Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-26346910-20161003012823/@comment-24245551-20161003234811

Keplers wrote: Rapmilo wrote: Keplers wrote: Rapmilo wrote: Keplers wrote: Rapmilo wrote: Alemas2005 wrote: AmazingPythor wrote: Slicer Vorzakh wrote: for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao? If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. But they both contain swears which are currently blocked...

So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.

Which already failed fairly recently. That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?

If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent. They... they are.

Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.

The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, used it. There was no need to block a word that never saw use. Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it. Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?

Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will. Flamethrower homicides have happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership. It's hard to repeal something that was never law.

And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice. The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.

Get it?

No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.

If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?

There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.