This page is documenting a discussion about a policy or project proposal that was REJECTED by the community by a vote of 4-1-8. Any additional information may or may not be listed at the bottom of this page. THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED, so please do not edit here. Thanks.

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy: Edit

Other Notes Edit

ProposalEdit

The Language Policy of MEWiki is one that frequently comes under fire. It is among the most often accidentally violated policies we have. Thus, I propose a change to the policy. While still making the use of profanity in articles a bannable offense, use in Blogs, Forums, and in discussions between Users would be allowed so long as it is not used to insult, inflame, agitate, berate, belittle, etc. another user. Use of sexual/racial/sexist/ageist/etc. slurs would still be prohibited. This would greatly reduce inadvertent violations of the Language Policy by Users new and old who mean no harm to the wiki or other Users in their use of profanity.

We are editors of a Wiki dedicated to a series which has been consistently been rated "M" by the ESRB. Profanity is used in the games, books, and comics themselves. I don't think anybody here is unfamiliar with profanity, and if it offends you, well then you may have picked the wrong series.

I'm not a frequent user of curse words, on the net or in real life. But if somebody else wants to use a few of the more vulgar words out there, then I say go right ahead. As Voltaire once famously said, "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". He was talking about protecting dissenting opinions in government and elsewhere of course, not use of profanity, but I think it's still a fitting quote for the proposal.

DiscussionEdit

The proposal is open for discussion. Arbington 06:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a policy proposal. At least, not as it currently stands. It's some opinions, personal stories, and a pithy quote that isn't really relevant to the topic at hand. For example, absolutely no thought has been given (at least none that I can see) to what content currently forbidden will be allowed, and what won't. Who decides what is and isn't too offensive to let through? Who would decide when this language has been shown to "insult, inflame, agitate, berate, belittle, etc. another user"? There's nothing policy-oriented in here, so I'm baffled as to why it's in the Policy Forum. Policy proposals need to be policy proposals, not platitudes. Come up with something concrete, objective, and enforceable, and I'll gladly take it seriously. SpartHawg948 06:31, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Considering how specific this wiki is about copy-pasting information and text from the game EXACTLY as is, then by rights and common sense, ANY word said in Mass Effect should be allowed on this wiki so long as they are not used to deliberately harrass or insult someone. Basically, if you can cope with hearing a character say sh** in Mass Effect and not pass out as a result, then you should be able to handle it said on this wiki, or you risk being a hypocrite. --Aerid77 12:01, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, there is nothing specific here. Spart is correct, this isn't a proposal, it's a story and not specific. Not to mention there is absolutely no reason to use profanity in a civil mature discussion. Here's a question, why do you have to use profanity at all? Are you compensating for something? Would you use that language in a conversation say with your boss/teacher/professor/spouse/parents/etc.? Did anyone ever consider that people can be offended by just having the words on the page? That it could turn people away if they constantly see profanity in every discussion because it could imply that we are harsh or that everyone has to use it to feel "cool"? Did anyone ever consider that the word in of it self might inflame the discussion? Did anyone also consider that someone could misinterpret the comment and take it as an insult? I can answer those questions: in my book, there is no reason to use profanity in a civil discussion; if you have to use it then it says something about you and not really in a good way; absolutely not; yes hence why the policy is in place now; again yes again same reasoning; and again, yes for the same reasoning; yes again same reasoning, the word alone can inflame a discussion; and finally yes, people can, and have which I can site numerous examples, where comments have been misinterpreted and that misunderstanding not only distracts from the discussion, but could derail it altogether and it doesn’t excuse the person who set it off course.

You also really have no excuse to use it. Citing the game as rated "M" is not remotely an excuse to use it, nor does it, or should it, excuse it on any level. Using profanity in a civil discussion just downgraded that discussion form civil to argumentative. Not to mention there are...what...about three hundred ways of saying something without restoring to using profanity? Did anyone consider that? Considering this is up for discussion, I'm pretty sure that the answer to both of those is no. For example, if someone points out a mistake you made, which is better to say, "Ah (insert favorite swear word here)", "Oops my bad", "Thanks for pointing that out", "Doh, thanks", or any number of other ways without using a swear? The answer to that question is anyone but the first one. There are literally hundreds of ways of phrasing something without using profanity, and if you have to use it, you not only limit yourself to using it, but you also fall into the habit of using it all the time. Which, in addition, could result to the situations I have already listed, could lead to something else, like you getting reported for something that you never implied, or even meant to say. So I ask you, why do you have to use profanity at all? Why can't you just have a civil discussion without resorting to it? If you don’t use it, then that shows maturity and encourages people to discuss with you more often about subjects because you don't resort to using those words. I do get angry when people have to use a swear every other word, and that isn't mature, that is just wrong. If you can't go a conversation, or for that matter, making a comment without using a swear, that to me, says something about your maturity level. Lancer1289 15:53, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

• Addendum: Just to point this out, calling someone a hypocrite for enforcing the policy is in of itself flawed. Just because profanity is used somewhere, doesn't mean anyone is a hypocrite for asking people not to use it and show a level of maturity by not using it. Not to mention it doesn't instantly mean, just because they use it there, means we can use it here. That isn't an excuse, that's circular logic, and that never ends well. Lancer1289 15:58, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Also known as Begging the Question. I was neutral on this the last time and I just think this time that the policy is fine the way it is. In verbal communications, profanities are often used unintentionally, or for emphasis. Thus it is a common application of the Freudian Slip. However, writing is more formal than speech and there is less room for error; most publications will not accept vulgarisms in the material due to an immediate decline in quality should they be included. Another benefit is that writings can be changed indefinitely before being published, while speech cannot. In these wikis, we try to have formal discussions on various topics, rather than spewing swears in every sentence. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:28, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

First let it be noted that I do not support Aerid77's allegations of hypocrisy on the part of MEWiki's users and admins. That's not what I set out to do here. Second, I am aware that the proposal was poorly written (It was one in the morning and I had woken up early to clear brush. I was rather tired, and my writing suffered because of it. I will remove all the unnecessary tired rambling, if that would clear things up a bit.), but the proposal seems to me rather plain and simple. Profanity would be allowed in user-to-user discussion, so long as it is not used to insult anybody. Profanity would still be prohibited in articles. The exact change in the wording of the Policy would be developed after the change has been discussed Curse words are used all the time in polite conversation in real life, so why would it be a potentially bannable offense on the wiki? The Language Policy as it stands does say, after all, to "consider how you would speak to a stranger face-to-face in public" and people use profanity all the time. And yes, though not the main point of the proposal (It's a part of my tired rambling, really.), the series itself is laced with profanity. By the way, what "leeway" is currently granted if all use of profanity is against the rules? Arbington 19:22, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

The leeway is in the use of insulting terms or language, not profanity. As for the nature of the proposal, the Policy Forum is for actual policy proposals. You say "[t]he exact change in the wording of the Policy would be developed after the change has been discussed". In that case, you shouldn't have put it up for a vote immediately. We're voting on what was presented at the time the vote began. Policy forums aren't to vote on making a change, which will then itself be voted on. They are to vote on specific policy proposals. Again, you fail to present any sort of objective standard by which we would gauge what is and isn't permissible. As such, and given the clear lack of any serious proposal, combined with the lackadaisical nature of the "we'll decide on specific changes after discussion" regardless of the vote which is already taking place, seriously hampers this proposal. SpartHawg948 19:28, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I see, it's the voting section that is the problem then. My bad, not really bringing my A game here. How do we go about this, can the voting be stalled/stopped, or perhaps removed, or is the whole thing messed up now? My sincerest apologies for proposing this incorrectly. And, also, wouldn't profanity be considered "insulting terms or language"? Arbington 19:36, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Only if it's being used as an insult. Otherwise, it's just profanity. Examples you provided elsewhere work nicely. To paraphrase, "Arbington is an a**" would be insulting use of profanity, but saying "Arbington kicks a**" would just be use of profanity. As for stopping the vote, I'm not too sure. The only time I can recall a vote ever being halted was one in which there were only two votes. Both voters (the OP and myself) consented to tabling the vote. This one has 9 votes thus far, and I'm positive we've never just stopped a vote with this many contributors. It's not so much the voting section that's a problem, as you could have the section there, but state that voting is closed until discussion can occur. The problem is that, while creating the proposal, you not only added the voting section, but cast the first vote yourself, thus starting the 7-day voting period. SpartHawg948 19:42, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, your first large section was by far more confrontational than the original a** comment that sparked this whole debaucle, making assumptions about people's motivations and personalities as well as baseless and biased accusations is downright offensive. Don't bother meantioning the hypocrite statement, it was not directed at anyone specifically and was only mentioned as a risk, not a definitive description of anyone supporting the current policy. Put simply, no you don't need to you profanity for anything, not even to harrass or insult someone. Someone could say the most utterly inconsiderate and reprehensible things without swearing once. It is simply irrational to consider low-level profanity the bane of all conversation, especially when it was clearly lighthearted and not directed at anyone. The comment in question was not offensive in the least, and if someone managed to misinterpret that as an insult toward themselves, then that says something about THEM and not the person who wrote it itinitally. It says that they are irrational and over sensitive. Of course, I agree that sensless overuse of profanity as a means to deliberately appear vulgar is offensive and unnecessary. Any reasonable person can have a conversation without using profanity, but in the same respect, any reasonable person could suck it up and deal with something as mild as the comment in question. And I'm not sure where you are coming from saying that using language from the game itself is not an excuse. On a wiki devoted to Mass Effect, you should be able to pull any quote from the game and use it in conversation without censorship, especially considering that it is not being used for harrassment.--Aerid77 19:47, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I think voting should be paused if possible, but if we can't stop the voting, then I'm honestly not that bummed. I can see pretty clearly that the community overwhelmingly opposes this. I came up with this way too early in the morning, I'm really frazzled as it is (Having your great-grandfather move in with you can be... stressful.), and while I still support it, it most likely wouldn't pass. I disagree with the current policy, but like I said in the botched proposal, I almost never use profanity on the net (The only time I can remember was directed at ZuluDFA, so I'd take the policy warning with pride.), so it won't hurt me if it doesn't pass. Arbington 19:53, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3)And yet you cannot come up good reason to use profanity except it being "lighthearted and not directed at anyone". Except, and here's a surprise, you can be lighthearted without using profanity, and that isn't a good excuse. We've also had multiple instances where people have misinterpreted comments, and in cases, it was due to both people, the initial comment, and then, due to the text based nature of the wiki, the person reading it. Just because Mass Effect is rated "M" and they use profanity in the game, it not remotely an excuse to use it here. We do have quotes here which do have profanity, but that falls under a different policy. Remember just because someone else can do it, doesn’t even remotely mean that you can do it as well. You also didn't answer many of my other questions and I still can't see a valid reason to use profanity, especially when there hundreds of other, non profanity laced ways, to say it. Please answer this, if there is a better, non-profanity laced, way of saying something, then why not say it and avoid the whole problem to begin with? There simply is no reason to allow it as just the words alone could inflame a discussion. The bottom line is that I can't see a valid reason to change the policy, and my stance on this issue has now increased as a result. Lancer1289 20:10, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I guess if everyone who has already voted were to consent, we could stop the vote now. I suppose the admins could collectively vote to stop it too, but I'd prefer the first route, especially since JakePT hasn't been around in a few days, and we'd need to give him a week to respond, which would take us past the 7-day vote period. As for the community, yeah, it's already 7 against, 2 for, 1 neutral. And last time this came up, it was 9 against changing the policy, 4 for changing it, 2 neutral. So the community as a whole seems to show at least some support for the current policy, at least being more inclined to support it than not. SpartHawg948 19:59, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

First, Aerid77, while the hypocrite comment may not have been directed at anybody, all of that last comment was definitely directed at Lancer. Second, I guess I will send out messages asking for voter consent to pause the voting. 20:08, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)I'd be ok with either option. Lancer1289 20:10, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

If it is considered vandalism to insert profanity in articles, then what about all of the quotes from characters that are used on their pages, particularly in Mass Effect 2 where they have started to use the word f*ck? Although this is a bit off topic, my personal oppinion about the increase in profanity in Mass Effect 2 over the original gave it a much more realistic and mature persona, if somewhat more gritty. --Aerid77 20:04, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quotes fall under a different policy than what you are citing. Lancer1289 20:10, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Messages sent... with errors. Had to correct them. Whoops. Arbington 20:20, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that the rest of my comment was directed at Lancer, but that was because it was a direct response to a comment directed at me. And directed at Lancer: in response to your specific question about choosing the option to use profanity over other options. It depends on your personality style. Someone using strong, consistant profanity should obviously be given warnings and subsequently banned if they choose to continue. Such heavy and pointless use of vulgarity is offensive to just about any reasonable person. However, sanitising everything to such an extent is just as unhealthy as repeatedly using bad language. You mentioned how use of profanity can lead you to using it more often. I assume you were saying that it desinsitises you to it, and limits your ability to detect when it may be offending others. This is true, and evidenced by those certain types you are surely aware of you hear swearing on the street. However, this works both ways. Being overly critical and overly sensitive about such low level profanity as a** or cr*p increases your sensitivity to its use. I really should not have to censor such low level words as these. --Aerid77 20:22, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And I will ask you again, why do you have to use it in the first place. Profanity has no place in civil discussion, and citing "[i]t depends on your personaly style" doesn't cut it. Anyone can make the decision to not use and to use it, and yet often, if you don't use, then you will be looked at better for not using it. There is no reason to use it in a civil discussion and I will oppose changing that policy on any stance as there is just no reason for anyone to use it here. Lancer1289 20:28, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And yes, by all means pause the voting if necessary. --Aerid77 20:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have to use it in the first place? You don't. Of course you don't. You're not compelled to say anything at all, profane or not. The reason people use it is because of personal choice, free expression, or whatever myth would have us believe we are entitled to. Profanity is, in most discussions, used for emphasis rather than offense. Comments come from a good or bad place regardless of the language used. If someone chooses to prattle on with f*ck this and f*ck that, then that's their choice. This choice is clearly making them appear vulgar and immature, and this is true. They look as though they are unable to contain themselves. If someone chooses to use something that bareley even qualifies as a swear to present their sentence without having to alter their own expressiveness, then I believe that they are entitled to that. Profanity has no place in civil discussion? Well that is only your opinion, not a universal truth. One could just as easily say that censorship has no place in civil conversation. --Aerid77 20:39, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And then answer this, would you use that language with your boss? How about your teacher/professor? Or your parents? I'm thinking a no on all three, especially the first one. Every place you go has rules and everywhere I've been has a standard for socially acceptable behavior. Swearing even once in some places is enough to get you thrown out, or being asked to leave. It isn't censorship by any stretch of the word, it is a standard of behavior, and if you can't abide by a standard that is pretty much expected anywhere else, then who are you really hurting? Lancer1289 20:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Define everywhere else. I don't know what part of the world you live in, but saying cr*p is unlikely to get you thrown out of any place I've ever heard of. And as for the relationships you mentioned? I would avoid saying f*ck in front of my boss, but something as mild as cr*p? I can't imagine them even taking notice of it. --Aerid77 20:47, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

What makes what you consider to be offensive more important than what I consider offensive? If your answer is based around the use of profanity, then that is still what you consider offensive. These are not laws or truths you are mentioning, they are opinions. I'm sure most people would agree that high level swears like f*ck have no place in civil discussion, but the low end stuff is an entirely different story. It takes someone fairly sensitive to profanity to be offended by words like cr*p, which is their right, they can have their opinion. But in the same respect, someone could be just as offended that someone singled them out and criticised them for using such mild expressive language. In both cases, it is a matter of personal response to the content of a comment, and lacking such clear cut high-end profanity as [I think I've said enough times] there is no clear way of determining what is and is not uncivilised. One must go into a public discussion prepared for the fact that they may not like everything they see. I'll stress again that I agree that the more profane end of the spectrum has no place in civil conversation, but general expression is so flimsy, and anyone can be offended by anything. To be fair, people should be met half way. No highly profane language, and no overly sensitive censorship of basic expressive language. To elaborate on one of my earlier points: the comment I made reference to I believe was one in a discussion on the appearance of female Sheperd. The comment was "etc etc kicks some a**." Now how is this more offensive than an earlier comment that said one of the depicted images could "go die in a fire"? You answer me that. Personaly, I was more offended by such a strong and unreasonable hatred for something so simple. --Aerid77 21:14, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Aerid77 - all I can say is: Familiarize yourself with site policy and its applications and enforcement before criticizing it. Nobody has ever been banned for saying crap. Crap. Crap crap crappity crap crap. SpartHawg948 21:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

So then why is a** considered profanity? Who decided that a** was worse than crap? It just a donkey or a buttocks, neither one is as offensive as a steaming great crap. --Aerid77 21:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

But now you're using it in contexts which strip it of profane usage. Most people do not, and make clear they are using it in a profane manner. As such, your example is deliberately misleading. One could easily use the same facetious tactic to argue for the inclusion of words that are "just" female dogs or vulvas. As for how standards are determined, it's basically common usage, influenced by guidelines such as those used by the ESRB and MPAA. And before you argue that "Well, the ESRB rates this game M", sure it does. However, given that this is an internet site which anyone can access without the same guidelines and restrictions one would encounter attempting to purchase an M-rated game (no age checks for the internet), we try to keep things strictly E-rated. SpartHawg948 21:42, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well the buttocks meaning of a** is the one people are being warned and banned over (I can link you directly to an example of someone being banned for a** if you want). As far as I was aware, they three main uses of that word were a donkey, a buttocks, and someone who is generally unlikable. I would have considered the third to be the profane example, and I fail to see how saying that someone or something "kicks a**" (which is a positive comment for crying out loud) can be an excessively profane use of the word. And what of my example of dying in a fire? Why is a simple low-end profanity used as a compliment worse than unjustified hatred? --Aerid77 21:46, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Because policies are enforced uniformly on this wiki. The only real way to ensure that policies are enforced fairly is to enforce them uniformly. @$$ is generally considered a profane word, hence the fact it isn't commonly used for the first two definitions (butt, buttocks, and many others being used more often for the first, and donkey, burro, etc, being more commonly used for the second), and as such, it's considered as such here. Again, I refer you back to other, unarguably more offensive words which still have alternate, non-offensive, definitions which are rarely used in conjunction with the words themselves. As for dying in a fire, well, wishing ill on others isn't anywhere in site policy. Now, if it were used as an insult, it would be forbidden. But it does not appear that this is the case. SpartHawg948 21:53, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This is a great idea, and exactly what I was thinking. I was gonna propose something, and have this as an example of allowable and what shouldn't be:

Allowable:

That was f****** awesome. Anything indirect.

Not:

You are a f****** c***.

Disagreeing with the new idea just means your afraid of bad words, and don't understand people are different.-Hunter Zealot

"F*ck" clearly far to far up the profanity thermometre to be allowable, and a good majority would find it abrupt and offensive. In my opinion however, if you are offended by the word "a**" then you are being oversensitive. And no personal offensive intended Hunter Zealot, but your past reputation leads me to believe that you take profanity quite lightly. --Aerid77 21:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, given that people who use profanity often (such as myself) are less likely to be offended by its absence than people who don't use it are likely to be by its presence, and given that we want to appeal to as large an audience as possible, we err on the side of caution. In my personal life, I swear at least once every sentence or two. And yet, I'm not in the least bothered when placed into situations where, due to local norms or guidelines, I'm forced to curtail my language. This is one of those. I suppose that I just don't get why I'm cool with it but others aren't. It's not hard. It's just asking people who come here voluntarily to abide by site policies made to ensure enjoyment by a greater number of people.

And yes, Hunter Zealot, obviously that's it. Clearly, "Disagreeing with the new idea just means your afraid of bad words, and don't understand people are different." Despite the fact that I cuss like a sailor's worst nightmare, and clearly comprehend that people are different, you must be right with that stunning (and baseless) conclusion. SpartHawg948 22:04, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Spart, my point on the dying in the fire comment was in respect to it being similar to a profanity. People being offended by a profanity which is not being used as an insult is more or less the same as me seeing that fire-death comment (despite not being aimed at anyone) and being offended by the sheer hatred and intolerance it contained, even if directed at something inanimate. To be fair, thats the same as taking offense at profanity not directed at anyone. EDIT: Just to note, if I was the artist that designed the #4 image, I would be quite offended by that comment. -Aerid77 22:00, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

And my point is that, while it's likely offensive, it's not profane. Nor is it "similar to a profanity". It's just a horrible thing to say to someone. If you'd like to see language like that covered by site policy, you're more than welcome to propose its addition. As you say, it wasn't aimed at anyone, and it also wasn't profane or an insult. Any hatred and intolerance is inferred by you. Do I find the comments deplorable? Sure. That said, I can't go around banning people for saying things I don't like, can I? SpartHawg948 22:08, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

But then this really comes back to my earlier point. How is it fair to seperate a labelled profanity from something like "that #4 model looks like a pig and should die in a pile of feces." Obviously that's not what was said, but clearly that statement is offensive. And banning people for "saying things you don't like" is, at least how I see it, the same as banning them for a word you find offensive. Again, the seperation of the labelled profanity "crap" and "a**" what makes one worse than the other? And yes, I am more or less convinced that the language policy is a necessary one, but the mythed "leeway" is not applied in the situations described, and no clear distinction between "profanity" and "offensive language" is made on the page --Aerid77 22:14, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

You assume too much. I don't find profanity offensive at all. As such, when someone is banned under the language policy, it's for violating site policy, not for saying something I don't like as, again, I'm a pretty profane individual (if this were a spoken conversation, for example, I'd have said "mother ******" rather than "individual"). It's only banning people for saying things I don't like if I don't like what they're saying, and personally, I like profanity. A lot. As for the leeway, it's not a myth. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Nonprofane speech that might be construed as objectionable (such as the dying in a fire remark directed at a fictional character) is covered under the leeway clause. Profanity is not. SpartHawg948 22:18, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly why we are discussing this aren't we? I believe that, to an extent, lower level profanities should be included under the leeway clause. Failing that, a very clear distinction between profanity and offensive language should be made on the policy page, as the average layman reading it for the first time would likely consider them more or less the same thing. Eg: someone sees that offensive language has leeway, and then is struck down for saying "a**" they might feel a little hard done by if you know what I'm getting at. --Aerid77 22:26, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

