Subject:
|
Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:56:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
721 times
|
| |
|
|
lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> [...]
> Depending on how you interpet the Terms of Use, there already is a ban on
> profanity here. (That's how I interpret it.)
>
> The difficult thing is that it's not really possible to define profanity in
> any way that people can agree on, especially in purely illustrative contexts
> such as Jim Baker's (a.k.a. "Beaker") delicate use of the F-word earlier
> this morning.
> [...]
As Jim pointed out, more clarification is needed here -- but this week isn't
the best time so I'll be short for now and add more later...
Practically speaking, I don't believe it's possible to define what profanity
is, or that it's actually possible to place a ban on profanity in any
meaningful way. I don't even believe that profanity is bad. In fact,
Suzanne and I both use various forms and levels of profanity verbally
wherever and whenever it fits into conversation. This isn't to say that we
use it all the time; we always keep in mind who we're talking to. Among
friends and siblings, more profanity comes up. Among elders, almost none.
And among strangers, certainly almost none.
We understand that everyone's standards are different, both in terms of what
is or it not profanity and when its use in appropriate or inappropriate.
It's a super-gray area, and it'd be nice if everyone could express
themselves in ways that didn't offend others. Of course, that'll never
happen 100%, but there certainly are levels of gray, some of which are more
likely to offend than others. For example, something like, "It really
pi---- me off that TLG now makes these new 2-piece palm trees," is probably
likely to offend fewer people than something like, "Those new palm trees
really are pieces of sh--," which in turn is probably likely to offend fewer
people than something like, "TLG's designers can go to h---; f--- them for
even thinking of making 2-piece palm trees."
If you draw a line (assuming you could) separating the offensive from the
unoffensive, it's likely to be a different line (for most people) than the
line separating what's "appropriate" from what's "inappropriate." And both
of those are probably different from the line where someone actually sits in
terms of the words they typically choose.
We don't want to censor free speech, yet we do want to reserve the right to
boot someone for continuous use of gratuitous profanity which obviously
bothers other people -- as "Mandroid" clearly did a couple years ago in RTL,
and as "Marilou Rockwell" did a couple months ago in RTL. Again, it's not
an objection to the profanity per se but to the greater negative
repercussions, such as innocent people fleeing when the tone of a newsgroup
goes sour, and of the possibility of having to answer serious complaints
that chew up time.
So I believe we -do- need to cater to the LCD (Lowest Common Denominator),
or, as Moz put it, "with the intention of raising the standard, not lowering
it," and I believe that profanity in its extreme (as seen on Usenet at
times) does tend to drive people away that we don't want driven away. I've
seen it happen too.
To be more precise, these newsgroups have been established for the use of
-all- LEGO enthusiasts, and the safest way to ensure that they remain
friendly and accessible (and welcome) to all is to consider the LCDs (maybe
not the 99.9999-percentiles but certainly the 95- or 99-percentiles).
One example of this is rejecting binary and HTML posts -- requiring pure
ASCII -- and of going with NNTP forum technology at the core instead of
inventing something new that only a few people could use. Another example
is the creation of distinct discussion areas; someone who wants to talk
primarily about good old-fasioned building and hear as little as possible
about auctions now has that option. Asking people to curb their gratuitous
profanity is just another LCD like asking people not to conduct auctions in
the building groups or not to post spam or not to go way off topic
excessively.
Here are a few examples of things we'd rather not see. This list isn't
defining policy, but it's meant to help give a flavor behind the reasoning.
All of these appeared on RTL in recent months; some are obviously more
[potentially] offensive than others.
"You're a f------ retard, man."
"Wow, you're a f------ genious."
"Get a f------ grip already."
"If you can't figure out how, then take a month off and LEARN, and stop
feeding us this constant 'poor me' b---s--- about how hard you've
tried."
"This is the worst time of the year for Oldschool collectors like me.
Lego Inc. rolls out the latest bags of s--- and 99% of the newsgroup
falls all over itself extolling the virtues of these great new 'lego'
sets."
"Excellent news. The bigger the better! Perhaps Lego, Inc. will wake the
f--- up now?
"...and I tell ya even in those groups where they post s--- so illegal
you would do some serious time for just looking at it, they don't
respond with s---load of s--- I got here..."
"...I raised my voice, I don't give a f--- but how many of those slams
went on unanswered and how the f--- do you know if the person you s---
on weren't just old enough to properly deal with your stupidity? The
response I got in this newsgroup, was like I said hundreds time stronger
than what one might expect in purely adult oriented ones. Shouldn't you
stop and think? And even comparing doesn't realty mean anything since in
this newsgroup there should be no profanity or vulgarism what so ever.
Zero Zilch Na da Get it? Vent somewhere else and save your f------ cute
apologies to the regulars. Apologize to the countless kids and parents
turned off by your stupidity. Any situation can be dealt with
intelligently if you can't handle it don't be f------ using 'family
newsgroup' in your f------ sig..."
"I read and answered this myself - since I don't have any brothers or
friends - and I think you're a bigger f------ idiot than you try to
make others look like. (if you want to get snooty about it)"
Again, we don't censor what people write, but we ask people to practice
common sense and a little LCD in terms of profanity -- maybe people can
think of it as "self censorship" if that helps them cope with it -- and we
always reserve the right to boot someone who's obviously causing problems.
Finally, one (I won't say which) of the examples above is something that I
personally feel was a pretty good public response to someone (all factors
considered, and there are quite a few) and I think many people privately
cheered it when they read it. At the other end, one of the examples above
(probably pretty obvious) is something I personally feel is way out there in
Inappropriate Land -- and if I saw it here (and note that there's no
guarantee of that), I'd kick the poster off the system quickly on grounds of
direct verbal abuse to others (leaving the posted message unfortunately in
place with all its profanity, however, because we don't censor content).
Maybe they'd be let back on later if they wised up and made some sincere
apologies, but, well, we'll cross that bridge someday when we come to it
(and I'm sure we will someday).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
