Forum:Language Policy Reform

Forums: Index > Policy > Language Policy Reform

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy:

Description of Policy: To change the Language Policy and Create a more user friendly Environment. -->

Notes:
Supporting links or images:

Proposal

I feel that the Language Policy of this wiki is unfair and immoral. We should be able to use "swear" or "curse" words so long as they are not used to harass other users. For example: "Playing Mass Effect 2 on insanity was a bitch" Should Be allowed because it is used to describe a situation instead of a person. However saying "(Insert name of User) Is a bitch" Should Not Be allowed as I consider that a form of harassment. Now what words can we say you ask? Well I feel all racial and sexual slurs should be banned because that form of hate does not belong on this wiki. Aside from that I would allow all curse words so long as they are not being directed toward another user. In Mass Effect there is some "foul" language used which I find ironic since we are having this issue on this wiki. Mass Effect is rated "M" under order of the ESRB therefore those who are over 17 and are suppose to be playing it should also have the ability to hear curse words without being offended. I personally can't see how words like "Damn" or "Shit" or "Fuck" can offend someone. I feel we should have the discretion to choose what words we use to describe something. I was told even the word "Moron" is banned which I find to be completely asinine.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 11:18, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

UPDATE: A few people are having trouble understanding the new policy so here I am to clarify: All "Curse" or "Swear" words can be used in blog posts,comments, and forum pages. Racial and Sexual Slurs are Illegal along with any harsh language directed at another user. "Curse" or "Swear" words are still banned in articles unless something directly from the game is being reffered to. I anyone needs anymore detail I hope you will ask.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 16:41, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

UPDATE: Does anyone want me to add a "blacklist" of words that can't be used?--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 17:06, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

Voting

Support

1. I support as the creator of this page.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 11:18, August 27, 2012 (UTC).
2. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) supports the allowing of curse words as long as they are not overused, or used to harass others.
3. One of the most ludicrous things about the wiki, perhaps the policy reform should be amended to include consideration of context as well? "Bloody" is not inherently swearing, but "cloaca" used in the Mordin-context is. Phylarion (talk) 14:17, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Having such a strict language policy on a Wiki about a game like Mass Effect is preposterous. The warnings only clog up the feed. TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:25, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 16:07, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
6. As long as it isn't excessive and not directed towards a user, I'm perfectly fine with it. Other wikis seem to manage perfectly fine without this save for the random anon, I think we will too. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 17:07, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seeing many of the blogs spiral out of control due to passionate feelings, I think that giving more leeway to the community may backfire. Tiredman2 (talk)
2. No policy has been specified. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:40, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
3. I support the language policy.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:04, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose until issues I feel are present are fixed.--Xaero Dumort (talk) 16:51, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
5. This isn't a proposal but a vendetta. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:19, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

This Proposal is open for discussion.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 11:18, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

I cannot vote on this unless I am presented with a list of each and every term that is considered "offensive" under the current language policy. I realize this may be a lot, but it's they only way I can ensure that we're not just opening up people to say words that I may agree with being worthy of warnings. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 14:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no workable policy has been outlined by the proposer. The current proposal is too vague, and if it isn't substantially revised and clarified, it cannot take effect. -- Commdor (Talk) 14:40, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

The language policy keeps conversations civil, prevents flamewars, and keeps a more friendly environment. If users really want to get "passionate" (which I personally believe is a cheap excuse to explain an overreaction) they can do so without using offensive language.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:10, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

"The language policy keeps conversations civil, prevents flamewars" - /cough/ really? So why were we having this flamewarring issue recently?

I will abstain from voting until this proposal is more specific and clarified, but one thing I'll say: the current language policy is ineffective. It sticks to the word, instead of the spirit, by disallowing the use of swearwords in non-offensive contexts, while allowing highly derrogatory and condescending posts to remain just because they don't contain any offensive word as such. --Ygrain (talk) 16:24, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah, it is effective, if we are having flamewar problems now, just imagine what they would be like when this policy is passed, additionally, like I said the language policy keeps things friendly. I swear we are close to ending up like Halo Nation.

As to the matter of users acting condescending, I tried to implement a policy to stop it, but people rejected it, so thats their own dang fault and they can live with it.--Legionwrex (talk) 16:34, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with foul language as in my life I use it all of the time. However, the proposal as is actually only allows one curse word and that is "Shit". As all others fall under racial (which I also use to define religious in this instance) or sexual in nature. Even if original derivation and meaning are not of sexual or racial nature that is how they have been coined or determined now. The outliers to both of these categories would be, as I see it are "Damn" and "Bastard". I see no problem with the first, but I know that there are people who could be fine with everything until the moment you put God in front of that. Then we have the latter which while not exactly sexual in nature is something that questions the parentage and I feel stands just outside the line of what is sexual looking at its female counterpoint. To that end, the policy feels unfinished as well as I feel the proposal has holes to be filled. The biggest of which I have just tried to help with here. So until the proposal satisfies me, I cannot support.--Xaero Dumort (talk) 16:50, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

How is it unclear? How has no proposal been outlined? How many hoops do I have to hop through? I feel I explained everything quite well and whoever claims that it is unclear as a whole may need more personal clarification and should not speak for everyone else as a whole--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 16:59, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

