To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 1744
1743  |  1745
Subject: 
Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.general
Followup-To: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:51:47 GMT
Viewed: 
105 times
  
In lugnet.general, "Tim Courtney" <tcourtney@nospam.avenew.com> writes:

Larry Pieniazek writes:

<snip>

I don't shield my children from reality, but I certainly can suggest
that there are appropriate places for behaviours, and that I would
prefer that they hang out in places that recognise what polite behaviour
is. And, further, we are not ON RTL at the moment. I would 100% support
and welcome a ban on profanity on LUGNET, were it achievable(1).

I would as well.

1 - and I would remind you that I feel Todd has the right to institute
one should he choose to do so.

Yep.  Petition anyone?

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.

Another problem in practice is enforcing the ban and pre-declaring any
consequences for "breaking the rules."

If someone is repeatedly being a potty mouth, and they've already been
reminded that this isn't a place for potty mouths, then who knows -- maybe
they'd need to get the boot, temporarily or permanently.  Let's hope we
never need to create a .town-square newsgroup for judging people.

If someone offends you, let others know.  There can't be any promises that
people will change (or be formally asked to change by others), but since
this isn't Usenet, we as a group of generally mature people can certainly
demand a higher basic level of civility than typically found on Usenet.

If necessary, we can create some sort of .complaints newsgroup for logging
formal complaints against people's verbal behavior (or whatever kind of
behavior) where things could be discussed and hopefully resolved through
some sort of compromise (or agreement to disagree, or whatever).

--Todd

[followups set to lugnet.admin.general since this is off-LEGO-topic now.]



Message has 4 Replies:
  Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
 
Also sprach Todd Lehman: : 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 (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
  Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
 
(...) Or first let the person who offends you know, privately. A polite request to desist isn't guaranteed, but can't hurt, and is more likely to work than public attempts at humiliation. (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
  Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
 
(...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
  Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
 
(...) So we would also need a .town-pillory group and perhaps even town-guillotine and/or .town-gallows. Hey, I'm warming to this idea..... :-) -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

16 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