5,988
pages
ALL POSTSShould "buck" as a substitute be banned?
<p>So yesterday a user voiced their concern at "buck" and "buckin'" being used in place of a well-known expletive. The similarities to the two words is minimal, only a single letter.
</p><p>My question to you all is, whether to ban the use of the word in place of the swear. Personally, I don't think making it a "yellowx" or "redx" word is needed, but I'll give the option anyway.
</p><p>A) Ban the use of the word as a replacement
</p><p>B) Block it as a "yellowx"
</p><p>C) Block it as a "redx"
</p><p>D) Leave it, there's no need to ban or block it
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Current_Votes">Current Votes</span></h2>
<p>A) Ban it: 1
</p><p>B) "yellowx": 4
</p><p>C) "redx":
</p><p>D) Leave it: 12
</p><p>"E: discourage use of the term as a euphemism for a similar offensive term on chat": 3
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>D) Leave it.
</p>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">
<p>LegoSuperBowser wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user. </div> <p><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> </p><p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>The f word is unacceptable, yes. Replacements that aren't curses are acceptable. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user. </div> <p><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> </p><p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>The f word is unacceptable, yes. Replacements that aren't curses are acceptable. </p>
(Edited by .White-Shadows.)
I give up. Go have fun on chat
(Edited by CptSteveRogers)
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo. </div> <p>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it. </p>
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo. </div> <p>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it. </p>
(Edited by BrickfilmNut)
<div class="quote">
<p>LegoSuperBowser wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user. </div> <p><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> </p><p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>....And we aren't saying the F word. Your stubbornness is getting annoying. ._. </p><p>"Brick" is a replacement swear for the F word as well(?) so "buck" is really no worse. I have a feeling we're going to be repeating ourselves to you a lot. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user. </div> <p><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> </p><p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>....And we aren't saying the F word. Your stubbornness is getting annoying. ._. </p><p>"Brick" is a replacement swear for the F word as well(?) so "buck" is really no worse. I have a feeling we're going to be repeating ourselves to you a lot. </p>
(Edited by Vonness11`)
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo.</div>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it. </div> <p>Sure, but you can use the f word in a non offensive way. Why not unblock it? </p>
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo.</div>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it. </div> <p>Sure, but you can use the f word in a non offensive way. Why not unblock it? </p>
(Edited by CptSteveRogers)
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user.</div><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> <p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>I think your choice of words there is questionable, but I'll try to disregard that. </p><p>No, it doesn't. Plain and simple. </p>
<div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user.</div><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> <p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div> <p>I think your choice of words there is questionable, but I'll try to disregard that. </p><p>No, it doesn't. Plain and simple. </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<div class="quote">Le Beater wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: </p> <div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user.</div><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> <p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div>....And we aren't saying the F word. Your stubbornness is getting annoying. ._. <p>"Brick" is a replacement swear for the F word as well(?) so "buck" is really no worse. I have a feeling we're going to be repeating ourselves to you a lot. </p> </div> <p>I didn't say brick is. But "buck" is a letter away, and has been used for the f word. </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: </p> <div class="quote">.White-Shadows. wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>LegoSuperBowser wrote: If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if it hurts someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </p> </div>We're not. Substituting swears is not against the policy unless used in a way that offends another user.</div><i>All bad language is unacceptable</i> <p>The f word is unacceptable. So that caries over to a word betraying it </p> </div>....And we aren't saying the F word. Your stubbornness is getting annoying. ._. <p>"Brick" is a replacement swear for the F word as well(?) so "buck" is really no worse. I have a feeling we're going to be repeating ourselves to you a lot. </p> </div> <p>I didn't say brick is. But "buck" is a letter away, and has been used for the f word. </p>
(Edited by CptSteveRogers)
<p>If you think "bricking" is like the "f" version, then don't use it.
</p>
(Edited by CptSteveRogers)
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you think "bricking" is like the "f" version, then don't use it.</div> <p>Do use it, because it isn't banned. </p>
If you think "bricking" is like the "f" version, then don't use it.</div> <p>Do use it, because it isn't banned. </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo.</div>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it.</div>Sure, but you can use the f word in a non offensive way. Why not unblock it? </div> <p>When was the last time it was used in a non-offensive way? :P All its power comes from the fact that it <i>is</i> offensive. </p>
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
<div class="quote">BrickfilmNut wrote:
<div class="quote">LegoSuperBowser wrote:
If you guys wan to just stuff the policy in your pocket and only take it out if someone is hurt, or offended someone, or is really needed, fine. I can't do anything about that. </div>Isn't that the point of a policy in this case?</div>The policy doesn't want bad lingo.</div>What I mean is, the point of a policy is to prevent others from being hurt, offended, etc. in this case. So if it fulfills its purpose, isn't that fine? If you're enforcing it just because, the purpose of the policy becomes having rules just for the sake of it.</div>Sure, but you can use the f word in a non offensive way. Why not unblock it? </div> <p>When was the last time it was used in a non-offensive way? :P All its power comes from the fact that it <i>is</i> offensive. </p>
(Edited by BrickfilmNut)