To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 12253
12252  |  12254
Subject: 
Language Choices and LUGNET
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general
Followup-To: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:04:58 GMT
Highlighted: 
!! (details)
Viewed: 
170 times
  
The issue of profanity on LUGNET has raised many hackles, and I can’t say I blame most of the people who have expressed unhappiness. The rules are vague, the punishments appear somewhat arbitrary, the entire reason for having language guidelines isn’t clear. How do you express yourself when you don’t know when it’s going “too far”? Bear with me, maybe I can illuminate the issue. (Warning: I’m going to take some analogies and really work ‘em.) This may not tell you exactly where “the line” is, but it might give some understanding of what the language rules are meant to do.

Profanity per se is not a bad thing when used in appropriate context. None of the admins are exactly prudes - we all enjoy off-color language as the situation calls for. For example, one of my blog entries uses profanity to what I’d like to think is good effect. So it’s not that we’re trying to shove our own beliefs down anyone’s throat. Quite the contrary, in fact.

What we’re trying to get across is that, in most cases, LUGNET isn’t the appropriate context. By design.

First, let’s start with why there are rules about language. What are they meant to achieve? As Larry pointed out[1], a large part of “profane” word usage (i.e. commonly-accepted words used for cussing) is as epithets hurled between members. Good-natured smack is one thing, but serious insults and namecalling between people indicates a serious lack of respect and civility in the community. The words aren’t always profane, and some people have a knack for slipping in sly comments and subtle put-downs that are frankly far worse than calling somebody a dirty word. But the increase in profanity during these flareups is a symptom, not the cause. The best option to date to deal with this ill has been to treat the symptom - in this case not allowing certain words.

No, that doesn’t address the real problem - which is the overall decrease in fun.

The use of Carlin’s 7 words is the closest we can come to define when the symptoms are getting severe. It’s arbitrary. Low-level profanity usually isn’t indicative of a serious problem. But the more emotionally charged a word is, the bigger the problem it represents by being used. (This is a gross generality, but one that I think is accurate more often than not.) So when one of the top “naughty” words/triggers is used, it indicates a bigger problem that needs to be addressed. Rather than banning use of certain words, for instance, maybe we could simply have people request context checking before posting a particular message. But that’s a pain in the ask. For everyone. Not really feasible, and a bit insulting to boot. We’ve found it better to leave the decision to the individual person, and provide a loose set of guidelines and admins to help determine whether a line has been crossed.

I think Calum had a good analogy with grafitti[2], so I’ll borrow it and take it further (blame the following on me, not Calum). Some grafitti is amusing, it’s decorative, it can even be beautifully poetic in its depiction - gilding the turd, as it were. There’s skill in getting your point across with it.

But you don’t want grafitti covering the walls of your house.

LUGNET is our house. Todd and Suzanne opened the door and let everyone come in. It’s a nice place, I think. Lots of rooms to explore. Lots of stuff on the walls to look at and comment on. And in a few places, some taggers got in and started scrawling. I’m not saying the grafitti isn’t creative or clever or even particularly offensive (it takes a fair amount to offend me, personally) - but it’s just not something that makes you want to stick around. And you certainly don’t want to show it to guests.

Speaking of guests, let’s broaden the analogy. Right now LUGNET’s a nice little house on the end of a cozy, tree-lined cul-de-sac (sorry, I’ve typed way too many real estate ads in my time). It’s open to all, but there’s a fairly limited number of people who wander in. Almost everyone haunting LUGNET (that we know about) are those who are into LEGO in a big way. But it’s still open to all who wander by, including people who are looking into joining the ranks of AFOL. (This would be an entirely different conversation if LUGNET was a closed or limited admittance community.) At the risk of laying an unintended guilt trip, I would like to remind everyone here that, regardless of their own personal feelings about the LEGO Group, their public participation in this hobby (online and IRL) effectively puts them in the position of unofficial spokespeople for TLG, and represents all AFOLs. People who aren’t LEGO enthusiasts will see the actions and behavior of those who are, and judge the hobby, the company, and all AFOLs by the AFOLs they see.

LUGNET is pretty much the de facto center of the English-speaking AFOL community. Its posts are all public and searchable. We are creating our own reputation and legacy with what goes on here. We can choose to show the outside world (and each other) what we find important about being an AFOL/TFOL/KFOL... or we can squabble and bicker and toss petty insults at each other over inconsequentialities. Sure, there’s a lot to discuss and a lot of important things we disagree about - but the way we disagree tells a lot about us as a whole. Please, please please do continue to disagree - not a single LUGNET admin would have the hubris to tell you otherwise. But we very much would like to have the disagreements retain a semblance of civility and respect. Foul language, while colorful, quickly destroys that carefully built atmosphere of respect. (Other things, like non-profane snide remarks meant to be hurtful, are just as bad, but harder to define. But they’re just as much a problem.)

Back to the immediate subject, use of profanity. The house of LUGNET can be a comfortable place - Todd has worked his tailfeathers off trying to accomodate the needs of a diverse, eclectic, and demanding lot. But it’s still his house, and I firmly believe we, as guests, should all make an effort to follow his guidelines. Etiquette suggests we don’t decorate the walls with dayglo orange limericks, or whittle personal slurs into the woodwork with a pocket knife. That we knock the horseapples off our shoes before walking on the rug. That we bring in more than we take out. And at the very least clean up after ourselves.

Todd, Larry, Frank, Lenny, and I (among others) can’t manage everything. We don’t want to. Our job is wiping down the counters and escorting out the occasional inebriated guest until he sobers up. The ToS is merely the mechanism by which we’re trying to maintain a peaceful house. But it’s really up to everyone here. We can’t force anyone to behave politely, nor would we want to. We’re merely asking, for everyone’s sake, to respect the other person, as well as the house of LUGNET.

I’d like to think that, if you invited us to your place, we’d behave well enough to be invited back.

Your use of language remains your choice. If you have a problem with LUGNET administrators making rules for what may appear to be arbitrary reasons, I hope this explains why these rules are in place. If you’d prefer to think of the “please no heavy-duty cussing” as a polite request, it’s essentially the same. If the disagreements between members could be handled with more respect and less acrimony, I don’t think language would be an issue.

We’d like to ask for your respect of the atmosphere Todd began and the rest of the admins are trying to foster. Please help us make LUGNET into a place that you can be proud of. Remember, it’s not up to the admins - it’s in your hands.

Very sincerely,
Kelly McKiernan
AFOL and LUGNET supporter
Oh yeah, and admin

[1] http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12236
[2] http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12229



Message has 3 Replies:
  (canceled)
 
  Re: Language Choices and LUGNET
 
Well stated! Cheers Oliver Play Well! "Kelly J. McKiernan" <kelly.mckiernan@lugnet.com> wrote in message news:IAwGCA.13Iw@lugnet.com... <snip> The house of LUGNET can be a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jan-05, to lugnet.general)
  highlighting
 
I have three questions on highlighting. 1. Can one highlight one's own post? (I’m not a member, so I do not know). 2. Can Admin-A highlight Admin-B's Admin post? (should they be able to?) 3. Should Admins be able to highlight any post in any group? (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jan-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)

8 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR