executed. Surely this, along with other factors, makes people think twice about murder. That's really my whole point. People generally know the consequences of their actions, yet I feel as if I'm left blind here.

I would hope the Moderator Staff would exercise enough discretion to realize when a person seems to be deliberately abusing the system. As in, when points expired - they immediately go break a rule.

It may be the fact that it clashes with my personality, but I honestly can't see someone doing that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for something to expire would surely take a while? A month at the least?

[Zid]

This issue is that now, there has been a shift in the tone of recent fights. Sure, fights have broken out before ... but the constant and excessive usage of profanity is making fights more commonplace.

Verily I say to you, the removal of the word censor has not helped Mabination at all. It has merely been the cause of more conflict, at what cost?
Just so everyone can say a few "expressive" words? There are better ways to do as such.

By all means, if you're just concerned with how the tones of these fights are going because of excessive use of profanity, then I'd rather that be resolved too.

I haven't noticed anything different in arguments (or frequency of), in my observation, between now and before the censor removal. So that's just my view. Perhaps this is because I skip over profanity in these arguments, since I don't want to be emotionally involved if it's unnecessary (which... is usually the case nowadays).

I'm not saying I prefer more conflicts due to less limits on expression. I'm just stating that I don't notice any differences you're noticing. This is to point out that perhaps you should consider looking at a wider range for your variables (Number and content of conflicts before and after the censor removal) before finalizing your judgment.

That's why I don't see this issue as urgent as you have stated, as it doesn't affect me as much as, say, how the community was acting when TA was an admin. Which is why I'm with Invertex on this: the more pressing matter is the negativity. Profanity is a correlation (or even causation) thus, regardless if it's censored or not.

I don't believe whitewashing over an issue is more effective than rooting it out completely.

However, if you think censoring, by itself, helps, then I don't see why not.

I thought of that as well ... but then I noticed this.
Wait? I could have sworn there was something in the rules that said that bypassing the word censor is a no-no!

Ah. Well, in any case - if someone does indeed do that then a Moderator can simply take care of that. If people are bypassing the word censor left and right without any repercussions, why even have a word censor to begin with?

Besides, If I saw "fk u" ... I'm less inclined to take it seriously to the point of retaliating against that post. Although, that's somewhat of a personal bias on my part.

That's why I pointed out moderator work. It's tedious for them to catch people bypassing the censors in every corner of the forum. It's also tedious for them to do the same thing, without the profanity censor.

What's the difference between the two in the big picture?

I'm not saying the staff should give up and be lazy about profanity control. I'm pointing out how the profanity censor doesn't really make the staff's jobs that much easier.

I don't think using fear of the unknown is an appropriate way of doing things here on Mabination. It may have its success in the real world - but so far ... I haven't seen anything to indicate otherwise.

If you murder multiple people, you a likely to get a life-time or perhaps even get executed. Surely this, along with other factors, makes people think twice about murder. That's really my whole point. People generally know the consequences of their actions, yet I feel as if I'm left blind here.

I would hope the Moderator Staff would exercise enough discretion to realize when a person seems to be deliberately abusing the system. As in, when points expired - they immediately go break a rule.

It may be the fact that it clashes with my personality, but I honestly can't see someone doing that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for something to expire would surely take a while? A month at the least?

That's why I underlined the warning and point features of the system.

If you're going to have this punishment list, and the rule breakings that confer to each, open to the public, I think the warning and point system will need to change alongside to make this work. So that people don't just get off easily exactly knowing that doing whatever only gives a warning before infractions are handed out. But at the same time, make it lenient so that those who broke the rules, but with no bad intentions, aren't condemned based on lack of knowledge/sociability.

And then so forth with case-by-case studies of rule breakers that are genuinely apologetic and will reform themselves.

Anyway, "fear of the unknown" was just a pessimistic (but still effective) suggestion*. Of course everybody has the right to know about this kind of thing.

*Take that as a joke if you will. I'm pretty open-minded to any suggestion, whether good or bad.

[Episkey]

I haven't noticed anything different in arguments (or frequency of), in my observation, between now and before the censor removal. So that's just my view. Perhaps this is because I skip over profanity in these arguments, since I don't want to be emotionally involved if it's unnecessary (which... is usually the case nowadays).

I'm not saying I prefer more conflicts due to less limits on expression. I'm just stating that I don't notice any differences you're noticing. This is to point out that perhaps you should consider looking at a wider range for your variables (Number and content of conflicts before and after the censor removal) before finalizing your judgment.

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.

That's why I don't see this issue as urgent as you have stated, as it doesn't affect me as much as, say, how the community was acting when TA was an admin. Which is why I'm with Invertex on this: the more pressing matter is the negativity. Profanity is a correlation (or even causation) thus, regardless if it's censored or not.

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.

However, if you think censoring, by itself, helps, then I don't see why not.

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.

What's the difference between the two in the big picture?

I'm not saying the staff should give up and be lazy about profanity control. I'm pointing out how the profanity censor doesn't really make the staff's jobs that much easier.

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.

If you're going to have this punishment list, and the rule breakings that confer to each, open to the public, I think the warning and point system will need to change alongside to make this work. So that people don't just get off easily exactly knowing that doing whatever only gives a warning before infractions are handed out. But at the same time, make it lenient so that those who broke the rules, but with no bad intentions, aren't condemned based on lack of knowledge/sociability.

And then so forth with case-by-case studies of rule breakers that are genuinely apologetic and will reform themselves.

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.

Anyway, "fear of the unknown" was just a pessimistic (but still effective) suggestion*. Of course everybody has the right to know about this kind of thing.

*Take that as a joke if you will. I'm pretty open-minded to any suggestion, whether good or bad.

I figured as much. But, I'm personally not that much of a pessimist :p

Given how Mabination operates and it's purpose as a social forum, I think the punishments and their resulting consequences need to be set in stone.