Forum:RE: Swearing

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RE: Swearing
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 7 September 2009 by Sir Revan125.

In this thread [1], I said the word fuck. Clearly not in violation of the user treatment policy [2], and clearly not directed at anyone. However Azliq felt the need to remove the swear from my sentence twice before even responding to my comment on her talk page or in the revert comment [3]. This issue previously came up here [4], and it was determined that the occasional swearing was permitted given that it was not directed against a user.

Azliq cited this part of the user treatment policy as reason for removing my comment:

"If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities"

However when taken in context it clearly means do not use profanity as a measure to impose your opinion or threaten anyone.

Proposal: We allow free speech and the occasional swear, in some form it should be added to the user treatment or other policy to make it known and stop incidents like this in the future.

Edit Tuesday July 28: This is not suggesting we allow swearing in articles or projects, we are talking only about discussions such as those on the Yew Grove or on talk pages. Again, not for articles, please do not post your opinion based on swearing being allowed in articles or projects!Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 07:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As thread starter. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't mind the occasional swearing, but should we add something to the treatment policy that overuse is against the rules? But, an isolated use here or there for me doesn't bother me, it's when almost every other word is swearing. ~MuzTalk 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Let us assume that a large amount of users on this wiki are of the younger generation. ShinyUnown T | C | E 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Swearing is never necessary and should be avoided wherever it does not add significantly to the matter at hand. In the context you gave us, its clear to me that you were attacking the idea (and by default the user who put it forth) using language that was far more harsh than was called for or was appropriate. What's worse is that you did not elaborate on why you opposed the idea. If a policy were made that allows this kind of nonchalant swearing, it would lead to nothing but abuse and people swearing for no reason simply because they can. It would be a hassle to enforce and, ultimately, accomplish nothing. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the situation. Consensus was reached dictating that swearing is permitted, and as such there is nothing to enforce. A user whos behavior is in question is compared to the user treatment policy, not the words they use. And no, had I said "are you freaking kidding me" then my comment would have not been removed even though it meant the same thing. There is also the issue of free speech which we need to consider, and also that we are not nanny's and do not need to protect anyone from anything but truly malicious behavior. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
If its already a policy then why are you proposing it again? It seems I that I don't quite understand. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Its not listed in the policies, but consensus was reached that swearing is allowed. Adding something to the policy would only prevent further disputes in the case where someone is removing someone else's comments without their permission, and to make it well known and easily accessible. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I know many people will call me "an immature kid" or someone who just has no manners for saying this, but seriously? How is "fuck" or any other swear offensive, especially if it's not used in a hostile manner? Oh, wait...it's not. I honestly do not see how anyone can be offended by that. It's just any other word that's been changed by society so people will THINK it's supposed to be offensive, but it's NOT. I'm of the younger generation too, being 13, and it's not "ruining my innocence" to hear swearing. We don't need to cater to the people who can't take swearing, or haven't been exposed to it before. They're going to be exposed to it eventually. If the no swearing rule is put into effect, let's just put a freaking censor. It'll save the effort of people jumping down the throats of others for swearing, even if nobody is offended. I'm not saying we SHOULD swear all the time, I'm just saying people shouldn't make such a huge deal about it even when nobody really is offended...it shouldn't be encouraged, just tolerated. I don't even have a problem with people who say "fuck" every other word, either...it's frankly LESS annoying den ppl who tlk like dis. But it's allowed. Are the grammar rules here even being enforced? Words like "gay" and "fag" are much more offensive than this, let's outlaw those words if anything.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

22:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Like Cash stated above, everyone will eventually be exposed to our world, a world of swearing. People swear all the time; there's no stopping it and those who are offended need to get used to it. I refrain from swearing myself, as I can express my emotions completely fine without using such unnecessary words, but I have learned not to mind when other people swear simply because I know it's unavoidable. I think people should try their best to avoid swearing, but it's no big deal if someone occasionally lets loose a swear word.  Tien  23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, by your analogy, it's ok to kill since we'll all die someday? That, somewhy, does not seem right to me. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course swearing is just as bad as killing... 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ehm, where did you get that from, D4k? I didn't say it was OK to swear because everyone else swears.  Tien  19:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Support - Per Supporters.Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 10:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - [[5]] Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Swearing does not make you a dick. Being a dick makes you a dick. Don't confuse the two. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards oppose - Swearing is not exactly neccessary, is unconstructive, and is a waste of words. But, some people may need to swear sometimes. An occasional "Screw this quest" doesn't hurt anyone. But people going overboard inserting swears every other word have no place here. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment This entire argument might be moot. You've created this thread on the premise that a mod deleted a non-offensive swear word from your post. But I maintain that it was offensive in that it was needlessly harsh. I would have no problem if you had said something like "I don't give a f***", but by saying "Are you f****** kidding me" you attacked his idea with an unwarranted and inappropriate harshness. Like it or not swear words carry a far greater weight than other words, and even if "Are you freaking kidding me?" might mean the same thing, since it does not use a swear word, its impact is far smaller. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But your perception of swearing is based on your upbringing and moral views. Not my concern since swearing is normal in my life. I don't however require that swearing be allowed, in fact I am kind of annoyed that I even have to defend myself for swearing in general and not directing it at anyone. If the words are harsh and carry more weight as you say, then the use of any swear is not to be tolerated and hypocritical of you to categorize between the uses. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
By saying "are you f****** kidding me" you implied that the idea the thread starter was communicating was so stupid that he must be kidding. You may have not intended so, but to most people, that appears to be a personal attack. Its not different than if you had said "This is a f****** stupid idea". While you're not directly insulting the person, you attack his idea in such a harsh way that the negativity is "transferred" to them. Also remember what I said earlier. Your comment would not have been nearly so bad if you had said why you opposed the suggestion. You didn't do that. You just implied that the idea was horrible using a swear word and left. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Partial support, partial oppose - All racial/sexist slurs (e. g. "gook, nigger") and sexually-related slurs (e. g. "fuck", "cunt", "pussy") should not be allowed, but the others are fine if used sparingly. Butterman62 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC) see below

What about words like "fuck" that aren't used in a sexual manner most of the time in casual situations. It's just like saying "damn" (which I say much more often than fuck), except it is used to put more emphasis on a point. The stronger the word, the easier it is to get your point across. I hear people say "fuck this!" a lot more often than I hear it used as a replacement for saying "had sex with" (though to be fair, it is quite easier to say 1 syllable). 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - People don't want you to speak peacefully without hate, they want only to control which words you use as if that will curve out the negative meaning and signal some sort of education or something. The meaning is what matters, not what words you use to deliver it. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - as long as it doesn't offend anyone I see no problem with the occasional swearing; however, as Butterman has said, there are certain words such as racial slurs that are unacceptable. Andrew talk 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - As long as it is not directed towards anyone, is not excessive, and per Soldier and all above. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Runecrafting.gif Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 15:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - They all make some very compelling arguments, but I believe any sexual slang and racist words should not be permitted, no matter the context. I really don't like the idea of some kid coming to the Yew grove or forums, and learning some... new words. Because now preteens have been allowed to use the game. If we were going to allow swearing it should've been before that happened. And if this is allowed, it should be obviously stated on the main page that there may be language on the forums, Yew Grove and talk pages. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 20:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've said this already, we're not here to babysit younger users for the sake of protecting their innocence. There goes about 3/4 of your argument. 21:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Essentially that, you need to get it out of your head thats its our job to protect the littles. If parents don't want their children exposed to bad language or the rest of the world, keep them off the internet. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see why you want to swear so badly. As you argued earlier, swear words aren't powerful to you because of your upbringing, when you said "But your perception of swearing is based on your upbringing and moral views. Not my concern since swearing is normal in my life." If you think swearing is just like using normal words, why do you want to use it so much? I get the feeling that you don't really care if swearing is or is not allowed, and that you're just miffed that you were censored. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
But what if we don't do anything? What will happen to the children as this filth washes over their poor innocent ears. What if their behavior changes as a result of our activities? How can we not do something about it. How can freedom of speech and fairness be important when someones feelings are at stake. No, we need to curtail the greed and control the behavior of the irresponsible person. Oh and even if we end up not protecting anyone anyway, how can it hurt to conserve and control every aspect of everyones life? It can be better if people learn to start dealing with less. So what if individual freedoms are crushed. Can the individual be worth more then the collective welfare? No of course not. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Its time we took those evil swearing people down a peg or two anyway. They dont need those freedoms anyway when all they can do is hurt, thats justice isn't it? In fact it doesnt even matter if we end up protecting anyone, it can never be bad to stop people from offending someone. Individual rights are an anachronism. We have to look out for the masses. Oh and since we know better then the masses and whats good for the masses, we should be in charge and decide what stays and what goes. After all, someone has to decide, it might as well be someone who cares like us. Of course rules would be necessary, no one would just obey us for the good of the common man. Welcome to the wonderful world of fascism. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Censorship isn't fascism. Stop exaggerating. Ancient statuette.pngWWTDD?Ancient statuette.png 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Censorship of something you don't agree with isn't fascism, right. The point of that schpeal is not to call whats happening right now fascism, its to show what telling people what they can and cannot due through the use of rules and laws usually leads to. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
So not being allowed to swear on TV means that the U.S is a fascist state? That's a new one. Ancient statuette.pngWWTDD?Ancient statuette.png 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you purposely missing the point? And yes if your not familiar with the current political circumstance of the United States, disregard of the constitution and legislation of some pretty ridiculous things run rampant. National Id cards for example [6], or how about energy use legislation [7].Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, I'm not purposely missing the point, but you certainly ignored Psycho_Robot's post.


And which part of the Constitution do the ID cards and energy use legislation violate? Ancient statuette.pngWWTDD?Ancient statuette.png 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also one must consider the channel, that is, the way the swearing was transmitted. This is a website for a game played by children. Not exclusively children, but a huge majority of the users that play this game are under 18. Thus, censorship here isn't true censorship, but rather regulation for the sake of children. If there were no swearing allowed anywhere on the Internet to protect children, then that would be censorship, and I would be completely opposed to it. Also, free speech does not apply here, because this is an area subject to the terms and conditions of use set forth by the owner of this website, wikia inc. I believe. So whether or not censoring swearwords is an infringement on your right to free speech is irrelevant because you don't have a right to free speech here.
kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Psycho said it best, and I'm getting a little hot under the collar here, so I think ah'm done with this. Ancient statuette.pngWWTDD?Ancient statuette.png 00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Before you go, please formally register a vote by stating support or oppose (the latter I shall assume) kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, where is this "protect the children" thing coming from? Your personal interpretation of what is right and wrong. Did you forget that we determine things via consensus and that we have previously determined that swearing is allowed and judging from the responses here will continue to be allowed. Aside from some actual violation of laws wikia is bound to that we have agreed to via the terms of service, we can do as we please. Edit: you should familiarize yourself with RS:CONSENSUS and some of our other policies, we do not vote, we reach consensus. A Process I don't agree with, but the process nonetheless. 00:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tab reset! Yay? Anyways... firstly, my personal interpretation of what is right and wrong might be wrong, but yours might be as well. Secondly, I realise that we don't formally "vote", perhaps I use a poor word choice earlier, hokitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)wever clearly stating your opinion by saying support or oppose makes it easier to reach consensus because everyone's position is firmly and clearly established. Also, despite the fact that it was previously said to be OK, it was not added to the policy. Whether an admin forgot or whether it was deliberately left off for a reason, no one but an admin can say, but I believe that it was left off because adding "swearing is OK" is pretty much saying "come here and swear your mouth off" to anyone with a childish mind. Please note that in no way am I calling you immature, but since this is a game for children, its safe to say that most people who come here will be immature in some respect. That said, I think the "swearing is OK" decision was more of a "hidden rule" if you will, that has no formalities attached to it. Admins can apply or choose not to apply the rule as they see fit. I don't think anyone would be upset if you said "I don't know what the Hell is going on" or "I don't really give a damn", but what you said was on the extreme edge of acceptable. Whether it was crossing the line or not isn't really relevant, because it was close enough to cause doubt, and when in doubt, swearing should be removed. The ability to swear isn't important enough to make into a formal policy where it will do nothing but encourage abuse, cause admins to second guess themselves when removing offensive language, and cause threads like these to be made every time someone gets censored. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're just authoritvaely stating what you think is right over and over again. The edge of acceptable? Who determines what is and what is not acceptable? Who cares if children predominantly play the game? Why do we even distinguish between different ages of people? The only reason is because you like things a certain way and we should accommodate that view because children are young and innocent and swear is only used for hurting and anger. Sysops and bureaucrats are not moderators here to enforce the rules any more than any of us are, ask any one of them and you will get the same response. They are just a set of editing tools that anyone can get through an RFA. Another funny thing about freedom of speech and choice is that if someone is uncomfortable or otherwise offended by something minute like the mention of the word fuck, they are allowed to walk away or avoid going around places where that language is used. Your ideal circumstance is that we just disbar it and deny that same freedom to the people who want to use the language in the first place. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If I were the only person who felt this way you would be well within your rights to criticize me for trying my way, but the point is, a lot of other people feel the same way I do, as evidenced by the people who have posted here and by the people who posted in the last thread. Also, you claim I'm trying to force my way on everyone else, and although that is debatable, you're doing the same thing by trying to get swearing listed as acceptable in the policy page. I'm advocating the status quo, where there's no concrete policy regarding swearing and admins are left to their own to decide what is and what is not proper use of swearing. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Even if you could invoke the status quo based on no consensus which is not the case here, the status quo would be swearing is permitted because of a previous consensus. It does not need to be written in order to be applicable. My point is that I am not pressing my own views into the discussion, I support freedom of speech and choice which is is what is allowed here by default. Your trying to classify what counts as free speech based on how much it offends, which is nothing but nannying. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is no rule regarding swearing. I want to keep it that way. This means you can swear, and that moderators can remove swears they deem offensive if they want. And I don't think any moderators are complete squares that will remove all swears on sight. Just look at this thread, there must have been a dozen swears and none of them have been removed. Doesn't that tell you that there doesn't need to be a rule? Ask yourself this: would the forums benefit from a rule saying you can swear? People swear already, and for the most part they keep it mild, but if we had a rule saying you could swear, everyone and their uncle would swear just because they can. I really don't see any problem with the current system where there's no rule for or against it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Rules are for the CC. Secondly, you seem to not understand what consensus is.

Thirdly, when you were younger and your parents told you not to steal, it didn't have to be written down to apply. Fourthly this is not a forum, this is the wiki, and as you have ignored in my last post sysops are not more qualified to deal with vandalism or rule breakers then anyone else. I don't see you around alot, judging from your user page creation date I think its because you are new. Start understanding that sysops are not moderators and writing down that swearing is allowed will not increase swearing and that its not your job or my job or azliqs job to control or censor language. Its kind of like saying when in the constitution it says you have the right to bear arms that everyone will own a gun just because they can. Its just a terrible argument. Lastly, if someone who is involved in the discussion feels offended by a swear, in this case it would be Stinko, they have the right to let it be known on my userpage. I would like to assume that he did the adult thing and considered the point of my post, or ignored it. Azliqs only contribution to that discussion is editing other peoples comments and removing my swear, which is just complete bullshit. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 10:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is kinda going nowhere. We could debate back and forth all month and in the end neither of us will be convinced to the other side's viewpoint. My stance on the subject has been made clear, and I think that's all that's the most I can do towards making a consensus. Despite the fact that we disagree I don't think any less of you. But you're still wrong! Lol kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there should be a rule saying "swearing is allowed in moderation", I'm just saying there shouldn't be any rule concerning language. It won't say they can swear, but it won't say they can't - because they can. They just won't see the huge "ABUSE ME" connotations of a rule saying "swearing is allowed" if there just isn't a rule about it.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Partial allowence rules are just begging to be abused. And theres no reason we need to allow this sort of thing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randox (talk).

Comment - Those of you who don't swear, think about this: you do know some swear words, right? In today's society, I'm pretty sure that everyone, with the exception of toddlers and younger, knows at least a couple swear words. You just choose not to use them. Well... How do you know them? You don't just wake up one day and suddenly know the word "shit." You were obviously exposed to it at some point in your early life, whether it be from hearing someone swear or seeing swear words on the internet.

But as you get older and learn to think, you can decide whether to swear or not. If some kid goes to this site and sees a swear word, sure, he may have a new word in his vocabulary. However, it's not a matter of who taught him the swear word; swearing is so rampant nowadays that it's not uncommon to see eight year olds who can swear fluently. It's a matter of whether he chooses to swear. He can easily decide not to. But if he chooses to continue swearing, so be it. That's not our problem.

