Subject:
|
Re: My last word on the profanity debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:11:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
670 times
|
| |
|
|
Jim Baker <beaker@havoc.gtf.org> writes:
> OK, I'm really tired of this debate. I think the participants have
> reached impasse, and unlike most USENET debates I get into, it isn't
> fun. So:
>
> Chris, if I misunderstood your point and over-reacted I apologize. I've
> let this get somewhat personal, and that's my failing.
>
> Todd, I await your decision. As I said, I will honor it regardless of
> how I feel about it. If I'm truly in the minority on this point, if
> something like 95% of users support such a ban, I'll even agree with it,
> philosophically at least, even if I disapprove in principal.
Jim,
I don't know that it's really possible to make a meaningful decision.
(I hope it is, but I'm not convinced.)
Certainly, on the liberal side of the coin, we could say that anything goes
-- as on Usenet -- but that would make it much more difficult to take
actions against, for example, someone being a total gutter-mouth and an
annoyance just for cheap thrills, as we've seen repeatedly in RTL. People
need to understand that cleaner language is expected here than on Usenet.
That's really the bottom line.
On the conservative side, it's impossible to define what profanity is, and
therefore impossible to impose a [strict] ban on it.
I think it's something that will need to be defined over time and by example
and by what kind of complaints arise.
FWIW, I don't think anything you've ever posted here or in RTL is or has
been problematic.
> To the rest of you, if I've drug this out I apologize to you as well. I
> hope you can understand that my position is a philosophical one. I'm
> not encouraging the worst possible behavior, merely objecting to a
> blanket ban on a disputed issue.
I think it's a good issue to raise -- one still in need of clarification.
The alternative to formally requesting cleaner language is to invite all
language and then to set up a discussion area for judging and/or flogging
abusers. (Town square, pillory, gallows, etc. -- TerryK's suggestion.)
How do you feel about something like this?
In any case, I believe there *must* be some sort of system in place to
punish or to remove genuine party poopers -- they just do too much harm.
In a Usenet group, there is no way for the community to oust someone like a
Mandroid from a newsgroup -- even if everyone wants that person gone -- and
I think it would be unfortunate to pass up the opportunity to break away
from the anarchy of Usenet.
Perhaps the whole issue has nothing to do with profanity per se but has
everything to do with plain old respect (or disrespect) for the feelings,
opinions, or ideals of others (individually or as a whole).
I invite any comments on how the Terms of Use could be reworded to focus
more on personal conduct and less on highly subjective words like "profane,"
"vulgar," and "indecent" -- keeping in mind that it should still follow that
things like "You're a f*cking idiot" and "I'm sick of these bulls*it Town Jr
sets" are highly frowned upon and may result in undesirable consequences for
the poster.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | My last word on the profanity debate.
|
| OK, I'm really tired of this debate. I think the participants have reached impasse, and unlike most USENET debates I get into, it isn't fun. So: Chris, if I misunderstood your point and over-reacted I apologize. I've let this get somewhat personal, (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
