Forum:The censor is gone, what do we allow?
As you may or may not know, Jagex made an update that made the censor optional today. That brings up the question 'What do we allow?'.
- Do not allow anything that might offend someone. Since this is in the RuneScape rules itself, this is not optional. It also is covered under RS:UTP.
- Do not allow any chat on sexual stuff. We do not want people talking about how hot a pornstar is in the cc.
- Allow mild swearing, use common sense if something is mentionable in the cc or not.
Support - Per nub. Ajraddatz 14:30, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Anything that might offend someone? Really? There is a hell of a lot said that offends someone somewhere. Guess the cc better be a no chatting allowed if you want to try to make rule 1 happen.--Degenret01 14:35, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? So telling someone "Hi" or "What's your lvl?" or something is offensive???18:18, February 9, 2011 (UTC) Strong Support - Per nom 15:10, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Nothing changed other than you have the option to turn it off for just you, there haven't been any change to RS rules.18:29, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 1 - That rule is way too broad. What if someone was offended by Runecrafting because it was so slow or by Firemaking because it was so useless? It would be absurd to disallow talk on two skills just because people don't like it. --LiquidTalk 18:32, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Support 2 & 3 - Anything can offend anybody, being so broad it can prevent any discussions from happening, no matter how small in scope they are. Per Degen and Liquid. As for the others, I support them, however mild can vary on person to person. I may state a user to read the essay on Don't be a dick and people might say that's a bit too much, it all depends on the context it is used in. Ryan PM 19:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Support 2/3, Oppose 1 - 1) If anyone is offended by Runecrafting or Firemaking, I will kick them. Anyone offended by something that stupid will be offended by everything (or trying to troll), though I don't believe such a person actually exists. Either way, the rule is too broad. If people follow the UTP (which we can kick them for breaking) and use common sense (not citing the policy), we wont have any problems. 2/3) Per nom.19:53, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Comment - Just go on as we did. Kick/warn if they're being offensive on purpose or just disrupting the cc. Swearing is something that happens and we have to live with.20:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any amendment of RS:CC - It's completely unneeded, our ranks are not stupid enough to need all this written down. Using swear words as insults is unacceptable, whether it's on- or off-site, it should be pretty obvious that someone saying "Fuck you" to a fellow wikian should be kicked immediately. We have an essay about this, once that's amended, we can direct people to that instead of making unnecessary changes to our policies. Real Crazy 22:05, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Support number one in spirit; strongly oppose number one in form. Find a better way to write it than "anything that might offend someone" as that is just repulsively broad. Support the rest. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any amendment - Per Real. Nothing really changed except how you personally see the chat.04:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - What Evil said.04:38, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Allow all profanity - We have a host of other policies which are sufficient to maintain civility within the cc. All users should be able to exercise their freedom of speech (and of swearing). Each user also has the choice to view or not view obscenities. Profanity usage should only be disallowed if it violates one of the other policies, such as the user treatment policy or DBAD. For instance, if someone is spamming obscenities, they should be treated no differently than someone who is spamming nonsense. Likewise, personal attacks, profane or not, are not allowed. Anyone who calls another user a "fucking loser" deserves a kick, but if someone who is struggling with Nomad's Requiem wishes to say "I hate this fucking quest," they are welcome to it. Gangsterls talk 05:38, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 1 Support 2,3 - We could refer to the time before the filter was adjusted. At that time the Runescape chat rules was similar to 2+3. The wiki is provided to widespread types and ages of people, so following the old guideline of RS should help well. Rewlf2 05:44, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose 1, Strong support 2,3 - Meh, didn't notice the first, so, Per all for 1, and per nom for 2 and 3.06:32, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Support 2,3 ammend 1 - Those should defiantly be banned, but make #1 nothing that is rude, but UCS about what is deemed rude.07:25, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
- *Cough* definitely *cough* Suppa chuppa 07:28, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose amendments - Firstly, we already have #3 and UTP (#1). If mild swears and "anything that might offend someone" was against the rules i'd be kicking left, right and center... Secondly, i think our ranks are sensible enough to judge when something is too offensive and intervene/warn/kick without having strict yet vague rules to guide them, seeing as we already have RS and RSW rules. And why "sexual" stuff specifically? It just sounds childish. Don't get me wrong, some things are unacceptable but that shouldn't mean all "sexual" words should become taboo. If you can't handle hearing anything like that then you obviously can't handle any other recently unblocked words, just turn your filter on. - [Pharos] 07:31, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
All three of those things regularly happen in the cc already. The fact that we can see what the starred words are changes absolutely nothing. The censore is opt-out. Anyone who sees what the words are has chosen to do so, those who do not want to see what they are have to deal with starred words anyway. Nothing at all has changed. The rules should not either. (wszx) 18:36, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
No need - Just keep doing what you've been doing, and everything should be fine.20:13, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I already made an amendment (per BB) on the day of the update, before the creation of the thread, if anyone cares. 12:17, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
- I care <3 fetus is my son and I love him. 18:49, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose/Nothing's changed - Part one is already in effect. Part 2, same thing basically if it offends someone they can ask for them to take it to PM if they don't ranks can use common sense to deal with them. Part 3, nothing's changed, you only see swearing if it's off than you don't care if you see swearing, if you don't want to turn on the filter ranks shouldn't have to kick because someone with filter on can't stand seeing the F bomb, however if they're evading censor (which makes it so people with filter on can see it) or spamming swear words, yeah sure kick by all means than. fetus is my son and I love him. 18:49, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Something needs to be done about people who are going into the clan chat, who when the filter was around, never swore at all, who are all now swearing like crazy... It isn't giving any of the non-regular users a good impression of the wiki, call me the hypocrite here since all I ever do is swear (But with a good cause!). I think we need a crackdown on the amount of times a person can swear, because some people are overly doing it. You can argue that the censor is doing a good job, but when half of everyone's lines become ********************** because of people taking advantage of the system, it surely can not look good08:31, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
- So you are saying you think the ranks should start kicking you ten times a day?--Degenret01 15:47, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Inside the clan chat, ranks will use the user treatment policy and common sense to judge what is considered offensive towards other players and kick, if appropriate. Also, there is to be no chat on sexual topics inside the clan chat, violations will result in a kick. Mild swearing is allowed inside the clan chat, but use common sense. 02:12, March 24, 2011 (UTC)