If someone feels the need to abuse it, then a block is always available.  Tien  12:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The so-called consensus in Forum:Swearing was achieved in the first week or so, with several users opposing the proposal. (Note that the original proposal was to give users who swear 2 warnings and then block them for a day or so.) The thread remains open, and has not been officially closed or decided on.

And, consensus is never permanent, so using the argument that consensus has already been reached is not valid. In the discussion, some users were in favour in censoring major words (such as fuck and cunt), while others thought that swearing is okay "as long as it doesn't offend anyone and its not excessive."

As I said earlier in Guide to the Yew Grove, how do we determine which words are excessive, and which ones are not. Swearing might be common in the Western countries, but our wiki is not America (where free speech is a law) or any other Western country. We have an international community here, and to some of our users, swearing is not common, especially with strong words (such as fuck, cunt, etc.) Some users are inclined to think that swearing is very common, because in their town/city/country, people swear all the time. But this is not the case for everyone. In a wiki, we have to consider everyone, regardless of moral upbringing, race, religion, and ethnicity.

I believed the conclusion in that discussion was that the language in Yew Grove remained clean, while user pages and user talk pages were not censored. RuneScape:User treatment policy states: If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities. I have to agree with Diberville (in that discussion) that "The use of profanity, even if not directly used to berate someone else violates this policy in any argument."

The relative severity of various British profanities, as perceived by the public, was studied on behalf of the British Broadcasting Standards Commission, Independent Television Commission, BBC and Advertising Standards Authority; the results of this jointly commissioned research were published in December 2000 in a paper called "Delete Expletives". It listed the profanities in order of decreasing severity, the top ten being cunt, motherfucker, fuck, wanker, nigger, bastard, prick, bollocks, arsehole, and paki in that order. About 83% of respondents regarded cunt as "very severe"; 16% thought the same about shit and 10% about crap. Only about 1% thought cunt was "not swearing"; 9% thought the same about shit and 32% of crap.
— Wikipedia:Profanity

An excerpt from the paper describes the top three words:

The three words (cunt, motherfucker, fuck) rated as ‘very severe’ by the majority of respondents have not changed from 1998. In all cases women find the words far more offensive than do men, and older respondents find them more offensive than younger ones.
— Delete Expletives? Advertising Standards Authority, British Broadcasting Corporation

According to Wikipedia:Civility, these behaviours can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

  • Rudeness
  • Insults and name-calling
  • Judgemental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
  • Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
  • Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
  • Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
  • Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them
  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
  • Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors
  • Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them
  • Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
  • Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
  • Harassment
  • Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
  • Attempts to publicly volunteer other people's time and effort for work they have not agreed to perform.

Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors, in trying to be forthright, can seem unnecessarily harsh. Other editors can seem oversensitive when their views are challenged. Silent and faceless words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not transmit fully the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions.

Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project. Be especially welcoming of new users. Welcome other people to edit the pieces but do discourage any unnecessary edits.

— Wikipedia:Civility

The remark "Are you fucking kidding me?" was not constructive criticism, and in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh. In this case, "fucking" is considered an "emphatic swearing" and the word was used as an adjective. To make it less harsh, I removed the expletive.

If someone finds a word offensive, doesn't he/she have the right to remove the word..? (Assuming that the removal doesn't change the context of the sentence.) I am not saying that we should go and look for offensive words and delete them all. What I did was probably an isolated case, in which I thought I was right in removing the word, and it was for the best interests of the wiki. It was done silently, and without any edit summary, because it was meant to be that way. I did not want to make a fuss about it. I never imagined my edit being reverted multiple times, and the issue being brought to the Yew Grove. In my opinion, this issue is being blown out of proportion.

See also: Don't be a dick, and Do not disrupt to illustrate a point   az talk   22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Forum:Swearing had a request for closure a month and a half ago, since only sysops or crats (I think) can close threads that demonstrates nothing more than no one closing it, not the process being formally incomplete.

Saying that the UTP is being violated in any case is a gross misinterpretation clearly made in favor of your own views. Using swearing or profanities to reach an end for example would be criticizing a user in order to influence their actions to your own end. Just because any user can vote in order to reach consensus does not immediately mean that any action ever made by any user is an attempt to reach a decision and therefore violating the policy. Very clearly I have said many times that a swear directed at a user with the intent on demeaning or insulting them is not allowed, this is not the case here and has never been the case as long as swearing has been allowed.

Arguing against something by saying "consensus is never permanent so there is no consensus" is like me saying "well because there is never a permanent anything I can violate any rule I choose because it is not permanent and can be changed". Its fallacious and ridiculous.

I think you grossly misunderstand world culture if you think swearing is only something western societies think is an everyday experience. And regardless of that, we are not here to censor content based on culture or relgious beliefs or moral values. This is the biggest flaw in the no swearing argument, like there is some invisible standard everyone must adhere to and be regulated.

The biggest problem when trying to compare the internet to television especially when it comes to government organization like the FCC, or the BBS is that they hypocritically distinguish between the right to free speech and broadcasting like television and radio and only treat tv and radio like that because they are broadcasted to millions of homes by standard. Notice how privately owned, pay to listen or subscribing entertainment like satellite radio is not regulated by the FCC or BBS?

I dont know why you go on to cite wikipedia and government organizations as if it says something, as we are not wikipedia or a federal government.

The biggest problem for me is that your coming from the angle that swearing is by nature a bad thing and we need to look out for everyones feelings because we want to create a utopia of peace and love and happiness. Its ridiculous, I would take my freedoms over this anyday.

Lastly, I am not explosively or out of proportionately doing anything. You wrongly removed my comment because you felt like I was being rude when in fact we have no rules against swearing as as has been demonstrated consensus was reached that swearing is ok. And also, if your going to cite something like Do not disrupt to illustrate a point then at least look beyond the title. Its as if because the title matches what you think is going on, it automatically agrees with you.

One should not attempt to take any proposal, practice, or already existing consensus to its logical conclusion for the purpose of demonstrating its shortcomings or garnering support to reject or overturn it.

If anything it would more fit Physco_Robots description of what would happen to assume that if we let people know via the UTP that swearing is ok, that they will be more inclined to use it in all circumstances.

All in all you have not added anything new to the discussion except that the federal government and wikipedia condemn swearing because it foesnt fit into their presuppositional moral and social views and hence should be avoided and censored. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 2

For those having issues with lag.

Support - I'm American, damn it. I have the right to free speech. Give me freedom or give me death! Are we seriously going to act like little children and freak out because Jimmy said the "f" word? Gosh people, grow up. --— Enigma 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ignoring the fact that you don't actually have "free speech" here, I do agree that light swearing is acceptable. However, I prefer keeping this out of the policies directly in order to avoid possibly encouraging swearing.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

03:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say, Azaz. 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I have been away and have not read this whole discussion yet, but imo, I don't think swearing belongs. There is no reason to have to write a swear to get a point out, there is civil talk without it and that works just fine. But, no...if the swear is not directed at an user then it is okay...

Bonziiznob Talk

03:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I started something like this a few months ago. It hardly got any notice and was all oppose (I had said no swearing) but now this. Anyway, I stand what I said before. It is in no situation necessary.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 07:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support to the exact wording of the proposal - As long as it's not directed at any user, but used in a way that would not be bannable in Runescape, than it sounds very well thought out. However, we do have younger players on here (young teens/pre-teens), and should a parent come by and see "fuck", we may lose a contributor of a few years to come. Also, Enigma, there was a court case of two 20 something year olds a few years back in my state, and they went down a river cussing up a storm in front of kids. The parents were there, took the two guys to court, and they were found guilty, due in part it was excessive swearing in front of minors. The findings were never marked as unconstitutional as well, regardless of the first amendment. Just my two cents. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nutral - well, I for one think it is a stupid idea to curse in what is supposed to be a mature debate, but I do not feel we need a rule about it. if there is a rule about it, fine, or vice vera. Personaly I would like to see a clause on the first ammendment that states that volger language on T-Shirts or signs in areas with children commonly passing by should be illigal, but thats just me. I do not think little kids are passing by this site, however. Just thought I would throw that out there. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We could take a page from the RS rulebook regarding swearing. Spoecificly, swearing is allowed when not directed at other people or intended to offend. RandoxTalk 01:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Swearing ingame regardless of the context as long as you dont try to avoid the filter. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What is up with all this constitutional garbage? We're not a country, and not a governement. As Azaz has said, All those "free speech" arguments are irrelevant to the wiki. Besides, did everyone forget that Runescape is mostly for people in their earlier to mid teens. Keep it PG. And no, I'm not saying we should have some rules about what you can and cannot say. Let people use their own judgement. That would go for the admins too - if someone cannot write a sentance without swearing, they don't have much to offer to the Wiki. Let's all act on the assumption that we can act like mature intellectuals and refrain from needing to be told what to say, shall we? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A few very important people though very highly of that constitutional garbage a few hundred years ago. I personally have zero interest in participating in a community that nannies its members like it needs to maintain a moral standard. Our current UTP covers all scenarios just fine in the case of abuse. Swearing can be used to hurt, but it can also be used to express any number of feelings or general dissatisfaction, if you don't like being around it badly enough, I suggest you stay away from the internet and any real world contact with anyone. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - [[8]] 174.2.11.15 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that, good point. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Opppose - I starts with a few curses, then the whole wikis talking like Eric Cartman. Per Randonx this rule will be begged to be abuse. It also starts only in the community then a user going to an article and edits it while cursing...."The Kalphite Queen is the fucking hard to kill, you need a group of people"...I dont like that. I DO NOT like that. ço¬Ø

Oppose - Congratz has a good point. It starts with a single swear, then a new user sees it, thinks its just a fine thing to do, and then BAM! everybody thinks its an ok thing to do. We definitely dont need every other sentence swearing. It just wouldn't be nice at all. AttackJdogy15 TalkDragonfire shield 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We have already established that swearing, similar to smilies, is not to be included in the mainspace. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
But as he said, new users will see it and think its okay, why cant the wiki be like it already was? What about parents- what do they think when they ask the little Timmy what he's been up to and the find out hes been saying words like shit and damn? ço¬Ø
Thats where your mistake is. We are not their parents. I dont use the internet for only the Runescape Wiki, do you? Can you guarantee that any website any other person visits will be devoid of foul language? Why should you tell me to act a certain way when from the start it is not your responsibility or particularly sensible to do so? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated many times before that we are not here to babysit the little ones and make sure they won't have their minds corrupted by seeing the word "damn" It's their own parents fault for letting them be on the internet, and TEbuddy has it worded pretty nicely there. --— Enigma 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
What about the U12 kids? What are they gonna think when their favirote admin/crat/FA wrote "shit" on their idea on the yew grove? ço¬Ø
That argument, as well as the whole argument that we should "protect the children" or any other user from offensive language is invalid according to Wikia's Terms of Use, which say that (1), "...membership in the Service is void where prohibited by law, and is intended solely for users who are thirteen (13) years of age or older. Any registration by anyone under 13 is unauthorized, unlicensed and in violation of these Terms of Use. By registering the Service or the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 or older...", and (2), "The Company is not responsible for the content or conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of the Service. Further, you understand and acknowledge that by using the Services you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent or objectionable and that, in this respect, you use the Services at your own risk.". Butterman62 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh snap!Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Lol, pwnt. I think we instantly win this debate. 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
First, this isn't a debate, its an attempt to get consensus. Secondly, the age issue is only one part of the arguments against the proposal. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Debate is essential to consensus. According to Wikipedia's article on consensus (note: this is not their policy; it is basically a mainspace article on what consensus is), "Those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus".
2. If you looked at the second quote from Wikia's Terms of Use, it basically says you may be exposed to offensive content and look at your own risk. Butterman62 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh Snap x2!Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
What's with the random snaps? Butterman62 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Its what all the youngsters with their hipping and their hopping are into these days. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... never heard about it. >_> But anyway, my point is, per Wikia's policy, if you (not you specifically you Tebuddy, just "you" in general) are under 13 or are afraid of being exposed to offensive content, you really shouldn't be editing the wiki. Butterman62 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I was supporting you, not voicing my genius via teenage slang. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 17:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. :P Butterman62 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Idea- We could implement an article-rating system, with rates like movies, and reasons. ARTICLE RATED PG-13 FOR BRIEF STRONG LANGUAGE. I'm being completely serious.http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, with the allowance of cursing not explicitly stated as not to encourage cursing. Uhm, I've changed my mind, for the simple reason that, ... There is no such thing as bad language (except of course, language hen it is used in an insulting way.). A bitch is a dog. A s**t (I still don't like using "socially unacceptable" language, though. Lol) is a piece of poo. An ass is a donkey, damn means "curse." "Ni***r" was apparently, at one time, an actual slang for the color (of anything, not just humans) black-brown.If I'm being irrational, please tell me, because it's getting late.http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please..once again, this is not for articles...NOT for articles. This is for talk pages, yew grove, etc.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 07:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I never said anything about it being in articles. o.o http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
OH. I meant to say discussion-rating system :P http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - In the policy it should clearly state that they are not to be used in an offencive way or violate UTP and should not be overused, and any user who abuses this rule would be blocked for x amount of time. We would try to remain as civil as possible and keep the swearing to a minimum, but just have the policy so there's no more confusion. There goes half the argument. --— Enigma 05:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I just can't see a single situation where swearing is necessary. Yes, it can be used to emphisise a sentence, but many other words which it can replaced by. I don't think that anyone has a vocabulary that doesn't include the word "very" (such as "I am very tired"). "Very" is great for emphisis. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 3

Agree to disagree - Hey all. I've been reading this and I don't think we are going to get to any kind of consensus anytime soon. There are people that want to swear and people that don't. For those that want to swear, please remember that we have the User treatment policy to follow anytime we are contributing to the discussion. For those that don't like swearing, please remember that if you don't like something that is said, let the editor know. I don't think removing words from another editor's comment is the answer. I don't think we need to change any policy. I wouldn't want to add any policy that might bait someone into more swearing. I also don't want people to edit or censor other editor's comments. That seems against the spirit of an open wiki to me. Let's just let this thing drop. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 17:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was just about to post the same thing and I saw this. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose' - We don't change things by agreeing to disagree. The people who want to swear keep having their arguments talked down until they really don't make much sense anymore, and its their responsibility to see changes and then adjust their vote accordingly. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
That's redundant. Sure, talking things out does help, but this won't ever quell, as per Toll. Hardball isn't something everyone on the wiki plays, Tebuddy, and no offense, you aren't seeing that. An agreement to disagree can be reached. This topic would go for weeks, perhaps months on end, and it's not worth it to me, and from what I see, most others. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of tough issues that regularly come up, and the point is not to continuously issue a no consensus and let bygones be bygones. Its not a game of who can be the must stubborn and force the others to give up, its talking it out until we can come to an agreement. And that agreement should not be "oh well we wont agree so lets just do nothing". Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support agreeing to disagree - This discussion is going nowhere. The same or very similar points are going back and fore. Just make sure if you wish to swear not to violate the UTP and if you don't wish to see any swears take it to the user who said (or more appropriately typed) it, don't just remove the swear with no reason. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How about we keep swearing out of official discussions, but remian open-minded about talk pages? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We should allow people to state on their own talk pages, if they dislike swearing, that they would rather not have people cursing on their talk page. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more logical to have it the other way around where you would have to state that you don't mind swearing on your talk page?? That way you automatically are given the "G" rated option and would have to request anything higher yourself. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That would, by default, keep people from swearing. I just don't like that idea. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
D4k how would that change anything in the slightest, every single active person here vists more than just the yew grove. In fact I think most people actually gravitate more towards articles and less towards the YG, so your idea of preventing swearing is to expose it to as many people as possible? Aside from that, if we had a rule against the majority swearing the proper thing to do would be what is suggested above, but since swearing has already been deemed legitimate a simple request like "please dont swear on my talk page" would be just fine. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as you yourself say quite a bit, concensus was never reached on making swearing "legitimate". I like D4K's idea, due to the fact that most people go to articles over talk pages, and if the talk page owner doesn't like the swearing/is flamed, they may report it, or tell the person not to swear in their page and if it continues report them. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Something not being closed does not make consensus or not. Make a new YG thread for D4k's idea, dont hijack this one. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what another thread would achieve. This thread is about swearing. D4K's proposal is about swearing. Surely it would be redundant to create another thread? Especially since the two proposals (the original and D4K's) are about the same things - if both passed they would conflict... Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is getting ridiculous. I don't think this really should be regarded as a debate about being allowed to swear or not. I think it's about having a bit of leniency. People do swear, especially when people get stressed about something. I don't think swearing should be encouraged, but just permitted from time to time as an "in case it slips" thing. If somebody starts to overuse this padding, then yes, by all means, they should be reprimanded for their inability to exercise self-control. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 20:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - A lot of people who opposing are using the "protect the kids" argument, but I am probably one of the youngest on the wiki and I really don't care if I see some swearing. Most people seem to be assuming that kids are all innocent and unsuspecting, but all the time I hear swearing on the internet and at school. Swearing should definitely be kept out of mainspace, but as long as it isn't directed at anyone it should be fine on the Yew Grove and/or talk pages. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"In all cases women find the words far more offensive than do men, and older respondents find them more offensive than younger ones."   az talk   22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Which wikipedia article did you pull that gem from? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
[9] ....Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If it's not meant to offend anyone, I really don't care. But there's no need for it. (I can't see this debate going anywhere, either...seems to me like it's kind of a no consenus thing: perhaps we could add censors that users could turn on and off? Just a thought...) It's typing. There's no "accidentaly said a curse word". You have to type it out. I don't think it should be allowed because you don't have to say it...just don't say anything if you want to curse. It doesn't really bother me either way, though. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 07:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support "If you want free speech, you have to tolerate the things you might dislike." Now wait a minute before I get flamed:

What I mean is that I do not think we should try to censor the language used, but this doesn't mean I want people going to the talk sessions and blurting completely curses and nonsense. However, if said thing were to happen, I would not want it censored. I hope that makes sense. (Sorry if I extrapolated too much.) --Allonym 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The only reason that anybody needs swearing is when your mind is in a rush and you cannot think of a proper thing to say. When you're typing, you have plenty of time to think of something more respectful to say while still conveying your point. -- Last Descendant of Armadyl Daedalus III 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources to back up this claim? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree I'd like to see some sources on this statement. I'd also like to see some sources that prove driving slower gives you more time to react and that dropping objects from an inch off the ground damages them less than dropping them from on top of a building. Until I see proof I refuse to believe any of this. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Completely different. Common sense applies to both of those things. This is really an argument of opinion. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 19:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My point was that its completely common sense that typing things gives you more time to think of something without the use of swearwords, so there's no need to provide proof. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hardly. It's the same as talking: You think something while you're angry, you blurt it out, not thinking; You think something while angry, you type it without thinking. http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 19:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It's come to the point where people are just repeating the same things over and over and over. We need consensus, or no consensus, not an enlongated page filled with the same things repetetivly. — Enigma 19:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally find this whole argument fun! :D http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally love consensus so much. The way we can never reach solutions and any person with an illogical and flawed argument can fervently oppose something just because reminds me of why I signed up here. Maybe soon we can just get rid of the Yew Grove because who likes actually defending their opinions anyway, in fact, we should just appoint a chairperson who makes all decisions, and that person should be as left as possible and only want the perfect social environment. Ah, pure heaven. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Tebuddy, what would happen if the swearing were already added to the policy when you said that? Azliq still would have removed your curse word because she still would have felt that it was directed, offensively, at the person who suggested the idea. Then what? Even if you "win", and a "swearing is OK" is added to the policy, you will still eventually be censored again. I've seen you around the wiki and I've gotten a sense of your personality. Eventually you will say something that you think is fine but others will find offensive, and your language will be toned down, and then where will you be? Will you cry foul again? Will you cry foul every time you're censored? Is it your expectation that you should be able to say whatever you want, so long as you're not technically insulting someone?
I notice that in the time this thread is up you have gone back and edited your original comment. Specifically, you have added your actual reason for opposing the idea, instead of the tersely harsh comment you left before. As such, the original comment which started this entire thread has now been "fixed" and made acceptable in my eyes and obviously in the eyes of Azliq, since she would have changed it again by now if it weren't. Furthermore, have you ever been censored before this? Or was this the first and only time you've had a swear word removed? I very seriously doubt that this instance was the first time you said "fuck" on the wiki, and yet just because you were censored this time you are creating the impression that admins just randomly go around deleting swear words because the policy doesn't say its ok, when that is clearly not the case. Just look at how many times people swore in this thread. So when you were censored it was an isolated incident where you were on the very edge of acceptable and Azliq aired on the side of caution and censored you. Adding "swearing is OK" to the policy is completely unnecessary because that's what goes on anyways.
Also what's up with the politically charged statements before? This debate has nothing to do with politics, and even if it did, you got things backwards. Censorship is traditionally a conservative tenant, whereas liberals would try to preserve it... kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Azliq is a girl. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 02:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
/facepalm Not really the point, but I'll fix it anyways. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You're making false assumptions. Heck, thats what your entire post is based off of. Do you have any facts? Proof? — Enigma 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
1. This is the first time I have dropped a swear word truly classified by the nannys on this wiki as offensive and the first time Azliq went out of her way to remove something I have said, which clearly goes against RS:DDD, and the first time an issue like this has ever come up in the YG. So please drop this greater good speech you are trying to pull.
2. Funny how logic, literacy, common sense, freedom etc all work together to create something wonderful when they are followed and applied. For example me saying fuck in regards to my interpreation of a bad idea is not really harming anyone. Stinkowing did not display any distaste with the comment nor did many of the other people who posted. The only person who got their stink up was Azliq who, acting like a true nanny, removed my comment in order to prevent anyones feelings from being hurt. Now if we were all logical humans we would know that words mean nothing, they are useless sounds, so to equivocate me saying fuck with slapping someone in the face or farting on them is just ridiculous. The only reason swearing is looked down upon is because of certain social tendencies certain groups of people seem to want to carry or certain moral standards they want to enforce on others. Essentially what I am getting at is that freedom is awesome, and unless you are truly infringing or harming another persons right to the same quality of life you have, there is no need for some stupid and ridiculous intervention like Azliq displayed in regards to my comment. I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this little schpeal, it all follows a nice little snowball. If you are going to tell people what they can and cannot say in order to prevent a fight or some hurt feelings, what stops you from making a new rule limiting editors from doing certain things because it may in the future save some hurt feelings. Why don't we just take away all freedom because inevitably somewhere along the line someone is going to get some hurt feelings. Why don't we just make the place an entire social utopia, then we can discuss Runescape in the perfect little box and be free from anger and trolls and vandalism etc. You get my point, its bullshit to try and tell someone "no you cant do that because this person was raised a certain way and his parents don't approve of that and they might be offended" or "You cant say that because my social upbringing has told me its mean/demeaning/barbaric". We are playing a game where you kill people with giant swords and can level up skills by stealing, so why do we not censor the thieving and combat pages because someone might be offended that murder and theft are not approved of in their social circle, event if its not real.
3. It is not Azliqs place to air on the side of caution and take preventative measures, Azliq is a sysop like every other sysop and editor on this Wiki, it doesn't mean anything. The reason we should add something to the policy to solidify the concept of free speech (which is currently what we have) so that in the future if Azliq is feeling like a comment is on the fence, she should make sure by checking with the involved editors, or ignore it like a grownup would. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You're really awesome at arguments =o swear word surpressedEnigma 05:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinda Support - This could work well if done similarly to how Runescape updated the chat filter, and make only minor swearing passable (as it really isn't necessary for people to start dropping f-bombs like the AVGN on this wiki). Stop! Stop! Hammer Time http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/1886/mchammer.gif 02:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


STRONG Support - As long as the swear word isn't directed at anyone, it should be acceptable under certain circumstances. Awesome helm.Fortis3Talk | Contribs | #Going for this! Wish me luck! :D 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Swearing is never needed and is really just unprofessional. "Are you fucking kidding me?" is in no way constructive to our discussions and is unnecessarily hostile. We aim to be a reliable source that users can trust, and the only way to achieve this is to encourage civility in community discussions. Although I personally have no issue with mild swearing, the term “mild” is subjective. I still have yet to see community consensus on what “mild” is considered to mean. Furthermore, writing “mild swearing is permitted on the Yew Grove” in one of our policies using the argument that many users do it anyway is similar to slightly raising the speed limit on any given road (since many drivers exceed it anyway). The obvious problem with both of these scenarios is that users will be able to get away with more disruptive activity than they could before. If the speed limit was 30km/h and drivers travelled 50km/h, raising it to 50km/h would result in drivers travelling 70km/h (still only 20 above the legal limit, but much more dangerous than 50 in a 30 zone). “Offensive” curse words will be commonplace because their use wouldn’t be considered as serious if “mild” words were allowed, so more people would use them. Finally, the American constitution doesn’t apply here. If true “freedom of speech” did apply, personal attacks would be permitted. Since they are not, it is irrelevant. It is also highly inappropriate to accuse one’s opponents of promoting fascism. Prohibiting swearing on an internet site based on a kids’ game is in no way a fascist tendency. We do not want to censor your opinions, but we do want you to give them in a civil, respectful manner. Dtm142 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional? By who's overruling definition? This is a volunteer website run by people of many ages, nations, cultural backgrounds, moralities, and religious and political opinions. According to that by what right can you institute a rule that says:

"Well this group of people represented by my own beliefs does not like it. It is unprofessional, rude, and unnecessary and as such has no place here".

DTM your analogy is completely useless because its like the speed limit already being set at 130km/h but never posting any signs because you don't want anyone to really drive that fast. You also again overlook any scenario that does not fit yours, for example, the Autobahn.

Free speech was not a concept invented by the Americans [10], and that is not what I refer to when I claim that Free Speech should be preserved.

Prohibiting any form of language based on any reason is a fascist tendency, thats why it is called fascism because someone who does not think like you do does something, you are not comfortable with it, so you change it and make rules against any further action that irritates your school of thought. Its wrong and is only a slippery slope to worse things.

You also again ignore that Runescape is not' a childs game as you can see by Mark Gerhard's response to a player question here [11] under question 18. Even if Runescape was designed only for teenagers, it again crosses the line of who and by what reason you need to protect them and can prove that no swearing does that. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All of our policies, in one way or another, put emphasis on a certain belief or morality. For example, all of our articles use British English in spite of the fact that many (even most) RuneScape players and Wikia editors are American. Yet this is not discrimination against non British nations, as it is only done to ensure consistency and professionalism in articles. Incivility in discussions should be avoided for similar reasons, as it only causes tension between editors and gets in the way of building a reliable resource. I guess it is common sense that swearing would fall under that category, though it is clearly evident that "common sense" isn't as common as the term would imply. Profanity isn't necessary because there are always alternatives that can get the point across. I'm sure that you're more than capable of finding other words to use. It isn't hard.
My analogy is relevant. It is stated here that profanities should not be used. However, many users are willing to tolerate mild swearing if it isn't used excessively. Similarly, you can often get away with driving slightly faster than a posted speed limit without hitting anyone or getting a ticket. It is human nature to bend the rules a little bit, and increasing the limit would not cause drivers to take it seriously. It would only make them exceed the new limit. The Autobahns may be much safer than normal roads in spite of the absence of a speed limit, but they have perfect conditions (complete pavement, full control of access, a stable climate, multiple lanes in each direction, no traffic signals forcing motorists to stop, no pedestrians or slow moving vehicles, no school or playground zones, no residential or commercial driveways, etc). Their excellent safety record certainly cannot be used to infer that all roads (including basic urban streets) should have their speed limits removed. Doing so would clearly have disastrous results.
Completely preserving "freedom of speech" would require the removal of the user treatment policy. This would allow personal attacks, including racial and sexual slurs (racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Holocaust deniers have used the right to free speech to legitimize their activities). It is clear that the right to freedom of speech on this site either does not exist or is severely limited.
Mark Gerhard's opinion regarding what RuneScape's target market should be does not change the fact that RuneScape is still played by many young players, who are drawn to it for numerous reasons (unlimited free play, inexpensive and easily available membership, relatively low required specifications, and probably many more). Additionally, although you must be 13 or older to create an account, anyone of any age may read the wiki. This includes community discussions. It is well known that most users who visit this site (we get over 5 million page views per month) never actually edit. The reasons that I have for opposing this proposal differ from those of the dissenters who aim to protect younger users, but it is still unfair to call them fascists because they disagree with your aims. Dtm142 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
DTM that is a cop out and an oversimplification of the entire complaint against rules regarding morality. Using british english is no more of a problem to any english speaking user than is american english.

You once again completely miss the ballpark on what I was saying and branch off into your own discussion. The point is, using your analogy, there is no speed limit sign posted. There is a little warning that says "please don't drive dangerously or speed excessively" when both of those guidelines are up for extreme interpretaion based on the person, the car, and the location.

Freedom of speech is not black and white in this case. We should not treat this community exactly as we would a nation because it simply does not function that way. We have trolls, millions of people who can respond to anything at the touch of a button, a consensus decision making body, and a database of information anyone can edit. Similarly to a forum we can allow the use of swearing but still disallow directing any form of insult at someone for no real reason. Who are we kidding here, I personally don't need to use only one set of words to make someone feel bad, in fact organizing any english sentence correctly you can reduce a discussion to a flame war without ever dropping a swear word thus nullifying your motivation for disallowing swearing in the first place. Like I always say, we have a user treatment policy, and if that is violated then what has been said or done matters not, the correct punishment will be administered in a timely manner. We do not need to tell people "well you can do this but not that because that ranks bad on my naughty meter".

A fascist tendency is a fascist tendency regardless of your motivation or wishes, telling me not to do something because you want to protect someone else or enforce your self defined moral standard is exactly that.

As far as I know Jagex has never taken a player age poll or released any age statistics whatsoever. That combined with the fact that they very adamantly claim they do not cater to children sort of makes the case that many underaged users appearing here could be strictly coincidental. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not using profanity is no more of a problem to any English speaking user than using profanity.
The user treatment policy states that when solving a disagreement with other editors, "do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities". Switching "verbal insults" and "profanities" would not change the meaning of the statment, but it would change the wording to "do not try to solve the issue by using profanities or with verbal insults". This means that under the current policy, profanity is not allowed at all. And this is clearly stated. We may occasionally tolerate some profanity, but this would be an application of ignore all rules and not the standard user treatment policy. Furthermore, your comment that was called into question did indeed use profanity to impose your opinion. This breaches your own interpretation of the policy.
Jagex may not have released any type of age data, but such polls have been used here. The example that I just gave you shows that 87% of the wiki population is under 18 years old. This is by no means an official poll, but I would bet that we'd get similar results if we posted that same poll on the main page. Additionally, look closer at Mod MMG's reply to question 18. You'll see that he likes the fact that RuneScape is suitable for a broad audience (ie all ages), not just older players.
You may not need to swear in order to start a flame war, but doing so would certainly increase your chances of successfully starting one. Discussions often get heated enough without catalyzing them with abusive language. You don't need gasoline in order to start a wildfire, but it is highly flammable and as a general rule, you shouldn't burn it. It is rarely, if ever, necessary and usually does more harm than good. Swearing works the same way.
If you don't allow complete freedom of speech, you are exhibiting a fascist tendency under your definition. Not allowing personal attacks and insults is still barring free speech. By disallowing "insulting other users", you yourself are exhibiting the same form of fascism that you accuse your opponenents of. But what is more important is that nobody on either side is here to promote any type of radical political agenda. We are all simply trying to do what we think is best for the wiki. Dtm142 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The point I have made about the UTP is that during all general discussions we are not trying to solve a problem. Any registered user can post a comment, are you then going to assert that any action taken in any discussion has the intention of ending that discussion or solving a problem? No, during a time when there is a problem that needs fixing or under a tense situation obviously the best thing to do is not to say "well no thats fucking stupid, fuck that", which would indeed be a violation of the UTP. However my criticisms of an idea I perceive as retarded as hell and me voicing that would clearly not as I am not insulting anyone or trying to solve a problem. It is merely my contribution in a discussion.

That is pure assumption, I personally don't care when people swear so if someone were to swear at me (which has happened on this wiki before) my reaction would be the same as it were had they just plainly insulted me which is generally non hostile and at most a little sarcastic. That is the case for many other people who would if attacked only respond either positively or without hostility. The fact that some people may get more offended and thus react is a harsher manner only proves my point because those people would have become irritated at any insults directed at them. So because you can start a flame war with it doesn't mean it needs to be censored or banned, similar to how fire can start a forest fire but also has many other uses that are not destructive. A very prominent example would be this discussion [12], notice no swearing but still high tempers.

Mod MMG also very clearly states that the game is not targeted at children which makes your entire argument null. To say that because he also said it is a positive that the game also appeals to teenagers does not help you. You also know as well as I that in no way is a poll on a userpage a real example of a legitimate poll that we could extrapolate a good survey from. It also is ignorant of the original point which is that many underage users registering here could be a total fluke. It also ignores the original original point which is we are not their parents, police of the internet, or nannys so we should have no say in what is deemed appropriate.

My personal opinion is that total freedom is a good thing and that will probably never change, realistically however I realize that some people on this wiki will not allow something like that whether it was come about by legitimate means or not. So while I disagree with not being able to choose which words I like for any situation, I can live with at least not being completely censored based on no other reason than you think certain words are worse than other words. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Total freedom is anarchy. We need rules and guidelines or else everything becomes chaos. And you were never completely censored. The only thing that happened was that a very negative comment aimed towards another person's idea was toned down. Your comment was not removed just because you used the word "fuck". It was removed because you used the word "fuck" directed negatively towards another person's idea without ever even explaining why you didn't like it. Your comment was not constructive, and it did not help get consensus. You can say fuck all you want as long as its constructive, no one's going to stop you. No admin is such a square that they remove all swears on sight.
Additionally, and correct me if I am wrong, you said "well no thats fucking stupid, fuck that" is not acceptable, but then you went on to say that what you said, "are you fucking kidding me?", is acceptable. What is the difference between those two statements? Why is one acceptable and the other not? They both seem to convey the same message: "your idea is stupid" without saying why. Neither are constructive. So why is one good and the other bad? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My comment in the original thread after a third of this discussion unfolded, I went back and later elaborated on why I thought the idea was stupid. So yes in hindsight maybe I should have at first elaborated, but the second example I provided is completely unnecessary flame baiting with no motivation what so ever. So for example if you and I were in a discussion and you were to say to me "tebuddy you should chill out, you are being a little rude" and my reply "no thats fucking stupid, fuck that" would have been a little over the top and unnecessary. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Aren't most Yew Grove discussions meant to solve some problem or another? In this one, the problem is you not being allowed free speech and getting unfairly censored by an administrator. In the discussion where you made the questionable comment, the problem was unwanted Harry Potter spoilers being revealed to Stinkowing via our official clan chat. The heated discussion that you just gave me aims to stop Vimescarrot from abusing his powers and generally being unpleasant in clan chat. All of these discussions obviously involve some disagreement between editors. Your comment was either made to help solve the problem or to attack Stinkowing (I'm assuming the former).
The deranking discussion is heated because it is of a sensitive, personal nature. Such discussions are more likely to cause a flame war, but they are necessary to reach consensus on difficult issues. If users were allowed to insert comments such as "Vimescarrot's behaviour is fucking assholeish", common sense tells me that there would be even more flaming. Some blocks would likely need to be handed out. Even if you yourself wouldn't act any differently, I know that some users would. Sensitive discussions are sometimes necessary, but swearing is not. There are alternatives.
I am not indicating that we should ban swearing for the purpose of protecting younger users. Other editors raised that point, and I am not necessarily implying that it's a valid reason. However, I do feel it is still necessary to provide the data. You seem to know that this is realistic, as you yourself stated on your userpage that the majority of editors are under 18 years of age.
Perhaps instead of changing the user treatment policy, you would be better off proposing that language is added to RuneScape:Don't delete discussions that prevents incidents like this from happening in the future. Add a line that says something like "Offensive comments that violate the user treatment policy should not be removed or censored. Instead, the offending user should be given a warning or block." In your case, a warning to "watch your language" and review the user treatment policy would have been sufficient. I would certainly support such a change, and I am sure it is middle ground that would appease many opponents of this proposal. Dtm142 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont understand why you consistently feel the need to link me to AGF and other policies mid discussion. Obviously I am aware of them, you know I am aware of them, so why do you constantly do it?

No, total freedom is not anarchy. Total freedom as defined in the sense that there are zero rules on anything whatsoever along with no organized governing body defines anarchy. The distinction here is that you only do what is completely necessary with powers that no one else can compete with, and with that equilbrium is maintained because everyone acting in their own interest legally is productive for the rest of society in all ways.

You once again assume something completely untrue. As I have stated before I have nothing against Stinkowing, despite a couple of times in the past where we have clashed, I harbor no ill feelings toward him. His idea was stupid in my opinion, why then because I speak rashly about an idea do I then automatically hate Stinkowing? A person can come to a thought in any number of ways each of them complicated to the point that easily interpreting them is rather difficult. I once again say that my comment was not directed at Stinkowing, it was directed at an idea. Even if you perceived it as negative and I later said it was not removes your argument because I am the one who made the comment in the first place and I am the only person who knows what I wanted to say. This all stems from your perception of swearing as very offensive.

Your entire argument about sensitive discussions is that swearing can somehow do more damage than not swearing. Its similar to a recent change to policy where "do you like me" polls were banned when I went on to argue that someone with malacious intent is going to find a way to cause trouble whether they can make a poll or not. It overlooks the very basic things about human nature and just goes on to assert that somehow swearing is more of an evil that insulting someone in any sense.

It doesnt matter what I think about the census here, I do not have factual data or realistic survey results and neither do you. So assuming that because you happen to see more teenagers here than other places that the majority is predominantly underage and thus Runescape is predominantly underage is fallacious.

Adding what you just suggested to DDD is doing nothing but still pushing what you want and forcing me to take the fall. How in your mind does punishing me for what I want to do and going against the status quo seem like a reasonable compromise?

All in all you have yet to explain why your perception of swearing in general is somehow more valid than mine and needs to implemented into current policy or changed so that people who swear are punished more severely. You have also yet to explain virtually any of the real arguments and gone on to assert that swearing is naturall negative. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am linking you to assume good faith firstly because you claimed that those who disagree with you are trying to promote fascism on the wiki, a very strong accusation to say the least. The second time, I indicated that I myself was assuming good faith (that you were trying to help resolve an issue rather than directly attack Stinkowing). I have never said that you actually hate or bear ill towards Stinkowing.
Your comment may not have been a direct attack on Stinkowing, but it was still highly disrespectful and uncalled for. There is no reason to bluntly state how you think an idea is stupid or ridiculous without explaining why (you originally did not explain why until your comment was called into question, it would have been left alone had that point not been brought up). Stinkowing must have thought that the idea would have added something to the project, otherwise he would not have proposed it. You and/or Stinkowing may not have cared if someone responded to your proposal in such a hostile manner, but I know that other editors here wouldn't appreciate swear words being used to oppose them.

You stated that everyone acting in their own interests would be beneficial. However, you are forgetting that the wiki is a collaborative effort and as such every contribution should be made to benefit the project itself. If editors acted only in their own interest, nothing would get done. Users would simply come here to trade items and services or rant about Jagex’s latest update.

Profanity may be especially aggravating to users for a number of reasons. The word that you used refers to the act of copulation, which is inappropriate for any Yew Grove discussion. Although the context of the sentence was not sexual, it still can force readers to think about sex and all it is associated with. This could have easily been avoided by replacing the word with a different adjective, or perhaps none at all. Other words refer to blasphemy, bodily functions, or racism/hate towards other groups. Swearing is not necessarily as offensive as direct personal attacks, but it can still be inflammatory whether or not it is combined with insults.
The user treatment policy (pre "Do you hate me" polls) did not cover bad faith attempts to create unnecessary conflicts. In the past, users did create such polls and tensions between editors did rise. Attempting to cause this much disruption without breaking a policy is more difficult now. Both general language about “inviting conflict” and specific language barring the userpage polls have caused so much trouble in the past have been added. One with common sense would think that deliberately trying to cause trouble is a bad idea, but clearly it was necessary to add it to an official policy.
See this page. Jagex clearly stated that the average player is 16 years old. That is about as official as it gets. Average would imply that there are probably plenty of players older than 16 as well as plenty of players under 16. Although Jagex may want to target older players, their failure to do so is not our fault. Correcting it is not our responsibility. If we wanted to make an official main page poll asking about the average age of site visitors, we could. But I doubt that this would really get us anywhere, as it would only reaffirm what all of us already know.
What I proposed was a compromise because it addresses some of your concerns (having your message unjustly censored out by an administrator) without being detrimental to those opposed to your original proposal. Part of consensus is making compromises that will address some of the needs of both sides (finding middle ground). You indicated that it was the responsibility of the opponents to come up with a solution. That is what I have to give to this solution. Essentially, we have three options: Close the discussion right now (it has gone on for a while without reaching consensus. This would result in the current policies remaining in effect under their current language, obviously unacceptable to you since what Azliq7 did technically didn’t violate any of them and such conflicts would be allowed to happen in the future. This would bring us right back here. Per the consensus policy, the status quo prevails in the event of no consensus), continue the debate as is and endlessly go in circles with various arguments hoping in vain that the other side changes their minds (also not recommended because you are unlikely to agree with me regardless of what I say and vice versa. The discussion would go on forever without anything being decided), or compromise (give everyone some of what they want). Censoring your comment appeared to be very unpopular regardless of what various users think about profanity. If you want consensus, which I’m sure you do, it would be much more worthwhile for all of us to work with RuneScape:Don’t delete discussions. I did not intend on making punishment more severe for violating the user treatment policy, I’m sorry if it seemed that way. What you did wasn’t nearly severe enough for any punishment besides possibly a warning.
Lastly, I have my reasons for opposing this policy change. You may not agree with their validity, but I wouldn’t be opposing so vigorously if I didn’t strongly believe that this would negatively impact the project. Part of the reason that I believe our current policy is necessary is that users generally lack common courtesy. If someone is genuinely offended by your language and politely tells you so, a courteous person would at least seriously consider striking out the comment and/or apologizing. This is far better than trying to prove that you’re right because it’s a free country, therefore anyone offended should back off and avoid contact with people because swearing is so common. It’s similar to your strong dislike of “spot stealers” ingame. When going to train a competitive skill like combat or mining, it would be considerate to switch worlds or go elsewhere if someone is already there and they kindly ask you to leave. Yet many players will stand their ground and refuse because it doesn’t violate any ingame rules and others do it all the time, thus everyone else is required to put up with their aggressive manner or stop playing RuneScape altogether. I can think of other examples in real life, but hopefully what I said makes at least some sense.
P.S. If you’re going to respond to this comment, please do it in section 4. This one is getting harder and harder to edit with my computer. Dtm142 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 4

Changed to Oppose - As per Dtm.

Runecrafting-icon.png Stelercus [[File:Guthix symbol.png]]

12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT I think that we should be able to have lively discourse and using curse words not be a problem. And choosing what words are and aren't exceptable is completely insane to me. Further, saying words like f*** can't be used, but damn can, seems downright silly. It's either all okay, or it's not okay. I don't curse, myself, but I certainly don't believe in censoring people's speech. I also disagree with the idea that if someone finds the word offensive, they can just change it to something else. I don't think I like the idea of someone taking thew words I've written and replacing them with something else. No matter what the cause. Browncoat101 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New idea - How about we just get rid of the "protect the children" part by making Yew Grove (and possibly other) discussions not viewable to unregistered users? ShinyUnown T | C | E 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The wiki - all of the wiki - is open to everybody (to read, that is). Butterman62 (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose New idea Per Butterman. Also, Wikia would never do that. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 06:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose new idea. This isn't possible or feasible, and it defeats the purpose of the wiki to hide community decisions. Furthermore, it still doesn't encourage civility in discussions (my main reason for opposing the original proposal). Dtm142 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Dtm, you are speaking of total freedom of speech, and the KKK comment was quite irrelevant. This topic is proposing that we allow mild swearing, regardless that mild is a subjective term, common sense can determine what mild is. If we are not mature enough to remain civil if someone says "fuck" then we truly will have limited rights. But this is assuming the worst. Really, say someone swears, are we all really going to be uncivil and throw the discussion off-track? Yes, other words can be used as alternatives to swears, but why bother? It's all the same, letters to make up words. No words encourage civilty, Dtm. I don't see how a swear could encourage uncivilty, either. If someone is too inmature to not be able to handle a mild swear, what the heck are they doing playing RuneScape? Many players are often hostile and rude, much more severe than mild swearing on a discussion of an oinline encyclopedia. Only when swearing is used in a hostile manner, which obviously UTP takes care of, will there be uncivilty. — Enigma 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone is not mature enough not to swear, why the hell would they participate in community discussions? Also, the KKK comment underlined that we cannot have what Tebuddy defines as "free speech" here in the wiki. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How does my point get any clearer than what you just said D4k? You just asserted that anyone who swears is immature when that is clearly based upon your perception and personal opinions about swearing. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This discussion has gone on for more than long enough. It seems that all that's happening now is debating. We has nede concenzuz pl0x. (it's time for us to try and decide what we're going to instead of try to justify our points) http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 19:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but we must justify our points and debate to acheive anything close to consensus. — Enigma 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I refuse to let this discussion turn into a "I am so tired of fighting about it back and forth, lets just achieve consensus automatically and make it so that my side is right and the other side is wrong".Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
According to RS:CONSENSUS#No consensus, with the current amount of opposition, the status quo will prevail. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Right but one person declaring they are tired of talking about it means nothing. DTM, you, I, and several other people are very active in this thread. Lets drop the whole no consensus act before it even has a chance to set up. Even if it technically is for my opinions benefit, I don't want it to be that way. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is, after everyone interested has voiced their opinions, people will start commenting back and forth with no real results, as neither side will likely change their view. At that point, we'll be needing a compromise. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 00:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have with that philosiphy is that consistently in the yew grove thats all anyone wants to do. Something too sensitive or a little hot, just claim no consensus and nothing will change. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but was that an indictment of your opposition? What would you have us do when about half the people feel one way and half the people feel the other way? If there's no consensus then there's no consensus and its no one's fault. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
No? If more people are aware of the fact that almost all of our sensitive subjects remain no consensus and thus unfair or worse off, then maybe more people will concede or at least participate on a higher level than "I believe this just because, so hah!. Try and change that". No consensus as a result should happen from time to time, but no consensus on every subject people get irritated at talking about is unacceptable. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was presumptive but it sounded like you were blaming us for this not coming out the way you wanted. In any case, what else do you want to happen here? I can understand your frustration about a no-consensus result, but what else could we do? Everyone's given their opinion, and no there's no clear "winner", so what else needs to be done? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
In our consensus policy it says that the people opposed to something need to be the ones to prove so in their favor. In this discussion the claim of morality and social perception being forced onto the entire wiki because one group is uncomfortable has yet to be answered. As well as the claim of why we need to set a standard or protect children. Its all a big joke to claim no consensus and a simple cop out. It has happened before, if some people are uncomfrotable with something then potentially good, harmful or incorrect things stay in or out of the policies because no consensus was claimed when one side was clearly not backing up any of their claims. That is all I see happening here. Sure I am frustrated with our system like I always have been since day one, but that is for another discussion in the future.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Rather then just critising the current consensus policy Tebuddy, try being constructive and thinking of a way of improving it. Nothing is gained from unconstructive critisism. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the exact type of comment I wanted to avoid receiving. You missed the entire point of my last post which was that according to current policy it would be up to the people opposed to come up with a solution. It is also why I did not elaborate and noted that it would be for a future discussion. Honestly this is the type of crap people need to avoid posting, like I have not been constuctively active in this thread in the past three weeks. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying any of that. I am not sure how you got that impression from that message. I have always assumed that the point of YG was to have constructive discussions, not rants. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed a sentence from my last comment. It came out very harshly which was not intended. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you didnt swear just now but tensions got higher because I perceived you were being negative....how...what....this is mind boggling. Also, sorry for snapping at you. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - If not overused, curses that are not directed to a person are not that bad. Just make sure you don't use them in every sentence Wink Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Okay, seeing as this discussion isn't really going anywhere, I'm going to try to summarize the main points for supporting and opposing points for allowing swearing, and then give my own opinions.

Supporting points:

  • We should allow relative freedom of speech in discussions, as we do in the United States.
  • We should not nanny our users, which borders on fascism.

Opposing points:

  • Swearing is unnecessary in discussion - there are other ways to get points across.
  • We should act and speak in a professional manner on wiki discussion.
  • There are younger users contributing to the wiki as well as those who are sensitive to offensive language, and we should try to make an environment appropriate for them.

Now for my opinions: Personally, I don't think the first supporting point has much validity; we don't necessarily have freedom of speech on the wiki. If someone really wants to express his/her opinion and say whatever they want on any topic imaginable, there are many places offsite to do so. I also disagree with the validity of the last opposing point; as I said above, Wikia's Terms of Use prohibit users under than 13 from using the wiki in the first place, and warn users that they may be exposed to offensive content. So the big question to me is: Should we allow freedom of speech in this regard, or is swearing too unnecessary and unprofessional for discussion?

Here's my suggestion: For those who want to swear, use common sense and don't be a dick. There is no black-and-white border between what is "too much" swearing - use your own judgment. For censorers, also don't be a dick; don't go nitpicking/pencilpushing over the tiniest things. Again, use your common sense in deciding what should be censored and what should be left alone.

