Forum:A change to the Language Policy

Proposal
The Language Policy of MEWiki is one that frequently comes under fire. It is among the most often accidentally violated policies we have. Thus, I propose a change to the policy. While still making the use of profanity in articles a bannable offense, use in Blogs, Forums, and in discussions between Users would be allowed so long as it is not used to insult, inflame, agitate, berate, belittle, etc. another user. Use of sexual/racial/sexist/ageist/etc. slurs would still be prohibited. This would greatly reduce inadvertent violations of the Language Policy by Users new and old who mean no harm to the wiki or other Users in their use of profanity.

We are editors of a Wiki dedicated to a series which has been consistently been rated "M" by the ESRB. Profanity is used in the games, books, and comics themselves. I don't think anybody here is unfamiliar with profanity, and if it offends you, well then you may have picked the wrong series.

I'm not a frequent user of curse words, on the net or in real life. But if somebody else wants to use a few of the more vulgar words out there, then I say go right ahead. As Voltaire once famously said, "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". He was talking about protecting dissenting opinions in government and elsewhere of course, not use of profanity, but I think it's still a fitting quote for the proposal.

Discussion
The proposal is open for discussion. Arbington 06:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a policy proposal. At least, not as it currently stands. It's some opinions, personal stories, and a pithy quote that isn't really relevant to the topic at hand. For example, absolutely no thought has been given (at least none that I can see) to what content currently forbidden will be allowed, and what won't. Who decides what is and isn't too offensive to let through? Who would decide when this language has been shown to "insult, inflame, agitate, berate, belittle, etc. another user"? There's nothing policy-oriented in here, so I'm baffled as to why it's in the Policy Forum. Policy proposals need to be policy proposals, not platitudes. Come up with something concrete, objective, and enforceable, and I'll gladly take it seriously. SpartHawg948 06:31, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Considering how specific this wiki is about copy-pasting information and text from the game EXACTLY as is, then by rights and common sense, ANY word said in Mass Effect should be allowed on this wiki so long as they are not used to deliberately harrass or insult someone. Basically, if you can cope with hearing a character say sh** in Mass Effect and not pass out as a result, then you should be able to handle it said on this wiki, or you risk being a hypocrite. --Aerid77 12:01, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again, there is nothing specific here. Spart is correct, this isn't a proposal, it's a story and not specific. Not to mention there is absolutely no reason to use profanity in a civil mature discussion. Here's a question, why do you have to use profanity at all? Are you compensating for something? Would you use that language in a conversation say with your boss/teacher/professor/spouse/parents/etc.? Did anyone ever consider that people can be offended by just having the words on the page? That it could turn people away if they constantly see profanity in every discussion because it could imply that we are harsh or that everyone has to use it to feel "cool"? Did anyone ever consider that the word in of it self might inflame the discussion? Did anyone also consider that someone could misinterpret the comment and take it as an insult? I can answer those questions: in my book, there is no reason to use profanity in a civil discussion; if you have to use it then it says something about you and not really in a good way; absolutely not; yes hence why the policy is in place now; again yes again same reasoning; and again, yes for the same reasoning; yes again same reasoning, the word alone can inflame a discussion; and finally yes, people can, and have which I can site numerous examples, where comments have been misinterpreted and that misunderstanding not only distracts from the discussion, but could derail it altogether and it doesn’t excuse the person who set it off course.
 * You also really have no excuse to use it. Citing the game as rated "M" is not remotely an excuse to use it, nor does it, or should it, excuse it on any level. Using profanity in a civil discussion just downgraded that discussion form civil to argumentative. Not to mention there are...what...about three hundred ways of saying something without restoring to using profanity? Did anyone consider that? Considering this is up for discussion, I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those is no. For example, if someone points out a mistake you made, which is better to say, "Ah (insert favorite swear word here)", "Oops my bad", "Thanks for pointing that out", "Doh, thanks", or any number of other ways without using a swear? The answer to that question is anyone but the first one. There are literally hundreds of ways of phrasing something without using profanity, and if you have to use it, you not only limit yourself to using it, but you also fall into the habit of using it all the time. Which, in addition, could result to the situations I have already listed, could lead to something else, like you getting reported for something that you never implied, or even meant to say. So I ask you, why do you have to use profanity at all? Why can't you just have a civil discussion without resorting to it? If you don’t use it, then that shows maturity and encourages people to discuss with you more often about subjects because you don't resort to using those words. I do get angry when people have to use a swear every other word, and that isn't mature, that is just wrong. If you can't go a conversation, or for that matter, making a comment without using a swear, that to me, says something about your maturity level. Lancer1289 15:53, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Just to point this out, calling someone a hypocrite for enforcing the policy is in of itself flawed. Just because profanity is used somewhere, doesn't mean anyone is a hypocrite for asking people not to use it and show a level of maturity by not using it. Not to mention it doesn't instantly mean, just because they use it there, means we can use it here. That isn't an excuse, that's circular logic, and that never ends well. Lancer1289 15:58, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also known as Begging the Question. I was neutral on this the last time and I just think this time that the policy is fine the way it is. In verbal communications, profanities are often used unintentionally, or for emphasis. Thus it is a common application of the Freudian Slip. However, writing is more formal than speech and there is less room for error; most publications will not accept vulgarisms in the material due to an immediate decline in quality should they be included. Another benefit is that writings can be changed indefinitely before being published, while speech cannot. In these wikis, we try to have formal discussions on various topics, rather than spewing swears in every sentence. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:28, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As the guy who proposed this, I support it. Arbington 06:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) If it's said in Mass Effect, it should be permissible here, both in articles and discussion (harrassment is still clearly not acceptible) --Aerid77 12:06, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. No practical means determining what crude/vulgar language is permissible and what isn't has been provided. As such, this is a vague and open-ended proposal, not a suitable policy for implementation. SpartHawg948 06:27, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Completely 1000% oppose this, and for anyone voting support, I encourage you to rightly defend yourself and come up with a valid excuse to any question I posed above. Lancer1289 15:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Based on my explanations above, I must oppose this policy change. Doing so will set a potentially bad precedence. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per the above arguments against this policy. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) It seems clear that the community wants the policy to stay, however I do think warnings for minor words like "crap" is unnecessary.  N7  &#91; T &#124; C &#93; 18:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC)