Board Thread:Community Discussions/@comment-5374144-20161222055559/@comment-4964341-20161222220823

Riolu777 wrote: BraveNewRoyalty wrote: Riolu777 wrote: BraveNewRoyalty wrote: Riolu777 wrote: And I vote A, but I agree with Roddy, and Rome's offer is a good one too. Roddy's right in that if people abuse the existence of a list by going to every length to say words on chat that aren't yet on the list, that should be punishable as trolling. Common sense should still exist in that sense. And I also think the list should be a group effort, and Rome and others should be able to help with that. It is intended to be a whole system that everyone who chooses to could contribute to. Just curious, what's the safeguard for people who want to say that words such as "Christian" or "Muslim" or "communism" are not offensive words to them? Is it safe to assume they're trolling or would we have to seriously cater to those requests? Or does common sense fill in the gaps and apply in those cases? Because I do want everyone to contribute to such a list but there would have to be some arbiter, whether that be the admins or common sense or both, to be able to determine whether or not the requested words to be added are of a legitimately offensive or inappropriate nature or not. People would be able to decide on the list what is offensive or not by majority.

I expect to see "I am a Muslim" allowed, but not "All Muslims blow up stuff" But that means holding a vote on every sentence with the word "Muslim" in it, and the level of offensiveness of said sentences, right? You'd be kidding yourself if that didn't sound cumbersome. Common sense and admin involvement has to be here to some degree, I would think... I agree there should be limited admin involvement, but some words (and some contexts) do legitimately set people off and they should be considered.