As "don't be a dick" says, "If people abided by this, we wouldn't need any other policies about behavior". We wouldn't need a policy on swearing either. :P Butterman62 (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per colo... bad_fetustalk 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what my opinions throughout this whole discussion can be summed up to:
  • The less rules, the more productive people can be. As long as we adhere to the UTP and prevent flame wars, trolls, vandals etc we can maintain a perfectly balanced and healthy community. AKA it is not the swear words that cause the problem, but the disruptive and instigating behavior behind them.
  • Acceptance of swearing (courteous/professional behavior) depends entirely on the person and as such should not be enforced throughout the entire wiki.
  • Religious and political views have been host to some of the most gruesome and angry discussions in the history of humanity, yet swearing is looked down upon and proclaiming your devout political/religious belief is not.
  • We are not the parents of children and should not act like them in order to protect or encourage their development in one direction.
  • This change is not so everyone can swear in every sentence, use of swearing as it is now allowed does not happen that often, in fact the situation in question is one of the only times I have used a word like that on this wiki in a discussion and one of the only times I have seen a word like that used in a discussion.

Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DTM response

Unfortunately for your argument there would have to be standards on what constitues a real or constructive reply. I can think of several times where editors on either side supported for no real reason or just because something didnt make sense to them. With this in mind how can you say my reply was invalid simply because I didnt back it up (which I later did).

Everyone acting in their own interests is for the benefit in a society, but thats why I earlier said that this wiki is not a nation or real community and hence should not be governed by one. This was in response to your comment about anarchy in the real world.

I disagree, and this is the very basic problem in this debate is that our interpreations of words influence whether or not we think they are bad. Had I said "This idea is moronic" or "Are you freaking kidding me?" the meaning of the word in the first statement leads the reader to believe the proposer of the idea is a moron. The second refers to the act of dancing extremely closely to stimulate the genatalia, so why would both of these words be discounted as acceptable while to say fuck is not acceptable? According to several dictionaries the word freak also means fucking [13]. This is where it gets complicated because according to your argument, the problem is the meaning of certain words. But if those words can be substituted for something just as bad just not socially damning, its ok, which is falacious. The distinction we need to make is that making a direct attack against someone such as "Fuck you stinkowing your idea is so god damned stupid that I hope you die" is wrong and not allowed but using the words in general such as "damn, I had a really difficult day today" or "No fuck that, we should do it this way". Try the exercise yourself, try and find a couple of what everyone here would consider safe alternative for damn and fuck, see what words you can come up with. Hell and screw are what I came up with, both mean the same thing and refer to the same acts or places and both are considered safe.

Its a shame that we feel differently about this. I look at it similar to a Volcano building up pressure and natural gas ready to release an explosion. Whatever rules you make telling the volcano that it cant explode will mean nothing because in the end it is naturally the way it is and will behave regardless of what you say or expect it to do. Someone who feels hurt or angry to the point of making a poll looking for sympathy or fuel will find another outlet with which to obtain it, and rules at the time will not do anything to stop that.

This once again tracks back to your motivation for protecting children or using median age as a reason for something. It doesnt mean anything. I would even go on to assume that the majority teenagers swear.

A compromise in which my message is not removed but I receive a warning for the behavior is not a compromise. What if during the black civil rights movement black people on busses were not forcibly removed, only cited and given a warning, then a ticket, then thrown in jail and had it called a compromise by the white government? It is nothing but unjustified control of something.

You and your proponents are the ones going in circles. Explain to me why swearing is bad. Your answer will probably be along the lines of "its disrespectful, its mean, its hurtful" etc. But if I were to ask you why, you would say something like "because it just is". Without any real reason to censor swearing, we should embrace the alternative which is still enforce the UTP but dont not allow people to use a word. A conflict is a conflict whether or not you use swearing before, in the middle of, or after.

So your reponse is that because some people dont act in a way you approve of, what you perceive as a courteous way, we need to have rules to ensure that they act accordingly. I shouldnt have to explain to you at this point in the argument why I disagree with that. I dont like the Klu Klux Klan or what they preach under the protected banner of free speech, but I dont have to embrace it or be around it at all in any point of my existence to enjoy my life. Nor are they allowed to enforce it upon me or coerce anyone into believing or supporting them. It is the same situation here.

This all comes down to one side trying to force through policies, their perception of a social environment onto everyone else even if they do not agree.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious and political discussions are permitted only in userspace. If you were to start a discussion on article talk pages, Yew grove discussions, or even our wiki forums (where off topic discussions are generally allowed) about how wonderful/terrible Obama/The Joker is, it would not be allowed. In general, we are more tolerant on userpages and user talk pages than we are in official namespaces. I would not care if you used profanity on your personal page, though it would still be in your best interest to remove it if others kindly asked you to.
I too have seen very little profanity on discussion pages, and many of the users that did use it later turned out to be vandals or trolls (resulting in them being blocked anyway). I would like to keep it this way. Adding to a policy that users are allowed to swear would inevitably increase the number of users cursing, sooner or later. As I have said before, it is human nature to try to bend the rules to see how much one can get away with. Eventually, we ‘’would’’ have users swearing in every sentence if this came into effect.
I did not suggest that your reply was the only reply that could be considered uncontructive. Any reply that does not give a reason isn’t useful to a discussion. Your later response was better as it gave a reason, but the first line was still unnecessary. You would have got the point across just as well if you hadn’t have made that sarcastic remark.
It isn’t difficult to come up with alternatives. The first sentence could be changed to “Whew, I had a difficult day today”, or just “I had a difficult day today.” The second could be changed to “Forget that, we should do it this way”. “Are you fucking kidding me” could be changed to “Are you actually kidding me” or just “Are you kidding me”.
If the wiki isn’t to be governed in the same way that a nation is, then I’m assuming that what you want is for everyone to work in the best interests of the project with “powers that nobody can compete with” being used only when absolutely necessary. If this is the case, then in principle you are not unlike any other good faith editor on the wiki. The only question is the practice (what “absolutely necessary” really means). In my opinion, it is not unnecessary to do what we can to avoid conflicts that don’t help the wiki in any way.
You may not understand for yourself why swear words are considered more vulgar than other words that are synonymous, but the key thing is that they are. The word “fuck” is considered “very severe” by 71% of respondents to the survey mentioned earlier in this discussion. If users consider your language “very severe”, they are more likely to respond in a hostile manner. More hostility can only lead to more flame wars. This isn’t something that can easily be proven, but it is really just common sense.
As I have said before, I am not opposing this proposal because I want to “protect the kids”. I was only backing up a fact that was brought up by others earlier in this discussion, which you tried to refute. Proving this fact has taken more time out of the discussion than it is worth, and I apologize as I am partially at fault for that. I would agree that most players in RuneScape’s age range are or will soon be exposed to profanity on a regular basis.
The law that you described still would have been somewhat of a victory for the civil rights movement, however minor. Personally, I would much rather be given a warning than forcibly removed from a vehicle and forced to walk (especially in a dangerous area or in winter conditions). Although black people still wouldn’t have the right to public transportation or more importantly, integration into the rest of society, it would still be a step in the right direction for the movement. Furthermore, your example is irrelevant because segregation significantly affected one’s lifestyle and their ability to have a future. It was a serious social injustice, and not being allowed to swear on a website is incomparable to it. You can easily do whatever you need to without using profanity. If you’re frustrated, try swearing out loud rather than typing it out on the wiki. It feels far more satisfying, and you won’t disrupt wiki discussions by doing so. It also isn’t a bad idea to avoid sending emails and forum posts when you’re emotional, either extremely happy or angry.
Both sides are going in circles. Butterman listed the main points above, and they are really just being repeatedly thrown back and forth in different ways. Nothing new is really happening, and we are not getting anywhere near even rough consensus. Leaving this discussion open is a waste of everyone’s time. I have better things to do, and I am sure that you do as well. Even if we repeatedly scrutinize each others’ points like we’ve been doing and claim to “win” the debate (by getting the last word), that won’t give us consensus (remember, the root word is “consent”). Over a month and 110KB worth of discussion is more than enough for an issue such as this to reach consensus, if it’s possible.
What it really boils down to is what Butterman suggested: Don’t be a dick. This means that within reason, you should treat others as they would like to be treated. If your comments are edited by a user, you could just talk it out with them. Kindly ask them to leave your own words alone. If applicable, strike out the comment in question. It’s a far better idea than making a big deal about it and creating an exhausting and divisive dispute. If I knew that everyone would just follow Butterman’s suggestion, I would not be so strongly opposed.
If either side is trying to “force their perception of a social environment on everyone else through policies”, it is the supporters. Their perception of a social environment is of one where swearing is acceptable and words are meaningless. Prior to this thread being created, there was no problem with the user treatment policy that had worked for years. However, both of these claims are unfair judgement of other editors. As I have said earlier on this page, every contributor on either side is trying to do what they think is best for the wiki. Accept that each editor has a different opinion of what is best, and that we will not always agree with you. Consensus is not going to happen, and no compromise has been accepted. I have given this discussion all of the time that I’m going to. I have offered my opinions and suggestions for compromise, and there really isn’t anything more that I can do. Dtm142 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose With the exception being user talk pages, if that user is ok with it. Simply put, swearing does not help a discussion, and the goals of our discussions are to improve the wiki. Therefore swearing actually takes away from the discussion and detracts from the point of it, since it offends some people. Anytime you need to swear go to my talk page and do so, I don't give a rats pituitary gland.--Degenret01 04:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Come on. By Swearing about someones idea You make 'em Feel bad. How'd you like it if i sweared at your idea? We wish to Improve the wiki here... NOT CORRUPT IT! --Ringmaster hat.png Celtic-Creations Talk to me Dragon hatchet.png

You managed to sum up every reason why I support this in a single sentence. Nice.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, do we really want to be like this? Original video 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's hyperbolic and irrelevant. No one here is talking about banning swearing from all aspects of the wiki. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, thats actually what many of the people opposed to swearing want here, no swearing at all. Have you read any of the arguments people like DTM have been using? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No Tebuddy, this discussion as well as my opposition is only with respect to swearing in community discussions. I do not care about userspace. It is sinful to bear false witness against your neighbours, especially other editors Angry Dtm142 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support As long as its not attacking someone personally or is said to hurt someones feelings i dont see why we shouldnt be able to. As long as people dont go crazy with it. --Quest point cape equipped.png Cheese012Firemaking 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why "Use better words to convey your point" doesn't work

If I am angry at an idea, will I think, "OH! Better not cuss." and end up typing, "That idea is fliddlesticksing dumb." Of course not, because it doesn't convey my point as well as I felt. This is the very reason people use different vocabularies and tones --- because they feel a certain vocabulary and tone conveys their ideas and feelings better.

Now, onto the argument of "Because it's unprofessional/rude/etc." This argument in and of its self defeats its self. To single out curse words because they're "rude" and not statements that mean the same thing is "freaking" stupid. Not only that, but it is completely illogical to make exclusions just to make your argument valid.

But in the psychology aspect, since the human mind is by definition afraid of change, I'm sure that this debate and most debates since Socrates discovered the Socrates method didn't come out with people saying, "Oh hey--that's intelligent. I guess I was wrong." Hey, why would people make images mocking internet debating if that actually happened? :P --Allonym 00:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Just the odd one. Not at any body tho —Manyman (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose but on basic principles. I'm not going to censor what some user says explicitly, but I do think there is a point that profanity does get out of hand and becomes flat out offensive. For myself, when I see or even hear considerable profanity (aka "swearing"), it indicates an extreme level of immaturity, casualness, and more importantly a very clear demonstration that you lack the capability of being able to express your ideas due to a lack of vocabulary. In other words, sheer ignorance. It is also a clear demonstration when profanity is used for written communication that the person using this kind of communication is disrespectful of others and is being simply too lazy to be able to express displeasure in some other way.

I realize that the universe of Runescape players tends to be primarily teenagers and other groups of younger people. This is true even for this wiki, where there is a slightly older group than appears on the game. Again, this clearly demonstrates that it is a lack of knowledge and command of the language to be able to find better words to express yourself when profanity is being used.

I'll be honest, there is a time and a place for a well-placed bit of profanity. It can be used, but again due to a lack of maturity most younger people tend to over use the concept in places that their "elders" would not use those words. That the more mature of us are pushing back on this issue I hope is a sign that things have gone too far. I do believe that the profanity for some users on this wiki is getting out of hand, both on discussion pages within the wiki and more profoundly on the "forums".

Be aware, even if you think you are hiding behind a pseudonym, that whatever you put into an "on-line" discussion can and perhaps will come back and haunt you later on in life. Once published on "the internet", content like this can come back and haunt you if you end up trying to get a promotion for a job, run for public office, or even seek employment. Those who excessively use profanity may regret their decision to use these words later on in their life.

Also, as soon as you use profanity as a user, I consider that the person who made that comment to be immature and it diminishes the value of their opinion as somebody not really worthy of respect. More to the point, as soon as you type in a swear word, any point of view that you are trying to advocate or support has just been diminished... so much so that it would have been better if you had simply not made a comment at all. When trying to determine consensus on a topic, I certainly would take into account the use of profanity in a negative light in terms of what opinion is prevailing.

There is also the importance of civility. Civility in this case simply means that we need to get along with each other if anything is going to get accomplished. The use of profanity is an incivil action that shows disrespect and contempt for another person. On this basis alone, I think we should try to discourage the use of profanity as much as possible and not let it become a routine part of the discourse on this wiki. --Robert Horning 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that totally unique and otherwise unheard of argument to this discussion. I particularly liked how you explained why swearing is immature, uncivil, and just plain evil instead of just saying it over and over again. Wink. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think your extrapolation went a bit overboard and it came off a tad rude. However, your standard (Specifically, the one that they are "immature" due to a lack of vocabulary.) can sometimes be true. But--this may be irrelevant to an extent--if you are basing your standard's validity off of the community here, it is not recommended as this Wiki is not the "average" group of people when it comes to maturity; as the game it produces content about isn't full of mature adults/teenagers. Thank you, however, for offering a better explanation than the others. --Allonym 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Compared to those normally playing Runescape, and in particular on F2P, most folks who contribute to this wiki are much more mature, and it shows in the language too. Compared to the level of discourse on Wikipedia, on the other hand, this kind of language simply wouldn't even be remotely tolerated and I'm certain that Jimbo would have come down hard against this rule proposal (on Wikipedia... we're not Wikipedia here, however). I'm trying to propose a common sense rule: Go ahead and use the language if you like, but don't expect anybody to listen to or consider your opinion worth any value if you engage in profanity. Furthermore, if profanity does become common place here, I think that perhaps stronger rules should be enacted. Profanity is insulting and we should be striving to try and reduce its use, not condone more of it. --Robert Horning 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"Go ahead and use the language if you like, but don't expect anybody to listen to or consider your opinion worth any value if you engage in profanity." I honestly have to wonder how you can justify generalizing all those who use profanity as 'stupid.' Or am I misinterpreting you? "Compared to those normally playing Runescape, and in particular on F2P, most folks who contribute to this wiki are much more mature, and it shows in the language too." That is true, however I still find problems with you generalizing all those who use profanity as 'stupid.' --Allonym 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between ignorance and stupidity (the word you are trying to assert that I'm using here). Ignorance implies that experience, time, and education will eventually get you to the point that you will no longer be ignorant. Stupidity is implying that you are a hopeless cause and there is not even a potential for redemption due to cranial capacity or some other medical condition. I hope that those who use profanity... particularly in forums and places like a wiki talk page... are doing so due to youth and inexperience. From what I've seen in most usages, that is precisely the case. There are some folks who due to their social environment and background also tend to use profanity more, particularly when associated with certain professions. Most reasonably mature adults can and do leave that kind of behavior to those work environments when they are in contact with "the general public" and in particular children. I guess I'm saying that this is something that is simply a part of adolescence, and I'm willing to accept that. Teenagers have an in-born tendency to rebel... which is one of the natural instincts that get kids to leave home and not become the 30-something-year-old that still lives in his mother's basement. Kids become just annoying enough that a parent is willing to kick the kid out of the house, and the parents become grumpy enough that the kid wants to leave as well. Profanity is a part of that process, where parents usually try to beat it out of the kid, but the kid does it to be shocking and draw attention to himself and gain favors with his peers. I'm not trying to be overtly offensive here, but it is a fact of life: somebody who is younger does indeed lack experience and knowledge... by definition. --Robert Horning 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I, myself don't see any swear word as a swear word to be honest with you. To me, it's just another word that causes offence for some weird reason. It's a bit over the top if users say the word "Fuck" every other word in similar fashion to Ozzy Osbourne. (I just laugh at them... alot). Not saying you did, but if we got given freedom of speech on the Wikia, users could quite easily abuse this "freedom" to insult others. We don't need that. Black cavalier.png Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue).png 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Simply put, why does the Wiki need swearing in a community that generally gets along just fine without it? If it isn't broke, don't try and "fix" it. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 17:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - From my point of view, I don't think swearing automatically stamps one as immature or anything. That's judgmental. Maybe that's because that opinion came from the idea that I want to defend what I think is okay. Here's someone who had an issue with some content on my userpage: [14]. My response? [15]. That's pretty much my point. Well, what one would consider offensive depends on one's views. Someone could think that saying hi would be offensive. Why? I don't know, it's their opinion. "In today's society", people swear all the time. Most people know where and when they shouldn't swear, which lessens the chance of offending someone. Swears still are heard. By pretty much everyone. Including kids. Most of the time, I bet, isn't even our fault. Maybe they have parents who swear or hang around kids who do. Anyway, seeing "crap" won't "mar the perfectly innocent angel that lives inside each and every precious gift from above". What are fuck, crap, shit, etc. used for? Strong emotion, not strictly anger or frustration. And said swears are mostly American words. American people probably would be more familiar with these words than others of different countries that play Runescape. If swearing is such a big deal, I'm sure it'd help to know when and where it's acceptable to use swear words. And also to think if it'll be likely to offend.  Panjy16  18:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This is part of what I have been trying to say. All the opposers are assuming no one will use common sense. — Enigma 00:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not assuming this, Enigma, and I oppose. Swearing isn't needed in any logical case. Non-offensive synonyms would work just as well, no? Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png
How ironic. Offended that the "opposers" are lumping the supporters into one unthinking mass, he lumps all the opposers together into one unthinking mass.--Degenret01 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hooray, another circling matter that this thread has caused. All it is is one huge circle, "point" after "point". Retribution.png Chaos Monk Fire cape.png 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW, of course it is judgmental that when somebody is swearing that they are displaying immaturity. If you are in a position to judge, you have to judge the merits of the argument in order to come to a conclusion which includes the manner and grammar usage for the argument as well. The use of profanity diminishes the value of anything said and shows a lack of respect, either to the reader or to whom you are addressing. It has little to do with offense, but rather it shows a lack of ability to make a persuasive argument. If you would stop using profanity and actually try to calm down with a solid argument, you can make a much better case for what ever it is that you are trying to get across.
By way of note, many of the "swear words" in English actually are of original Anglo-Saxon origin for many of the actions or objects that they refer to, and the "proper" words for them... for example "penis" instead of "dick" to use a hard example and other more graphic examples can be used... came from the Norman nobility who used the Latin or French terminology. If you used the "swear word", you were using the words of the commoner and the "proper" word was that which came from nobility. In other words, at least for the English language, the practice of swearing shows that you are of a lower station in life and that you are not worthy of being listened to. This social stigma still continues today, even in America where there are no clear class distinctions like Norman-ruled England. This isn't something restricted to this wiki, and will apply to you and anybody else that you meet.--Robert Horning 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting pointless. Like someone told me before, not much can be said, because most of it has been said already. How many times do you have to scroll down to get here? I didn't even read most of the statements above mine, because this is just going around and around like a carousel. Doesn't look like it's going to stop, does it? Seems to me that quite a few people who have posted think their opinions will get their way. If a bunch of us think so, this is basically a yelling argument between two people saying the same thing: I'M RIGHT. MY PROPOSITION IS CLEARLY THE MORE DECENT THING TO DO.