But what defines "lower level profanities"? That's about as subjective a term as I've ever heard, and it's hard to base rules that must be enforced objectively off such subjective terminology. For example, you and I appear to have very different ideas as to what constitutes "lower level profanities". You say ""F*ck" clearly far to far up the profanity thermometre to be allowable, and a good majority would find it abrupt and offensive." Well, I must not be part of that good majority, since I find the F-bomb rather mild, and think nothing of dropping it into most conversations. See what I'm getting at here? Whose standards do we use? Mine? Yours? Do we vote on individual words? "Vote yes if you think f*** should be allowed, no if it shouldn't." That is why we have the current policy, and why it is enforced as it is. Nobody "s struck down for saying "a**"" If someone says something like that, they get a warning. If they slip and say it again, they generally get another warning. Nobody says @$$ and then gets banned right away. Everyone gets warnings, usually several. SpartHawg948 22:31, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

In all cases, this discussion is getting slightly out of hand. We need to be a bit more objective in terms of debating the merits of focusing less on the minor words, like "crap", which I deem acceptable, whilst maintaining the same vigilance for words like the f-bomb or the s-bar (s***). As mentioned in the last debate, I'm against a wholesale restructuring of the policy while simultaneously in favour of adding very minor exceptions like what I said above. This, so long as those exemptions are used offensively. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:34, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, like I said "failing that" state (in explicit detail) the difference between "offensive language" and "profanity" in the policy. As someone might read the policy and think that it grants them leeway for profanity, where it actually does not. --Aerid77 22:40, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

In which case, an admin will happily set them straight, no ban needed. For example, Hunter Zealot received not one, not two, but three separate messages concerning the language policy before being banned for a brief period. That said, I'll take a look and see if I can come up with an alternative to the current wording that clears things up a bit. SpartHawg948 22:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with Havoc here. I believe that, at the very least, we need to add a few exceptions to the rule, in the same vein as crap. What is the current opinion on that? Arbington 23:30, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Either way, you appeal to one group of people and not to another, and I understand this is not a full fledged democracy, but being bias to one group is going to offend someone no matter what. Everyone has their own opinions, but if they don't like one, they should ignore, not start whining about. All I'm saying is ignore the words, unless slung at someone else. If the person has a problem with someone elses character, then may god have mercy on his/her soul.--69.144.238.157 23:58, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me^.--BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 00:00, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Arbington, from what he posted, it seems that H-Man Havoc is in favor of the status quo. Consider: "We need to be a bit more objective in terms of debating the merits of focusing less on the minor words, like "crap", which I deem acceptable, whilst maintaining the same vigilance for words like the f-bomb or the s-bar (s***). As mentioned in the last debate, I'm against a wholesale restructuring of the policy while simultaneously in favour of adding very minor exceptions like what I said above." Nothing said there is inconsistent with current policy. "Crap" is permissible. F-bombs and S-bars are not. Unless there was some other example of "minor words" H-Man Havoc had in mind, I don't see anything needing amending, at least not based on his comment. As for exceptions to rules, well, you all know how I feel about those. They don't exist in my book. SpartHawg948 00:33, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, I do agree with the general status quo that the current policy be unchanged, yet I still will say that if not permissibility, more leniency for the use of minor profanities, such as "a**" or "hell", etc... Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:37, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I suppose I wouldn't really have too much of a problem with that, provided that we can find a decent and more-or-less objective way to word it, and provided that we can keep it at that level, without people (such as myself and Hunter Zealot) taking it too far. SpartHawg948 01:02, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work better than what I proposed, as it is simply a more lenient twist on the status quo, which is what I initially hoped to accomplish. Havoc, I think you may have just saved the discussion. Arbington 01:10, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help Arby. I may very well support the proposal if it is modified to the parameters I suggested in my last comment. Doing so would be more acceptable in my mind to myself and other users, especially Lancer (though he has a stiff upper lip on these matters, as seen in his comments), and thus could pass with the general consensus of users. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 01:54, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

So, now that we have a bit of a gameplan here, does anybody have any more suggestions? I think we should keep the discussion rolling until we've got a bit more feedback. Arbington 02:24, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

If we're allowing some but not all, and I shudder to say this, but we should probably be specific, i.e. come up with a list of what is permissible, for ease of reference and to eliminate confusion and instances of admins issuing warnings for nonexistent violations. SpartHawg948 02:45, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Crap is already on the list, and I believe a** should be permissible. Is Hell allowed? Havoc mentioned it earlier. Arbington 03:31, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the safe derivative "heck" is allowed no problem, just like "darn" for "damn". However all these must be used in an objective situation and not for offensive or demeaning purposes. I think "hell" could be allowed under certain circumstances. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 04:02, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it shoiuld be allowed under any circumstances, nor should anyhing else proposed so far. I'm not a fan of allowing those words. Lancer1289 04:28, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, your personal feelings are getting in the way. You must vote on what you know is what is best, not because you have a fit when you see the word moron. Do not try to say I'm am insulting, because I am not. I am stating what seems to be obvious, and thus belive you're high moral looks on life are getting in the of better judgement. I am not saying you should have no say, but your extreme pursuit in ridding these words is flat out annoying, and unjustified other then your personal characteristic.