"curse or swear words -still- banned in articles"? sh*t son FFS if you're going to propose policy at least familiarize yourself on how the wiki actually works or how certain stuff are actually written: manual of style, community guidelines. by your logic we should exclude characters' unique dialogue that are potty-mouthed in nature (jack obviously + most of the other characters every now and then). we'll have a relaxed language policy for people yet the ingame characters themselves can't cuss? comedy if i ever saw one. policies are usually enforced according to their wording. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 17:10, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Who is speaking for everyone? Commdor used the words "As far as I can tell..." showing he is speaking of his impression, Ygrain comes close but her use of the I statement again shows her feelings, and I even made sure to use the phrase "I feel..." to present it as my opinion. You may feel you explained everything quite well, but it is obvious the three of us at the least, see issues and that the proposal needs to be expanded and clarified. We don't need personal clarification because we are voting on a policy for the community. It needs to be clear so we know what we are as members of said community are voting for and how it may impact the community. The clarification we ask for is so we don't participate in something that could cause issues and not already have a plan of action.--Xaero Dumort (talk) 17:12, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

People keep saying "As long as it isn't excessive" referring to language, well you know what, you can bet it will be excessive. How are you going to stop it if it is excessive, you can't.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:14, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

There's this little thing called "suspension". And if the admins would be overburdened by it, they can appoint moderators. Speaking of, I haven't seen a single one of these here. --Kainzorus Prime ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:27, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

That won't work because moderators on wikis have no power. They cannot ban people, they can't stop them, all they can do is report. Only admins on wikis have the power to ban people or stop them. So this policy has even more problems. I would suggest considering that. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:30, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Thats a bad point -S-, because the policy makes no mention of excessive swearing being against the rules, so Admins/moderators can't ban them, because they didn't do anything, also, what would even qualify as "excessive"?--Legionwrex (talk) 17:33, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This will change nothing because it is now even more open to interpretation than before. I also don't like the fact that we are voting on it and it keeps changing. If this keeps up, then that should tell everyone something. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:43, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)This changes nothing and is nothing more or less than a vendetta at this point and I am not not sorry to say that. I cannot support any change because there is nothing defined, and even if it was, then I cannot support it. I fully believe that our policies currently invite a welcoming community and it is nice to actually go somewhere where there isn't a swear word every five words. What is currently set is nothing that isn't open to interpretation. There needs to be an exact change, not something open. Anyone supporting change should be aware of this that under this "policy change" nothing will really change because of the inherent nature of the English language, there needs to be an exact change, not an ambiguous one.

Not to mention that the only justification behind this change is "the game is rated "M"". People that isn't justification. BioWare's social network is stricter than us and they made the game. Commdor stated it quite clearly on his talk page yesterday: " "Our game's rating has no bearing on the kind of language that's acceptable in our forums. Forum discussion should be rated PG." Is BioWare offended by offensive language? Obviously not given its inclusion in their games. But they make it clear that their games and their forums are not one and the same; you don't need offensive language to discuss the games, it serves no purpose except to disrupt and is thus unnecessary. The same reasoning applies at ME Wiki." Not to mention the language that the author just removed from his blog "Soon I'm creating a policy page where WE the users can finally put an end to the corrupt censorship that these Admins have immorally suppressed us with. Hopefully some of you will agree with me and we could put this problem behind us." I find completely offensive and rude. Anyone look at that and say this isn't a vendetta. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:19, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

The reason I removed that from my blog is because we are reading the policy page right now! No need to keep something saying "Soon I'm creating a policy page" when It is right here. If anything Lancer you are the one with the vendetta why do you have have a habit of banning people for using foul language? Namely Slowrider7? What you are doing is immoral and it is censorship and it is a borderline dictatorship.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 17:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC).

Why does he keep banning people, uh, maybe because they broke the friggin policy.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:49, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe if the policy was actually more user-friendly and more lenient than we wouldn't have to ban people excessively.--GethHaveFeelings2 (talk) 17:53, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I knew you'd bring that back up. It isn't censorship, it is asking people to be mature, reasonable, and act like adults here. There are hundreds of thousands of ways to say something without swearing. There are plenty of places where you can't swear and it is for the same reasons. When you go someplace you have to abide by their rules, and you keep changing this one. Perhaps that says something? We ask people to act like mature adults, since you have to be at least 17 to buy this game in the US, 18 elsewhere in the world, and asking them to check their language is a reasonable request. It isn't censorship and it isn't immoral, nor are the admins corrupt so thanks for that, it is a completely reasonable request. I find it quite nice to be able to go somewhere where I can have a civil conversation, not have someone converse with me in a manner that makes them sound like the 10 year old playing call of duty, which is exactly what will happen. Yet you are so bent on seeing it as that, that you can't see the forest for the trees. The fact you have to keep poaching users tells me something else. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:55, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

This policy proposal is now closed. The proposer did not set forth a clear and understandable set of revisions to the existing language policy, so this cannot be passed. Alone, this would not necessarily cause the proposal to be closed as long as the proposal was revised before the voting period concluded, but the proposer also pursued a reprehensible strategy to get his way. He canvassed for votes by blatantly asking for support for this proposal via a user blog, and by exclusively notifying other users who had previously sought language policy changes or had been blocked for violating the language policy and in some cases explicitly requesting their support. As such, it is impossible for this proposal to be approved by the community fairly. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:58, August 27, 2012 (UTC)