Call this unnecessary, but we're all going to die in the end. Life isn't fair to begin with. IF or WHEN this ends, I don't think any of us will end up getting exactly what they want. Ground rules are okay. But from those ground rules come people who see things they don't like. Then they propose more and more rules. They're just piling up, man. Those pointless, unnecessary rules are pretty much walls. Walls telling you what you can't do. NONE OF THIS. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THIS ISN'T ALLOWED. Is a little bit of freedom of speech so much to ask? Me? Sure, I swear. Do I ever try to rip your heart out and kick it around? No. Speech is a way to express yourself. Swearing is a part of speech. Not entirely proper, but people say it. It's speech. Sure, you can substitute swears with other words, but maybe swearing helps convey your point.

Discussion and articles aren't about the individual. I don't see anything wrong with not allowing swearing there. Userpages and user talk? I don't see anything wrong with letting people swear there. No one's forcing you to look at someone's userpage. If you're so sensitive to swearing, I think you should understand that people do swear. You don't want to see swearing? Well then don't look at any userpages. Add as many rules as you want, but you can't change the person.  Panjy16  16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A possible compromise? Could we lay down some ideas for fundamental rules down here, so that people can see and comment, sort of the bottom line? This thread is getting ridiculously long, we can all agree on that, and, in my opinion, we should just brainstorm here so that we can kill the beast now rather than have more and more sections of circles.

My proposal is that we have a limited number of swears (maybe 1 per sentence, 4 per paragraph?), and no flaming/directing it at any user, or any other human (such as "George Bush was a dumbass president").

We can reach a compromise, guys, because as you all can see, all other posts above are basically arguments in circles. Let's utilize opinion over fighting for our own with no end products. Retribution.png Chaos Monk Fire cape.png 18:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 5

For the people lagging. Oppose - Per all opposes so far. Anything worth saying can be said without swearing. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 18:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

By way of compromise, and as I tried to say earlier, I think RS:CONSENSUS ought to have any sort of "rule change" in terms of profanity. If you want to use profanity... go ahead. No word count or fancy hard rule about how often you can put those words in. Just don't count on your opinion to be considered contributing toward consensus. If you are having a bad day and somebody just ate at your craw to send you off and put in a word or two, we all understand. We all have bad days and perhaps the topic touched a raw nerve. What I don't want to see is either formal condoning of profanity on a widespread basis, nor do I want to out right censor other users... particularly I, as an admin, don't want to be editing out the words of other users. Perhaps on the user talk page a nice little note to calm down on the profanity if somebody seems to be getting excessive, and on an individual case by case basis we as a community could try to encourage less profanity in general. I guess I want to scale it back just a little bit more than User:Tebuddy is suggesting, as I don't even want to see this wiki in general permit swearing as official policy. This is a slippery slope that needs to be fought against in terms of letting profanity become de rigueur in the discourse of this wiki.

For this reason, I propose that it be formally codified, if it is at all, in RS:CONSENSUS to at least acknowledge that it can happen from time to time, but put in a mild "penalty" for those who use it as a means to discourage the practice. The penalty is merely that your opinion is ignored by way of policy when profanity is used. Chronic use of profanity might be considered for a user block, but that is something that can be dealt with as a community on a later date... I don't know anybody who is really meeting that level of a problem that hasn't already been violating many other wiki policies that would also get them banned. --Robert Horning 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"One per sentence, four per paragraph?" You're kidding right. Okay. There's clearly NO CONSENSUS, and it doesn't look like there will be one any time soon. Looky here. Forty four days, approximately 130kb and NO CONSENSUS. Great job. Have an award. Here's an idea: Forget this all and do nothing, because I'm tired of repeated "profanities", textbook references and having "Everyone who swears is an uncivil moron." thrown in my face.  Panjy16  16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seriously robert, you mention a slippery slope and then support limits for the number of swear words allowed to be used in writing like its perfectly legitimate. I also don't know where you guys get your definition of compromise, but my definition is not shitting on the other person while at the same time meeting your own goals. Really, penalizing swearing and at the same time limiting the number of uses per paragraph. Also panjy, this is nothing new, our system is not an efficient one, you might want to just accept it now. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, nobody is "shitting" on the other side. The goal of the opposing side to "Use any cuss words you want, anytime." would be similar to the "No Cuss Club". Really, you're making it look like we're biting your head off with unlogical bull, but guess what? We're putting out our theories and views just as you are. The support side is in no way being "shit" on, and if it is, the same is happening on both sides. My earlier post was a call for compromise, if you didn't read the bold text, because I'm getting sick of seeing circles of arguments, aren't you? Oh, and our system has been able to put every other principle, discussion, and rule that this wiki has to date, so I think it works just fine, don't you? Retribution.png Chaos Monk Fire cape.png 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Stop hiding behind that totally neutral everyone just wants whats best load of crap. Everyone here has a bias they are trying to push forward, you are no different. Our consensus system has always been flawed, in fact I brought it up a couple of months back and it led to a new policy and total reform. To say our policy is good now is a lie, to say our policy has always been good is an even worse one. This topic for example. A vote would have settled it months ago and still provided us with all of our options (non permanent, ignore all rules, etc). Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
A vote? The wiki isn't a democracy, you know this. Also, I'd respect it if you respected my position, instead of totally assaulting it with insult. I have my opinion, and you have yours. And how is it flawed? Also, that's great you made reform, I'm glad. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Tebuddy agrees kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The main reason why we don't count votes is because there is no mechanism to ensure that the user casting the vote isn't stuffing the ballot box... aka sock puppetry. Consensus building removes the need to even worry about sock puppets, and in the long run tends to provide better policy anyway. However, for consensus to work, the opposing sides of the argument (it doesn't have to be just two sides either) have to be willing to give up a little and try to find some common ground that everybody can work with. So where is the common ground here? --Robert Horning 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the question I tried to pose, but Tebuddy answered it a few posts up. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of putting in a "penalty" is to try and discourage the practice instead of merely banning it altogether. This is very subjective and would be up to the particular admin who is trying to decide consensus. As I tried to point out earlier, this is going to happen anyway but all I'm trying to say is that this sort of practice might as well get codified if there is some concern about profanity. This is something that shouldn't be on any of the discussion pages anyway, but I am trying to form a bit of a compromise here. By formally allowing profanity, I feel that is going a bit too far. This is something that should be discouraged and not set up for a standard where users get to count words or for it to be turned into a joke like George Carlin's 7 dirty words. The point is here, what is the compromise when there is not compromise to completely allow profanity? I'm really not trying to set the bar too far back from what you are proposing, but I do think it needs to be moved back. I'm also trying to come up with something that perhaps those that are opposed to profanity might be able to live with as well. --Robert Horning 02:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the compromise should be common sense and avoidance, if you know someone doesn't mind swearing or does swear themselves and it bothers you that much, don't go around them. That way you have a choice in the matter and your not telling anyone what they are allowed and allowed not to do or penalizing anyone. If someone occasionally drops a swear as I have done in this thread (two or three times in total) then there is no problem. If certain situations are up for a toss, bring them forward to the YG for discussion. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Simply put, the supporters are not going to get what they want. Why? It would harm the project. Personal ideals should be secondary to the betterment of the Wiki. People are offering them compromises, but they blatantly refuse to accept anything but their own way. I do Support Robert Horning's compromise, as it would put an end to this "discussion". Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
So far we have had two compromises (three counting my own) and those two have suggested either the penalizing or discouragement of swearing with the hopes of eliminating it entirely. How exactly is that a compromise? You continuously do nothing but assert your own beliefs with zero proof and then complain about circular arguments and never ending discussions. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I really want to understand something.... are you suggesting that you won't accept any compromise that doesn't permit swearing? I am being realistic that profanity can't be completely eliminated without explicit censoring along the lines that Jagex does within the RS game interface.... and even that has flaws. You at least need to realize that there are major contributors to this wiki that do find profanity distasteful and want to see it kept under control. I would like to see some "proof" that permitting the occasional swear word with no adverse consequences will not snowball into nearly continuous profanity on the talk pages. My decades of experience spanning two centuries tells me otherwise. If you want formal behavioral studies that can document my intuition, I'd be glad to do a scholarly review and pull out legitimate research studies on this topic. Who would you find credible? --Robert Horning 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Who cares who contributes what, AEAE clearly states that all editors are equal and no one has more pull than others. So why does my acknowledgement of someones edit count or hours spent editing a week mean anything? Furthermore, it doesn't matter what they perceive as distasteful. Also, I would love to bring science into this discussion. If anything it would help the more logically minded people see some reason. The problem I have with what you are saying is that you want to use science based on the notion that it is wrong by nature when it is not. I would love to prove scientifically that swearing is not wrong and can even be beneficial [16] [17]. It is purely social constraints, not scientific ones that create the problem.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone here has a bias they are trying to push forward"? You are quite mistaken here. Majority of the editors are able to put their personal opinions aside for the sake of the Wiki. In better-spoken words of Azaz, "It's not about you it's whats best for the wiki and it's community, you could disappear at anytime and never return, but as long as there are others to carry on the work, that you yourself carried on from your predecessors, this wiki will continue to thrive and that is what matters". Unlike you, the majority of the editors want the project to succeed and vote on matters in a way that would benefit the project the most. Not vying to get their opinions heard. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlike you, the majority of the editors want the project to succeed and vote on matters in a way that would benefit the project the most. Woah, let's try to assume good faith here, kay? Butterman62 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Assuptions cannot be made when the opposite has been declared true by the user in question. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I unlike you have not insulted anyone, I only continuously marked that policies that tell people what they can and cannot do/say lead to socialism and are fascist tendencies. I have not called anyone a fascist, communist, socialist. Similar to how an idea can be stupid but the person who put forth the idea may not be a stupid person. Your entire contribution to this discussion has been the insistent droning that "swearing is bad and is evil and people who do it are immature", how the hell is that not a bias you are trying to push on to me and anyone else who wants to swear. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Under no circumstances should swearing be allowed. Simply put: Swearing = Bad character = Trouble = Not good for wikia. Why do you want to swear anyway? Give me one good reason for swearing? Nothing good can come from swearing... --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

03:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that insulting and downright rude. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I second that, Tebuddy. — Enigma 07:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You compared our argument to fascism. I don't think what Sir Scizor said was 100% accurate, but I also don't have much appreciation for hipocrisy. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 13:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Read my above post, I have yet to call anyone a fascist. Its your ignorance talking to say telling someone what they can and cannot do or say is not fascism. Its a fact, the more open you are about it the easier our discussion will be. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You strongly implied it. Don't hide behind equivocation. Your intents were clear. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you intend to tell me what I was thinking and meant with words that came out of my mouth (fingers)? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
So...due to the fact that I swear sometimes, I have bad character, am trouble, and am not good for Wikia? Should I take that as a compliment? 19:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - What does swearing add to the value of the wiki. I no way does swearing get anybody anywhere, solve any problems or help make decisions. It is not needed. Ever. This YG thread is the longest ever, and over what? Saying bad things.Can't we just say no you can't say this, this and this. Done.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 10:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Commenting again I would like some of our more mature and thinking people here to consider something if they would. And that is, what are we being asked to compromise? Swearing is considered rude and derogatory by its' very nature, that is well accepted. By allowing it, we are therefore allowing rudeness. We are being asked to compromise treating others in a courteous fashion. We are being asked to compromise our standards of decency. And I do not think these are things that should be compromised. --Degenret01 04:16, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself very mature and I see where your mistake is. Why is swearing rude by nature? A word is a sound used for communication, the way I see it any rules we create about those sounds just kind of complicate things in a bad way. Sure I dont walk into work in the morning and tell everyone to go fuck themselves, nor do I encourage that children mouth off to their parents. Maybe you were told that at a very young, maybe your a big fan of the government who likes to play parent and tell you that swearing is bad, whatever the reason it is not valid to generalize and then instill a rule on people who do not think and feel the same as you do. What is undeniable is that insults are bad in general and you don't need swearing to hurt people with them. We should be united against instigators, trolls, vandals, etc, not people who choose to say a certain thing to express themselves or make a point. A violation of the proper treatment of an individual is what we should be looking out for, not something minuscule and stupid like swearing.
You see where my mistake is? Save it, you cant see your own.--Degenret01 07:53, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
As if to prove my point, you got pissy with me over not a swear word.......remarkable. BTW that wasn't meant as an insult, you make mistakes, I make mistakes, but holding an opinion is not a mistake, trying to make it so I have to subscribe to your opinions is. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:20, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I never got "pissy", this discussion isn't worth it. And how is my stating my views "trying to make it so I have to subscribe to your opinions" but you stating your opinions is not? Don't answer, that's rhetorical. You "fighting" for the right to be rude. You talk about uniting against vandals? When is the last time you warned a vandal, reverted vandalism, or reported one to the CVU? You are not part of the fight against the daily vandals here. But you are taking an awful lot of the wikis energy on a stupid topic that should be let go so we can focus on better things.--Degenret01 12:29, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am a little confused here, but are you going to go ahead and ignore the topic at hand and try to attack my credibility as a productive editor? Not only is that ad hominem but it makes it seem like you know you have nothing to argue on because your entire argument is based entirely on emotion and opinion. Please feel free to go through my edit history and count them out, I don't feel the need to bicker with you back and forth about who gets the good noodle star. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:02, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I was hoping to avoid the hammer of the user block, which is in my opinion a very blunt weapon that is intended to stop miscreants like vandals and others who exhibit extreme behavior. As I pointed out, most users that I've dealt with that would use profanity to a degree that would warrant a user-block would also be banned for other reasons, likely to be considered vandalism in other contexts as well or at least very bad netiquette.

