Forum:Proposed Language Policy Revision

Support

 * 1) As proposer Garhdo (talk) 13:08, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I find the current policy to be a little hit or miss myself and completely subject to certain peoples definitions and/or whims. Hefe (talk) 13:22, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Not exactly what I would propose but certainly an improvement over the existing. Phalanx-a-pedian 13:37, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) We're mostly adults, on a site dealing with +18 game series, a little salty language isn't something we should fret from. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  13:44, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Such uses of strong language, while they may not be in the best of taste, shouldn't be a policy violation. -Jbusnengo (talk) 19:46, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) as long as I won't get banned for using the language being suggested...--TW6464 (talk) 19:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm in. A little bit of swearing every once in a while would help steam out some stress. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 20:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I support THIS!! J.C IS A GOD!! (talk) 21:32, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Frack yes I support this, let's stop being like Turians and loosen up! CrimsonShogun (talk) 23:03, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) And of course, I write a paragraph defending my vote and then forget to vote! TheUnknown285 (talk) 23:05, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Having a looser, less Draconian policy will alievate a lot of problems, and make this wiki a much more pleasant place for users. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 23:21, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I've never had any issues with the Language policy Bluegear93 (talk) 13:27, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I see no reason why looser language policy is needed. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 13:45, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Commdor (Talk) 14:06, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Lancer1289 (talk) 19:31, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) --Legionwrex (talk) 23:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Further Discussion
I should perhaps clarify that I have been thinking about this for sometime. The idea is less about taking issue with the policy - if the policy is not relaxed to include the new words then it would still require greater definition, as at present its poor wording is very broad and open to interpretation. For example due to cultural differences a very offensive English word - Wanker - has almost no meaning in the US, so is it covered by the policy or not? I would suggest that if this policy is not relaxed that a full template of banned words is implemented, as well as my stipulation of using asterisks to subvert the policy be just as punished as a violation, which I have not seen happen. This proposal covers, in effect, two main points: Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * That the policy be rewritten to provide clearer guidelines and definitions.
 * The proposed relaxing of words that are part of the common vernacular in a non-offensive, conversational use.

Personally I believe that it should be that anything used in the games is fair game (outside of articles and arguably talk pages), and it should not be the word the is a violation, but the usage. For example, using "awww [insert curse word], I thought I'd fixed that" that would be ok, but saying "You are a [insert curse word (ing)] [insert insult]" would be treated as even worse then a normal insult. Quick question, why would "shit/shite" be considered a violation when "bitch(ing)" would be allowed? I would certainly consider the latter to be far worse (though lessened with the ing, as the meaning is somewhat different). Phalanx-a-pedian 13:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Some swearing is unneccessary and that is why I have proposed that certain words remain banned as they can be offensive in any context. The proposal for bitching is that it has taken on a meaning similar to moaning and whining, but emphasising a greater annoyance with it than the other terms. The use of the word bitch (as in "stop being a little bitch") would still be unacceptable. Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I have just realised that your last point there highlights my point about the offensives of a word being subjective to its viewer/user - namely by finding what I would consider a mild word more offensive than a more harsh curse word. Garhdo (talk) 19:30, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples given in the policy description can be stated without use of profanities: Though is "bloody" really against the language policy? LilyheartsLiara (talk) 13:44, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * "I am laughing my butt off!"
 * "I am sick of people whining about the ending."
 * "That was really brilliant."
 * "Stop messing around."
 * As stated above the use of the mild curses emphasises the meaning. The idea is if someone's natural behaviour would be to use the mild curse, and type it without thinking, they would not be penalised for it. Garhdo (talk) 13:49, March 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * But that's already the case. We warn users multiple times about violating the language policy, and only block them for subsequent, repeated violations that demonstrate an intentional disregard for the policy. A warning is not a penalty, it's a way to remind users about a policy that's in place or point it out to them if they were previously unaware. Most of time, people who violate the language policy and are subsequently warned about their behavior do not go on to violate the policy again. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:06, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * that is a fair point, but it also requires a more concerned awareness of what is being posted. On blogs and talk pages this can easily be achieved. However a main concern would be chat. In a chatroom people tend to type as they speak and they do this quickly. As a result slips of language would become more natural. This is also why a list of words considered violations of the policy, especially including cultural variations (another example is the word ass - a common word in American language, yet in other cultures ass or arse is considered a lot more offensive), should be added to the Language Policy, to specify which language is deemed unacceptable. Garhdo (talk) 14:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish to point out that "Bloody" isn't against the policy. Saying something like "that was bloody brilliant" is considered rude, but not a violation of the policy.
 * The point is that there are plenty of ways to say what you want without breaking the policy. If you have to use swearing to make your point, then perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary or a thesaurus. Or just actually think about what you type before you hit publish. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:34, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * Steven Fry makes the point very well here. WARNING: He makes potentially insulting remarks about most people who make the sort of argument you just posted. My posting this is in no way me insulting you (clearly you are an exception to what he says). However, he does make the point very well. Contains curing. On another point, how are we supposed to know which words are allowed and which are not? I was unable to find any thing saying that using bloody as a curse was not against policy, however if I am correct "damn" is? I would generally consider the former worse then the latter. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 21:53, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * This was my point about the current policy being vague, far too broad, ignorant of cultural differences and very open to subjectivity. IN Britain damn is also not generally considered a harsh curse, and yet I would be punished for using it here. Hence why I would propose redrafting the Language Policy to include a list of banned words. Obviously this would be included in changes made with this policy proposal and if this proposal fails I will make a new proposal to accomplish this task. Garhdo (talk) 21:59, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd go ever farther and allow the use of all "dirty words" provided they aren't directed at someone (and aren't racial/ethnic/religious/homophobic slurs), but I will support this as it's several steps in the right direction. This is a wiki dedicated to a video game series that's rated M for Mature, where we we see someone melted down in front of our eyes, where we see people's skulls exploded from sniper rifles, where we have sex with aliens, and that uses very strong language in places. In light of that, it is ridiculous that words like "hell" and "damn" get users in trouble here. And no, a similar policy at BSN is not a reason to have it here; it's ridiculous to have one there, too. TheUnknown285 (talk) 22:59, March 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * The language policy here was intended to emulate some of the tenets of Wikipedia's wiki etiquette behavioral guidelines. I don't see why it's so hard for people to show a modicum of restraint in everyday conversations here; if we were a forum or a pure fan site, virtual watercoolers, it would be more understandable, but as a wiki, an encyclopedic endeavor, shouldn't we strive to abide by higher standards? Also, I'm pretty sure we don't reprimand users for saying "hell" or "damn", either. Or at least I don't. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:36, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

It's just unexpected and awkward. This isn't BSN, or Wikipedia, or any other site. This is a Wikia wiki, one about a game containing mature content. Asking people to curb their speech makes things precarious and confusing. No one really understands the point, so it feels like it exists for its own sake. I understand the desire to avoid swears in actual pages, but this isn't just an encyclopaedia. This is also a community, and the blogs, forums, and chat room discussions are not very encyclopaedic in nature. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 23:40, March 7, 2013 (UTC)