I am being hypocrytical, as I am allowing my personal feelings to get in the way, but at least I am sticking to the character of myself, and what others want.

What I am seeing from people who oppose the idea of more liberties in their speecg, is no form of restraitment, and little judge of character. My character obviously likes to curse, and thus I should not be oppressed. Neither should others who swear or use "vulgar words". Any who oppose the new language proposal should be allowed to have their opionions, but not able to restrict others free will and character. Those who don't like these supposed "vulgar" words, should not use them, those who do or are neutral should be allowed to express themselves. I do not care if this somehow warrents mee another worthless ban, but it's true--Hunter Zealot

I'm going to point out several completely false statements. I am not letting my personal feelings get in the way on this issue. What I know is best to keep the current policy as it is, that way there is no way to lead to a misunderstanding. I'm keeping a neutral head on this issue, and not letting my better judgment be compromised. Just because others want it, doesn't instantly mean it is the best thing for everyone. There are several other things I'd like to say, but I won't as I don't want to derail this discussion. Lancer1289 05:02, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's my thoughts: Obviously, crap is bueno. Ditto for (under the proposed new policy as it is currently being fleshed out) H-E-Double Hockey Sticks. Also @$$. That's about all I'm seeing right now. Dam (or rather its alternative) is a word that, by its very nature, is a bit on the inflammatory side. SpartHawg948 05:29, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

To be fair Lancer, you are absolutely NOT keeping a neutral stance on this issue. And it's pretty apparent to me as well that your personal outlook is clouding your judgement. You have said multiple times that you do not believe that there is any need for profanity, which is an expression of your opinion. This is, of cource, totally fine. The trouble is, you have been expressing it with absolutely no flexibility, to the point of even condescending others for seeing things differently. --Aerid77 09:57, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

And now I feel insulted because of completely false accusations. I am keeping a neutral head and not allowing my feelings my personal feelings get in the way. If I was, then my comments would be different, very different. The fact that you or anyone else has yet to refute anything I came up with before. Which is me demonstrating, logically, the fact that we can't relax the policy, and the fact you haven't come off with anything to refute it, tells me that you cannot find a legitimate reason to allow it. Again, just because everyone wants it, doesn't mean that it is the best thing. Lancer1289 15:01, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's obvious when I person saying "badass jackass" in relation to a fictional character in a forum post is enough to earn a warning from an admin, you need to change your language policy. As a wiki parts are formal(articles and associated talk pages) and parts are informal(forum posts and personal talk pages). The informal portions should have more relaxed language standards.209.34.36.115 11:48, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Look guys, Lancer can support or oppose this for any reasons he wants, personal or otherwise. If this turns into another Lancer hate-fest, I'm going to stop the train right there. It is not our place to tell him what to do and why. Instead of fiddling around with all that, we should be focusing on making this proposal presentable. On that note, I think that "dam" is not necessarily (or usually) inflammatory. Normally it's an exclamation, at least when I see it used. Arbington 16:52, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

This "failure to refute" business is quite ambiguous. The only thing you have really said is that you don't think it is necessary to swear when there are alternatives, and the discussion has since developed beyond that. I don't see how you think your stance is neutral when eveything you have said has been so strongly one sided. Whatever stance you want to take on this issue is your own choice, but I haven't seen a single comment from you on this topic that even approached looking at things from a different point of view. It seems pretty clear to me that you personaly have a strong opposition to profanity, and are unwilling to even consider even minor changes to the policy. Whether these allegations are true or false, they are not baseless in the least. This is the impression you have been giving. Again, you can obviously take whatever stance you want on this topic, but it doesn't seem like you have looked at this issue from any other point of view that an absolute "no." You even said in your vote that you "completely 1000% oppose this" before the discussions even started. I'm not trying to be offensive, but it comes across very strongly that you already made your decision well before even considering the alternative. --Aerid77 19:33, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Addressing Arbington's argument about the alternative to dam: In common usage, sure. By what it actually means? It's probably the most inflammatory of all words out there. Peruse the definitions of the word, and you'll find, among others: "to declare (something) to be bad, unfit, invalid, or illegal"; "to condemn as a failure"; "to bring condemnation upon; ruin". And even going by common usage, it's not what I'd consider one of the more minor swears. As stated previously, I'm cool with @$$ and H-E-Double Hockey Sticks. That's about it. "Dam" would immediately result in a "no" vote from me. The more profane version of "crap" I'm still on the fence about.

Addressing Aerid77, why would Lancer need to look at the issue from any other point of view than that of an absolute no? If he feels adamantly about this, what right or cause do you have to object? Why does he need to make "single comment from you on this topic that even approached looking at things from a different point of view"? For that matter, I've not seen you make even a single comment that even approached looking at things from his point of view. Let's not go casting stones and such here. I've already seen several things I don't like here from multiple users (accusations of closed-mindedness for not voting a certain way, etc), and Arbington is correct. Lancer can vote how he wants, for whatever reason. It's not anyone's business to harp on him for not seeing things from any point of view other than his own. SpartHawg948 19:43, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all, I mentioned in the comment right above (and several times before) that anyone can take whatever stance they want. I was objecting to Lancer's claim of being neutral, which does not appear to be the case at all. And even if someone takes the stance they prefer, inflexibility and closed mindedness is not how you reach a compromise. Oh and:

""F*ck" clearly far to far up the profanity thermometre to be allowable, and a good majority would find it abrupt and offensive" "Such heavy and pointless use of vulgarity is offensive to just about any reasonable person" "I'll stress again that I agree that the more profane end of the spectrum has no place in civil conversation"