Tebuddy, you are also right on the line, and perhaps have even crossed the point of trying to prove your point through extreme behavior. See also wikipedia:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your use of profanity in this discussion alone is of concern to me and is illustrating by itself many of the issues that I was trying to raise. The level of contempt that you show to those in opposition to your point of view is not only not helpful, but will simply not bring consensus.

In regards to why I mentioned the concept of a major contributor to this wiki, the point I was trying to make is that by encouraging the use of profanity and letting it become widespread, what is going to happen is that those who find this level of profanity objectionable are simply going to stop participating on this wiki. That might even include myself. I'm not going to do it in a blaze of vandalism or something stupid, but I will participate less and then eventually not even be here. I might not even make a conscious decision to leave. Anything that discourages participation on this wiki is IMHO something not only not helpful but even counter-productive to the development of this wiki. Openly endorsing and supporting the use of profanity is not helpful, and its use in this discussion is proof enough that those desiring a mature and honest discussion are not really welcome on this wiki. Do not presume that I am alone with this opinion, and note that this isn't an issue just with this wiki but for life in general. No, I'm not calling for a boycott of the RS wiki, but I am pointing out one potential consequence of allowing widespread use of profanity within the wiki. I really don't think those who use profanity on a widespread basis are going to be significant contributors that will ultimately be helpful to the development and improvement of this community.

I can tolerate a level of immaturity and will consider that over the passage of time maturity can and usually does develop. I am a father of teenagers myself, so I have to deal with this on a daily basis even outside of this wiki environment. Still, the role here is to discourage the use of this behavior, not to encourage it. I don't understand why this is such a problem and why this topic has spilled so much ink. --Robert Horning 15:15, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:05, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 19:29, September 3, 2009 (UTC) 
I don't understand. We clearly have people here (I believe the number was 19 supporters) who want swearing to be allowed in one form or another, but any behavior that discourages contribution to the wiki like swearing (which in this discussion is near 50/50) should not be allowed? Doesn't make much sense to me. Please once again do not link me to a policy which does not apply here. I've dropped five, maybe six swear words throughout this entire page none directed at anyone or brimming with anger. I also have yet to violate any policies as of now because we don't have any regarding swearing. My language or editing has also not actually prevented anyone from posting, the most that could have happened is that during the discussion people who support your side of the argument used them strictly for arguments sake (listing them etc) and would have offended anyone who is so uncomfortable with swearing that they cant even read it as much as I would have.

I really don't know where to go from here, the last half page of this discussion has been me responding to everyones moral outrage arguments which really have no place in a logical discussion. No one has explained to me why swearing is truly evil, disgusting, wrong, immature, nor has anyone even attempted to prove why scientifically swearing creates a naturally harsh environment that encourages wrongdoing and pain (I even posted a few articles a bit back to some science journals).

If you choose to leave over something truly stupid like a few words, and for gods sakes thats all they are, I pity you. There must be many places you go in day to day life that permit swearing, do you cease attending them? What about your kids schools robert? Do they swear there? Are you going to pull them out? Anything but doing so would be an utter hypocrisy seeing as how swearing only encourages the molestation of the human mind.

Edit: You know its quite funny that Physco Robot have spent days now going back and forth hammering out some compromise guidelines without any participation from the moral outrage crowd, and some of you have the mind to call me counter productive and against the spirit of the wiki or whatever else you want to throw my way. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:09, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Comment With all due respects, please don't put yourself on a pedestal/boast. The post I'm under sounds very egotistical, and I apologize if i offends, but please do not try and make yourself seem infallible. It's very immature in my honest opinion. Please try and treat us all with respect, just as we do you. We are not stupid, and we are not kindergartners, so, again, don't go suggesting you're "winning", as no one wins in concensus overall, and don't go saying we're the "moral" group, we just like having an environment of intelligent words. Swearing doesn't benefit the community at all. It's typed words. If this was a verbal gathering, I would be on your side all the way, but on a gaming wiki, swear words have no need, the only true logic is to direct it at somebody. This is not meant to offend, but I thought I'd share my thoughts, because to me, you are assuming an air of higher being. AEAE. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 03:29, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
Okay so, I was called immature, wrong, and told I was walking a thin line when in reality zero rules have been broken and no one on your side has done anything but repeat their argument (go back and count how many times the sentence "swearing is wrong/evil/immature" occurs) and I am the one assuming the high road. Very few of any of the people above me have even tried to contribute toward a solution, their energy and over half of this page has been dedicated to eradicating the evil that is profanity and insulting myself and anyone else who chooses to do use it. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:57, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Okay, both sides have their valid points, and at the moment, we're not really getting anywhere (especially with individual arguments between users). Therefore, I hope this compromise will be satisfactory for both sides.

1) Mild swearing is allowed, but discouraged. If users find another user's swearing to be offensive, the user may request that the user be blocked per RS:UTP (it depends on the severity, of course). It is advised that users keep this mild swearing to a reasonable extent. Racial slurs are not allowed, and users will be warned and may be blocked for doing so. Common sense should also be applied here.

2) This will not be added to RS:UTP, in order to prevent possible abuse that may come as a result of a "partial- allowance" rule. If this passes, users may refer to Forum:RE: Swearing, should the situation call for it.

3) Users should keep in mind that swearing may diminish the value of their opinion as somebody not really worthy of respect.

3) #1 applies to Forum discussions only. Users may not swear on another users' talk page unless the user has specifically mentioned that they allow profanity on their talk page.

3) Mild swearing should still be kept to a minimum on talkpages, but is not disallowed. Users should also respect the wishes of a user if he does not tolerate swearing on his/her talkpage, but should not have the impression that users they can freely swear on other users' talkpages if they have not indicated as such.

This is to combat some of the issues that some users have mentioned (e.g. how "partial-allowance" rules are begging to be abused, etc). This is the most peaceful compromise that I could think of at this point. Thoughts/opinions? C.ChiamTalk 05:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be added that swears should not be removed from pages (per RS:DDD) except in serious cases where they are a clear violation of the UTP, and if swearing starts to get too severe, the user in question should be warned on their talk page instead of having their comments edited. Also, #3 should probably be removed. Its completely opinion based. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think deleting swear words specifically is a violation of RS:DDD. And if they user in question is violating RS:UTP, they will naturally be notified on their talkpage. I suppose #3 is a bit unnecessary. C.ChiamTalk 05:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And if mild swearing is allowed, mild swears too naturally would not be removed from pages. C.ChiamTalk 06:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I support something like this, but the current definitions are much too broad. What is a mild swear? Fuck, shit, asshole? What is an obscene swear? How much is too much? Why would fuck be an obscene swear but freak would not? Why should a user be warned if the swear was not directed at someone and just used in a general sense such as "aww fuck, I forgot to do that, sorry man"?. We cant be overly general if we are not going to add it to the rules and still permit warning and removal. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Any swearing other than on user talk pages where they specifically say it is ok to do so. Freedom of speech is good, freedom to offend others is stupid and unnecessary. It does not do anything to help a discussion.--Degenret01 06:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Added something to that extent under #3. C.ChiamTalk 06:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You cannot have freedom of speech and disallow offending other users with that speech. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, any limitations put on it don't exactly make it freedom of speech. What if personally I am offended by the word "the", can I bring a motion forward under the pretense that the world the is extremely offensive and hence should be disallowed? Why not, I am offended and I am sure other people could be offended, why not? How is it any different from finding profanity offensive? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Freedom of speech is the freedom to express your thoughts. Your being intentionally difficult, and have been for quite some time.--Degenret01 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see this as an issue. If a user requests that no profanity be used on his/her talkpage, I don't understand why a user cannot grant that. We're not talking about complete freedom of speech here. Of course, if the user is being unreasonable by saying that he/she finds the word "the" offensive, common sense should be applied. C.ChiamTalk 07:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing against the compromise, just degeret saying that freedom of speech and not offending people can coexist. I don't know about your personal view degenret, but the right to free speech as defined commonly is the right to say and think whatever you please anytime anywhere without fear of repercussions from the state or federal government or in this case busy body's who want to control swearing. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't #3 be the other way around where you can only swear on talk pages that say that you can swear on them?? That way you will automatically be given the friendly option and have to manually request otherwise. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the proposal passes, it means that mild swearing is allowed on forum discussions. Thus, it would only make sense that mild swearing is allowed on user talk page discussions unless the user specifies otherwise. C.ChiamTalk 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Sorry, I am not thinking today. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That is totally bad. If we allow swearing on forum talks a user shouldn't have to say its disallowed on their talk page. Rule 3 should indeed be flipped around.--Degenret01 08:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait. How does allowing swearing on forum discussions equate to users not having to say that swearing is disallowed on their talkpage? C.ChiamTalk 08:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Because we already know some users are offended by it. And it is "their" talk page.--Degenret01 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't letting the offended users indicate on their talkpage about disallowing swearing fix that? Since we're allowing people to swear on forum discussions, by extension, it should be sense that they too are allowed to swear on talkpages, unless the user has an issue with it. I'd think that there are more non-offended users than offended users. If the rule was flipped around, some users might not know that they could only swear on user's with talkpages that say: "Mild swearing is allowed on my talkpage." I thought it'd make more sense that offended users point out that they will be offended by swearing. C.ChiamTalk 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
For most things yes, that logic would apply. But allowing any swearing is stupid, users offended should not need to post a header about it. Let the swearers step lightly. Make them think a bit. We need not accommodate their rudeness any more than the barest minimum.--Degenret01 08:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I was beginning to forget that we are allowing mild swearing, but it is discouraged, so what you said makes sense. Flipped. C.ChiamTalk 09:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose compromise as of now - This is ridiculous. So we are allowing swearing in forum discussion but not on talk pages on the pretense that swearing is bad and evil and immature and we shouldn't inconvenience the angels who don't swear. Fuck that. This is disgusting, I cant believe I and others who swear are being classified as rude, immature, wrong, immoral, stupid, and inconsiderate in every opposers post. You guys speak of being wrong and the community degrading into a chaos fest yet no one has provided any evidence as to how it could happen or even prove that swearing is wrong. You want to penalize people who swear but you seem to cling to the ideals that directly support wrongdoing and illogical, inconsistent, and unfair behavior. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You're opposing compromise after you called for it and preached that we should try and reach consensus, all because the only people trying to compromise aren't on your side? That, my friend, is ridiculous. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 14:14, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
Did you not read the posts above mine? I supported the consensus until degenret made a totally unnecessary and hurtful attack against anyone who uses profanity and then went on to speak like we weren't reading the conversation only to have caleb change the compromise to something totally backwards and unreasonable. "Let the swearers step lightly. Make them think a bit. We need not accommodate their rudeness any more than the barest minimum". But, now that the guidelines have been changed to something not ridiculous they have my support once more. Support.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 15:33, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, I've read every entry in this entire thread at one point or another. This form of compromise could have been formed weeks ago, but the past is the past. I will Support this compromise right now. It achieves goals on both sides, by making tolerable swearing accepted, but it can be forbade on talk pages, and that's what this hovered around after your thread starters edit. Was that so hard? Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 16:48, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
You will notice that someone who agrees with you is still opposed to this compromise (degenret) while the entire time I was either supporting it or willing to support it after changes. Please direct all of your "Cant we just do this" comments his direction. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:35, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming a bit hard to manage now.. Okay Tebuddy, you're not completely right, but you're not completely wrong either, I disagree with some of those statements. After thinking a bit, I've rewritten point 3. Also, please avoid being so oppressive ("Fuck that. This is disgusting."), I know you're very strong in your beliefs and I respect that, but it would be better if you stated your points more politely. C.ChiamTalk 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As if to prove my point, why because I used a swear word is my sentence automatically not polite and filled with hatred. I can understand in the case of a direct insult, but what I wrote was completely free of any. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 15:36, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
The words you used were harsh, so it is natural that people would interpret it as being rude and impolite. C.ChiamTalk 07:28, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What about jokes? Should jokes that are about the 2nd World War or something, which one might consider offensive, also be banned? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit irrelevant. We're talking about speech in general, for jokes, that's a completely different matter. Plus, we've never had an "offensive joke" problem before. C.ChiamTalk 08:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about swearing. Don't complicate it, it has gone on to long already.--Degenret01 08:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Please, can we just have a consensus for you can swear or you can't swear. That would be so much easier. Or can someone just count all opposes and supports and see who wins???--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 10:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

20 Opposes and 19 supports bad_fetustalk 10:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
lol, I love consensus. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the compromise. It sounds good. BTW, it doesn't matter if the opposers "win" by one, this isn't a democracy. 20:36, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - Define "Mild". Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:51, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - same with D4k. I would like to see mild defined as anything the chat filter in game allows. The only reason I can support this is because I know we will never be able to make everyone happy. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:51, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a terrible way to lead our swearing guidelines. You could misspell the word princess and the chat filter would trigger. You are also not allowed to say a number of mild or unoffensive words. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:18, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support this compromise for the most part. I do think the issue "Users should keep in mind that swearing may diminish the value of their opinion" should be inserted into any official policy page, as it is mostly (or should be) common sense. Most anything else I have to say about this topic is RS:TROLL so there is no more need to comment beyond what I've said. --Robert Horning 14:20, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Define "Mild"

The Chat filter censoring something that does not need to be censored has nothing to do with anything. the point is that if the word is blocked by the filter, we do not use it on the wiki. that does not include things that are censored for reasons we do not understand like your princess example. I like the PG-13 idea, I think that fits runescape and the wiki better. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:51, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe words allowed in PG-13 movies would be a better guideline than the censor. You can say most anything in PG-13 movies (for instance I know Bruce Almighty used "shit") but you can't go overboard with it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:51, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Since the average age of a Runescape player (as dtm pointed out via source) is 16, wouldnt it make more sense to stick with an R rating which was designed with 17 year olds in mind and not with one designed for the youngest legal age even allowed to participate on wikia or Runescape? PG-13 only allows for one swear word in the entire film before an R rating is required [18]. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:35, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
I've seen PG-13 movies use more than one swear word. However, I like the idea of it being PG-13; it doesn't mean you can only swear once, but it limits the vocabulary. The median age may be 16, but that's based on what people say they are, it could easily be lies (yes, I checked the source, not buying it). I Support the PG-13 standard. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:44, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
How can you support the pg-13 standard but ignore the rules that govern that standard? It very plainly says on that page I linked you to that more than one swear word regardless of the severity of that one word merits an R rating. You also completely ignored the my average age question. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:45, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Can you find anything like that for TV-14 and TV-MA? I don't want to go straight to R, because that's really pretty much limitless as to how much you can swear... [has unhappy memories of Superbad] I tried looking myself but all I could find was the general FCC definitions which don't really go into specifics. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:21, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I did address that, I don't believe Dtm's source at all. I don't think that the average player is 16, so I oppose the R rating. Also, if your link is correct, then by god, I've seen some mis-rated films. I still think PG-13. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 22:01, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
How can you disagree with a statement Jagex made about a game they created, maintain, and have statistics for? Telite 00:32, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:37, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Easy, because nothing is a fact on the internet. 8 year olds say they're 13 to play the game. Jagex cannot know for sure the players ages. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 00:52, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I think Chaos is right. The average recorded age may be 16, but I'd bet that at least 50% of accounts made are people under 13 lying about their age so they can play (before quick chat) or so they're not restricted to quick chat. The database Jagex has is less reliable than Wikipedia. And given the level of intellectual discourse I see going on in the game, either most players are way under 16 or our society is completely screwed. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:29, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but thats unacceptable. Thats fine if you want to assume that. But here, you cant have an argument founded with information you cannot prove or verify in any way. We also have to assume that Jagex, not being run by simpletons, would have assumed this and other factors when taking counts of their total players for marketing or other purposes.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 01:47, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, I see fit that the rating is PG-13, and I'll Support it throughout this thread because my belief is that Jagex's information comes from user creation logs, where (from what I estimate) over half of the users lie, I know I did. Look in the game, no 16 year old types like many of the common people. I'll hold my opinion over your "fact". Like Psycho said, "The database Jagex has is less reliable than Wikipedia". Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 03:37, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

The last 6 months of updates prevent me from being so generous with my assessment of Jagex's commitment to accuracy. But this argument really is pretty irrelevant. The median age of RuneScape isn't really important for this argument. We've already nailed down the target of acceptable language to somewhere between PG-13 and R, TV-14 and TV-MA might be ok, but I cannot yet find any specific information as to what is and is not allowed, just a generic FCC definition. If anyone could find specific information (as specific as the source provided about PG-13) then we might be in business as for creating guidelines. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:28, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

I am still against this. I'm sorry but you cant ignore both reason and things that Jagex has said in order to make your own policy suitable for your anti profanity paradise. You still also have yet to acknowledge that as defined by the MPAA (the organization who created those ratings) that more than one swear word regardless of their obscenity requires an R rating. This whole copy what the FCC and MPAA thing is incredibly crude and impractical. Did you know anti smoking advocates are pushing for cigarettes in all movies to be heavily moderated in historical films and outlawed in all modern films? What does that say about the fairness of the industry? TV-MA is not a requirement by the way, it is a guideline that lets audiences know something may be unsuitable for anyone under the age of 17[19]. So its more like a warning sign (which I would be fine sticking on the front page in return for swearing).Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:02, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
You absolutely misunderstand what I am trying to do. I am not trying to make an "anti swearing paradise", and the fact that you suggest that I am goes to show that you haven't really bothered to acquaint yourself with my position on the matter. My current goal for this situation is to help define what constitutes "mild" swearing that would be allowed. Besides, I was not advocating we blindly follow any MPAA or FCC rating, I was trying to just find a starting point. On that note, so far we've determined that PG-13 is too strict, only allowing for 1 "strong" swear word, and R is too lenient, allowing as much obscene language as you want. So if no existing rating system can be used as a starting point, what is the next step? How should we determine what is and is not "mild swearing"?
I personally don't understand why a racial slur is a bad thing but occasionally saying fuck is acceptable on some level. But for all intents and purposes I think we can both agree that derogatory (created to offend) racial slurs [20] should not be allowed. As far as amount allowed of swear words should be without requirement, but advised to not be too frequent with an obvious disruption earning a warning. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:19, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I agree on some levels. Being super sensitive about race is actually racism, since you are treating something differently than you would normally treat it because of race. BUT I also agree they need to be disallowed, because unlike normal expletives, there is absolutely no excuse for using them here. I also agree that I don't want to set a limit of swear words. That's pretty silly. And to enforce it someone would have to count swear words, which no one should have to do. But then we get into the argument of 1. how many is too many, 2. what do you do when there is too many (remove the swears, issue a warning, or both?), and 3. what do you do when there is a dispute over how much is too much, say an editor is upset that he was warned for using too many swears when he doesn't feel that he had? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:54, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
1. Too many is too many, I know it sounds vague but every situation is different. Common sense dictates we should be able to tell. For example, no one seems to have gotten testy (or they've ignored it) because I have tested saying swears in sentences in the context I think should be allowed. once or twice a paragraph seems reasonable. 2. Keep the swears (via RS:DDD), warn the users depending on the number of offences (1 warning, 1 warning, block, repeat). 3. Bring it up in the YG for community discussion. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:23, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
If we adopt that kind of system, then either 1.) admins will be the ones determining how much swearing is too much, since they're really the only ones who can warn and actually have the threat taken seriously (since they're the only ones who can back it up with the banhammer), or 2.) users will determine based on their personal feelings how much is too much, and if they feel strongly enough about it, they will bug an admin for a block, and ultimately the admin will again be the determining factor. I personally feel like we need at least a little more guidance, because it seems to me like we need to be able to say "This person is swearing too much because they violated policy x passed in blah blah blah", rather than "They're swearing too much, I just feel it in my gut". Consistency is what we're lacking at this point. Maybe we have to accept that we can't have it, but it something to think about. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:18, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Why would administrators have to decide, every user has the same editing power. If something is reverted or there is a real disagreement, bring it to the YG. Remember, without any rules this is the first time an issue about swearing has been brought up to the YG, why is it that now we are limiting it would there be more offenses? I am totally in agreement that administrators should have very little say in this matter. I don't know how to put it more to the point, just don't be a knucklehead, granted thats hard for some people but even in an environment were swearing is perfectly legitimate people don't do it in every single sentence with every other word. Too much is too much, keep it light and if a disagreement arises bring it to the community to discuss. Try not to think of this policy as a rule, everything is created by the community, a policy is just a guideline that helps us save a little time, but ultimately everything is up to us regardless of what it is. So if we need to discuss this once a day because every situation is different, it will be for the better.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 07:41, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess that's fine for me, you're probably right that there won't be too many disagreements over how much swearing is too much. So basically at the end of this, we're left with 1.) swears cannot be deleted except when its serious enough to be considered vandalism 2.) if a swear is considered disruptive it still cannot be deleted, but the user who said it can be warned then blocked after repeat offenses, and 3.) any disputes can be taken to the talk pages of those involved or the yew grove... is that right? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 15:43, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:07, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I see remaining is does this get added to the UTP or any other official policy page? It could be seen as condoning swearing if such a move were made, and since consensus overrides any policy anyways, I think we could keep it here, and have users cite Forum:RE: Swearing in potential disputes. However I don't feel super strongly about it. Not many people actually read it anyways... kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:10, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that our problem like you said is consistency, and I feel that the argument that if we added it to the rules there would be a sudden increase in activity is unfounded. We have plenty of other rules (no mean polls) and after we added it we didn't suddenly see an increase in those, in fact, it was the opposite. So I don't see why for this example we should ignore what has happened and what happens in the real world in favor of unfounded speculation. It would also save some trouble if we simply transcribed the results of this thread instead of linking potentially uninvolved or new users to this thread to try and figure it out for themselves. What I am getting at is that adding rules will not rebound and cause an increase in the behavior the rule hopes to prevent, and adding it to the UPT would make it direct and clear for users who were not involved in this discussion/dont check the YG. I also think that by nature it would come off that we dont condone swearing as you get warned and then blocked for repeatedly abusing the privilege.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:10, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
While you may be right that it won't trigger a massive swearing increase, this is a compromise (or at least trying to become one) so we do have to do something to address the concerns those folk (including myself to some extent) have. I think that maybe what we could do is, rather than saying something akin to "swearing is ok", instead say something like "Discussions may get heated, and although users are allowed to express their ideas as they see fit, they must not go overboard or they will risk a block based on the severity of their infraction." I feel this wording will not put the idea of swearing into someone's head if it is not already there, and also affirms that swearing is allowed if that is how they see fit to "express their ideas". Then in RS:DDD, we could add "Language cannot be edited or removed even if it has been deemed offensive and the author has been warned or blocked because of it unless it is severe enough in nature and lacking enough in relevance to be considered vandalism." This again would stop swear words from being censored except in the most extreme cases, but not specifically say "swear words will not be deleted". I think this accomplishes what you want to have done, while addressing the concerns of being seen as encouraging swearing kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:05, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree that we should meddle in so many words and that in the end it doesn't matter how we say it as long as we will still be handling warnings and blocks in the same way, I can live with it. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:42, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
I always did love my words... is there anything else that needs to be addressed? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:22, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
Unless someone else wants to bring something up I think we've covered all the bases.Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:39, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


Comment - How about we drop the "and if we use the one from ..." idea and just make it up to the administrators to decide if the swearing was severe enough to deserve some sanction? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 02:41, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Because the admins all have different opinions, and they don't really have the authority to decide what is and is not acceptable. Its up to us, the community. Remember, RS:AEAE.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psycho Robot (talk).
That argument is void, as it is the community that decides who receives the admin tools. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 20:06, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
How is his argument void? Administrators dont have more pull, that is the purpose of AEAE. They cant be the decision maker. Telite 00:32, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:38, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Possible solution

1.) Swears are allowed unless they are severe enough to be disruptive. What qualifies as disruptive varies between situations and the community must take it upon themselves to act on disruptive users. The following will be added to the UTP:

Discussions may get heated, and although users are allowed to express their ideas as they see fit, they must not go overboard or they will risk a block based on the severity of their infraction.

2.) If a swear is considered disruptive it still cannot be deleted, but the user who said it can be warned then blocked after repeat offenses. The following will be added to RS:DDD:

Language cannot be edited or removed even if it has been deemed offensive and the author has been warned or blocked because of it, unless it is severe enough in nature and lacking enough in relevance to be considered vandalism.

3.) Any disputes should be taken to the talk pages of those involved and then to the Yew Grove if one or more parties feel that the situation was not adequately solved in the talk pages.

Support The wording will not put the idea of swearing in someone's head if it is not already there, yet at the same times affirms that you can swear if that's how you wish to express your ideas. I believe this accomplishes things from both sides of the argument here. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:54, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per the giant page of text above this section. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 21:03, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support - An adequate compromise, good thinking Smile Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:09, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good. Butterman62 (talk) 23:28, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I can't really support this per se, so I'm sort of voting "present" or "abstaining" on this issue in the spirit of consensus. I'm not entirely happy that "swearing" is even remotely condoned on this matter, as I still believe it should be something strongly discouraged and officially policy ought to state that. Still, given the present circumstances, I don't think a better compromise can be made over the short term and this discussion can and ought to end. --Robert Horning 00:02, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support Sounds good. Let's put this thread to eternal sleep. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 00:04, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not enough of a compromise is here. I have issues with

A-Not removing offensive swearing from discussions without a whole new thread on a case by case basis. That is lunacy, whom ever used the offensive content will say it is not offensive.
B- Users should be allowed to remove the offensive content from their talk pages, replacing it with *s and a link to the edit so the whole can be viewed but is not thereby present. Yes yes, I know all about DDD. I also know about the UTP. And I know rules and policies are not chiseled in stone, we need to be able to use our heads about these things.--Degenret01 02:51, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
In the past we haven't removed clearly offensive flame wars/insults from user talk pages, why would we remove swearing? Obviously in the case of disruptive vandalism (in which the rules wouldn't be followed anyway) it would be prudent to remove it, but just because the user wants to is no valid reason to violate RS:DDD. If this were about user pages I would absolutely 100% agree with you, but a talk page is not usually viewed by many people or by the person who owns it except in the case of a new message or ongoing discussion. After a discussion has taken place its essentially just a record. Your solution to this doesn't solve the problem anyway, it just forces them to link to the words/edit or asterisk it out which doesn't hide its meaning or purpose. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:22, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
I suppose we could put a policy wherein users can put a notice up saying if they don't want any swearing in their user page, and then could remove swears if anyone chooses to ignore their request. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:47, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I feal the same as Robert, but I do not know how to say that as support, oppose, or whatever. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:25, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - A simple question - under this policy, would an offence such as the one that started this topic be met with a warning or not? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 14:57, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether your turning this into a test or not, but in my case all I said was one thing not directed at anyone once in a thread. Aside from Azliq and myself no one seemed to notice or even care. Seems to me, not to be a violation worthy of a warning under this compromise. The goal is not to punish swearing, its to prevent it from being used excessively in a way that would offend those who think its wrong. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 19:31, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
Well it was only one swear, and it wasn't directed specifically at anyone, but there was no real content, so I probably would have left a message on your talk page asking that you provide a reason for opposing rather than just that simple remark. Even if you refused, though, I don't think that's severe enough to be actionable. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:43, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
And to be fair I would have then edited my post and added the reason like I did in this very thread because I realized I did indeed come off as disrespectful. So, even in this play scenario the situation would have been resolved as it should have. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:00, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per other supporters. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:30, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:48, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Are you kidding me? Who determines whether the swearing/swear-word/language/whatever is "severe enough"? You? Me? Definitely not the admins... since according to someone, the purpose of RS:AEAE is so that "Administrators dont have more pull."

Hmmm, can the community decide the "severity" of some swear word? Well, we can't even decide whether swearing should be allowed, how are we going to decide the "severity of (the) infraction", or if the language is "severe enough in nature"? These statements, while they sound like a solution, are not solutions at all. These are just wordplay that basically sweeps the whole swearing issue under the rug, and clearly benefits those in favour of swearing.

Sorry, but IMHO, this solution is not even remotely a compromise. The 10 most severe words, or at least the 3 most severe words, should not be allowed in any context.   az talk   22:31, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degenret and Azliq. The pervious compromise would be a better one. Swearing is like spamming in that it adds no context to the discussion, but only expresses one's emotions. And, as this topic shows, there is a lot of contributors who would like to keep discussions clean. Now, talk pages shouldn't have that kind of restriction as they are userspace. But there is absolutely no need for swearing in discussions about policies, as it is unconstructive, impractical and plain immoral. Counting swears or looking whether it was directed at anyone is a secondary thing - most users don't want to see any swearing. Severity is a bit of an issue. From my PoV, a good way to judge which words would be outright banned would be whether a user with that name would be allowed. If not, the warning and banning system goes into play. Quite a weak suggestion, but the best I could come up with. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:46, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to this. You want to tell people what they are allowed to say, the other side only wants the ability to say what they please and have sacrificed a large part of that for this compromise. Until you can provide some type of anything that plays out in your favor such as a study done somewhere that shows people who swear are more likely to be satan worshipping vandals (as people who swear have been referred to constantly as in this thread), then your argument is nothing other than your own person preference being forced upon everyone else by not allowing swearing. This compromise is the best that I think we will be able to come up with, and if you are so uncomfortable with swearing that your only solution for the people who do it is to leave or deal with constant warning or blocks than I would suggest you take a look at yourself to see how selfish you are being. Over and over again I have been posting in this thread for weeks talking it out with different people and the only thing people like Degenret and D4k have done is constantly bash swearing without any supporting evidence and provide no other option than its total dis allowance and punishment for use. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:57, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, wait. "Until you can provide some type of anything that plays out in your favor such as a study done somewhere that shows people who swear are more likely to be satan worshipping vandals (as people who swear have been referred to constantly as in this thread), then your argument is nothing other than your own person preference being forced upon everyone else" Well, first off, swearing has nothing to do with religion. The mention of Satanism hasn't come up in this thread until you just mentioned it to make a crude point. Secondly, isn't your argument personal preference being forced upon "everyone else" by trying to allow swearing? If the members who don't want swearing are pushing, then, you sir, are definitely are pushing back. You aren't just doing nothing, in thus, that would make your argument is the same as his, just for the exact opposite spectrum. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 15:49, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

As for you D4k I have called you on this at least four times, why are people who swear immoral? What morality are you judging it by that then applies to everyone unanimously? Its so ridiculous that I have to be pointing this out to you guys.

And also, by blocking this compromise the status quo prevails. In this case the status quo would be swearing is indeed allowed. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:57, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, as according to RS:NOT#CABAL, "Policies and guidelines should achieve a consensus before they come into effect, and should be written down in project space for all to see." After the discussion died down, I didn't see anywhere where it was stated that swearing is acceptable. It was merely a discussion by some editors, and was never made into any official policy or guideline.   az talk   11:38, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please don't bring religion like god, satan, and satan worshipping into any discussion. Morals is one thing, terms like "satan worshipping" is another. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone ever mentioned "satan" or "satan worshipping", and yet you refer to this. Tebuddy, your conduct in this discussion has been very disturbing. You're ignoring all civility in a bid to prove your point. Your words have been rude and insulting to some. You claim that your words are without malice, and yet you refer to editors in contempt. You even name-called me by saying that I was "acting like a true nanny". I find this very insulting, but I chose to ignore it... until now. Commenting on editors and what they think/feel should be avoided as this may result in more conflict and stress.

While there isn't any specific rule available here (as yet) in this wiki, there exists a rule/guideline in Wikipedia that any editor is allowed to remove another editor's comments provided that they can prove that the comment is uncivil and does not contribute to the overall discussion. I was under the impression that we had this rule, but unfortunately, we don't.

Why can't a compromise like the one mentioned earlier be acceptable? We are only going to ban 3-10 words. I can say that the compromise suggested later is nothing more than the preference of swear supporters being forced upon swear opponents.

Tebuddy, to respond to your question to D4k, "morality" means "manner, character, proper behaviour" in Latin. Morals are arbitrarily created, and subjectively defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience. When you're asking "why are people who swear immoral", it questions the deeply in-grained beliefs held by certain society and religion. For others, it is a matter of conscience. It is not a question you and I can answer or prove, and that type of questions belong in philosophy and theology, not here in the Yew Grove. I can ask a similar question: "Why are people who murder immoral?" I'm not equating swearing to murder. Just because we can't prove that murder is morally wrong, we should allow murderers to roam free?

We're not questioning anybody's morality, we intend to make this forum more inviting to those who don't want to see swearing. Simple logic, IMO.   az talk   11:25, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per D4K. Sure, it'd be nice to close this, but he's right, swearing is like spamming, and adds nothing to conversations. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 15:43, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment You guys are being impossible. I'm no fan of swearing either, but 1.) I realize that its just my opinion, and given the state of most media, I can tell that most people don't mind it and 2.) I'm willing to budge an inch from my stance in the interests of compromise. You're being really stubborn, and in many ways more immature than someone who says fuck a few times in the course of a thread. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:46, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - It's been over a month, and now that the compromise has fallen through, this long and ugly philosophical 'debate' can be put to sleep. WWTDD? 19:10, September 7, 2009 (UTC)