You haven't seen me make a single comment approaching from a different point of view? We you even looking? I am aware I am getting worked up now, but come on, I have clearly been keeping an open mind about this. If I was speaking purely from a single point of view, I would have condemned the censorship all together much in the way Hunter Zealot did. I did not, and you know that. --Aerid77 19:50, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer certainly seems about as neutral as anyone else right now. Certainly more so than you yourself appear to be at present. Let's see... did I say I hadn't seen you "make a single comment approaching from a different point of view"? Of course not! Let's see what I actually said, not what you claim I said, and what you responded to. I said "For that matter, I've not seen you make even a single comment that even approached looking at things from his [Lancer's] point of view." And none of the quotes you provide come close to being from Lancer's point of view. So I ask you, were you even looking at my last post? Of course I know you weren't speaking strictly from one point of view, which is why I never said anything of the sort. I said that, despite your hectoring Lancer for not adopting other points of view, you had made no discernible effort to see it from his point of view. I think perhaps you are getting a bit too worked up, and it appears to be clouding your judgement, if your misinterpretation of what I said is any indicator. SpartHawg948 19:59, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

It comes across that Lancer's point of view is the disallowance of profanity, if his comments are any indication. The fact that I agreed that excessive or strong profanity should not be allowed certainly seems to be seeing things from something "approaching his point of view." I endeavoured to see this topic from both angles, even if my final vote is to support the change. I am not going to completely adopt Lancer's point of view in its entirety, but I made an effort to see things from the same angle, which is more than can be said for the contrary. And yes, I made a mistake when reading your post and paid for it, sue me. My point is, and make no mistake, I do not enjoy drawing attention to Lancer, not even considering even small elements of your opponents argument to be plausible or reasonable is not going to help anyone reach a compromise. --Aerid77 20:06, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to stress that I would not, and have not, accused people of closed-mindedness for "not voting a certain way." I accuse people of closed mindedness when they refuse to even see their opposition's side. Personally, I can see where Lancer is coming from and agree with many aspects of the language policy. I do not agree however, that such low-level profanity should be a bannable offense. --Aerid77 20:09, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't accuse people of closed-mindedness for not voting a certain way. As far as I am aware, no one has said you did anything of the sort. If someone has, I'll gladly set them straight. And there's no reason to sue you. All I ask is that, before going off on people with loaded commentary like "We[re] you even looking?", you take the time yourself to look at and understand what they have said. As for compromise, take me, for example. I was initially opposed to any change. Through constructive dialogue (i.e. not having others accuse me of not adopting other points of view), several editors (you among them), caused me to (of my own volition, no outside hectoring necessary) alter my point of view, and come to support a compromise now being discussed. SpartHawg948 20:16, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

I find it preferable to have a civilised debate when each side considers the POV of the other. They but no means at all, have to agree with it, but it help (both sides) get a different perspective on the argument. And as you said, one can, through constructive dialogue, come to alter their opinions on the topic, even if they still vote the same way in the end. If however (and I am not accusing Lancer of doing this) someone is completely narrow minded about the topic, and refuses to grant their opposition any credibility, then they can easily come across as ignorant and dismissive. Meeting your opponents part way is key to reaching compromise, and that is essentially a dumbed down definition of the term. When one side of the argument is given no quarter at all, it can make things difficult to say the least. --Aerid77 20:29, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when you put it that way Spart, "dam" is probably not a good word for the list. Any more suggestion, anyone? Thus far only a**, crap, and H*** have been agreed on. Arbington 22:10, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Before I continue with the discussion, I suggest one of two things to do with this entire section; either split it into three separate segments, or archive the majority of the discussion (well, that doesn't help at all), because it is getting too long and hard to keep track of things. Arby: I mentioned in an earlier discussion that "nerd" could be on the more lenient list if used in a non-negative way. The more derogatory "geek" is something I think should be barred from the list. As for "damn", it depends on the usage (if not directed at anybody or it's just that single word in a comment, I'm fine with its addition). Aerid: Even though from your point of view Lancer is committing the fallacy of "appealing to ignorance" to support his conclusion, it is somewhat untrue. He bases his viewpoints on past attempts to modulate the policy. Continuing to push him on his supposed hard one-sided stance will ensure he toes the line further. By this you commit the fallacy of "hasty generalization" because you assume that's the ONLY viewpoint he will ever take on the issue at hand. Lancer: Aerid does have some grounds for a deductive claim highlighting this one-sidedness on the absolute scale. Though these viewpoints are common, even the most hardline of opinions were made considering the alternatives and thus formulating the responses based on the other side's views. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:17, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Aerid77: You are completely misrepresenting this discussion. You say "When one side of the argument is given no quarter at all, it can make things difficult to say the least". Yet this has not happened. At all. What has happened, then? Well, one person from one side has shown "no quarter" to the other. Lancer is far from the only person who has argued for or is currently arguing for a complete prohibition on profanity. Plenty of quarter has been shown from the "No profanity" side to the "some profanity side". For example, remember that time I jumped ship from the No side to the Some side? You have been just as willing to give "no quarter" to Lancer's position as you claim he has shown to yours. Frankly, with your remarks about Lancer and his point of view, it's you who has come off as a bit dismissive, and this coming from someone who agrees with you on the issue.

H-Man Havoc: Here's my thoughts on your suggestions - Nerd and geek are both completely non-profane, so if used in a non-insulting manner, there's absolutely no reason they should be barred. In fact, both are currently allowed per the language policy, so they're a non-issue. (Also, it's a bit subjective: Personally, I find "nerd" more derogatory than "geek") "Dam" is still an instant deal-killer for me. Sure it's context-based, but so are the other words we're talking about excluding (the f-bomb and s-bar also depend on the usage, do they not?), so I don't see that as a legitimate reason to include it. It (IMO) falls outside the casual/minor/less offensive words we're considering allowing. SpartHawg948 06:05, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

I thought I made it pretty clear with that last example that it was not directed at Lancer. What was not made so clear was that it was merely an exaggerated example to highly my point, I was not claiming that to be the case with this discussion. I am well aware that, overall, this discussion has been quite balanced. As for me being dismissive, I'm not sure what that is based on, and I am always willing to consider alternatives or someone's alterior motives should they be presented. I was simply stating that I believed Lancer was not considering both sides of the argument. It has been pointed out that he may have been speaking from past experiences, which may well be true. However, I was speaking from the impression his comments were giving. --Aerid77 07:16, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. That said, I'd very much appreciate if the comments about how Lancer isn't considering other points of view would cease. They are not constructive or conducive to compromise. As has been pointed out, Lancer appears to be basing his adamant position on past experiences, and I can't fault him there. I tend to be the same way when prior experience leads me to conclude something is unworkable, infeasible, etc. If we really want to compromise here, we need to try bridging gaps, not creating more divisiveness, and as H-Man Havoc astutely pointed out, continuing to press the "Lancer is one-sided" issue will only cause him to dig his heels in even more. SpartHawg948 07:59, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so "damn"'s out of the equation. I can't see any other words to be included in this supposed list. In related matters, the Lancer bashing does need to stop. I agree Spart; Lancer's been bashed quite a bit over the last 7 months. Doing any more of that will be considered as an ad hominem feuding fallacy, especially when he himself stated he wouldn't be a major part of this recent discussion. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 14:17, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Outcome? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 02:35, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Clearly words like "nerd" and "geek" are clearly acceptible and are not event technically profane. As for "a**" I think it depends on its use. "Bada**" and "kicka**" should be fine and are not used as an insult in any way. "A**hole" on the other hand is clearly meant to be offensive, even if directed at a fictional character. I have to disagree with the situation on "d*mn" though, as even though the technical definition seems harsh, it is one of the most commonly used and meaningless curses made when someone is frustrated. Take "b*gger" for example (does that even need censoring?) People use it all the time as a blunt, meaningless curse, but in actuality it refers to sodomy or beastiality. --Aerid77 12:10, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Obviously nerd. geek, and bugger are fine as is. For the most part I agree with what you're saying, though for me, "dam" being included is still pretty much an instant deal-breaker. H-Man Havoc, as for the outcome, I'm not sure what outcome you're referring to. This proposal seems dead in the water, and we're still waiting for someone to present a new one along the lines of what we've been discussing here. SpartHawg948 15:29, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Then Arby should make a modified proposal... he brought this up in the first place. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:23, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

VotingEdit

SupportEdit

1. As the guy who proposed this, I support it. Arbington 06:23, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. If it's said in Mass Effect, it should be permissible here, both in articles and discussion (harrassment is still clearly not acceptible) --Aerid77 12:06, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
3. Don't see how you can't support. It's being close minded and bias(indirectly of course) not to.Hunter Zealot
4. I don't want to have to say "aww butterscotch..." in a M game. --Slowrider7 16:04, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
5. The games in this series have been consistently rated "M" and being in a medium conductive of free speech, the internet, wikis, etc., seem to show a mature readership. If you are offended by a few non-directed vulgarities then you are sure as "heck" gonna be offended by the content in a Mass Effect game. -- Scuba.steve.esq 01:55, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
6. Mass Effect isn't a sanitized, profanity-free game. This shouldn't be a sanitized, profanity-free wiki. And profanity is too much a part of common colloquialism to reasonably penalize people for using it, so long as it's not being used against anyone. (Also, on a practical note, relaxing the language policy will decrease the admins' workload, which is a good thing with ME3 on the way.) Diyartifact 02:29, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's note: Two votes stricken for being cast AFTER voting had closed.

NeutralEdit

1. Retracted comment. Moved opinion to blogSer Derek of Highever 19:21, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. Oppose. No practical means determining what crude/vulgar language is permissible and what isn't has been provided. As such, this is a vague and open-ended proposal, not a suitable policy for implementation. SpartHawg948 06:27, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
2. Completely 1000% oppose this, and for anyone voting support, I encourage you to rightly defend yourself and come up with a valid excuse to any question I posed above. Lancer1289 15:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
3. Based on my explanations above, I must oppose this policy change. Doing so will set a potentially bad precedence. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:29, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
4. Per the above arguments against this policy. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. It seems clear that the community wants the policy to stay, however I do think warnings for minor words like "crap" is unnecessary. N7 ^[T|C] 18:43, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose as well, if I had my way there would be no swears in any games except for minor words. User:JediSpectre117 19:56, July 26 2011 (UTC)
7. Opposed. Some people are easily offended. --Bluegear93 19:48, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Let's keep this Wikia clean. --Morinth's Lover 17:40, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Results Edit

The proposal was actually rejected on August 2, 2011, and that the reasoning behind the tally. The votes which brought my attention back to this forum do not count as they were cast after the deadline. This is the way things work in this forum as outlined on the main Policy forum page. Seven days since the proposal was initially started, in this case July 26, 2011, is when it closes, and in this case, would have been August 2, 2011 at 11:59 UTC. Anything cast after that doesn’t count. Given there has been talk for a modified proposal, and suggested, this forum will now serve as an archive and any discussion on that modified proposal is to take place there as this forum is now closed. Lancer1289 02:38, August 15, 2011 (UTC)