5,988
pages
ALL POSTSUnblocking a few Blocked Words
<p>IDK if we're allowed to say the words so I won't but I'll say something to get the point across.
</p><p>Note: As Mad has said if the words do get unblocked that does not mean you're allowed to use them for personal attacks or derogatory purposes.
</p>
<nav id="toc" class="toc" data-loaded="false"><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2><span class="toctoggle">[show]</span></div>
(Edited by administrators)
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Packachoo wrote: No to everything. I'd rather have users and their parents be ok with the site's content. </p> </div>Parents should be okay with it either way if they take a minute to understand the community. This isn't a community that promotes bad behavior, bad language, disrespect, etc, so there's not much of a reason for parents to oppose it. Brickipedia has a parents page that gives some information to parents about the site and the community. Brickipedia's community ranges from young KFOLs (Kid Fans of LEGO) to older AFOLs (Adult Fans of LEGO), yet nobody generally feels uncomfortable there. The KFOLs never seem to feel like the community is "too mature" or having discussions that are inappropriate for kids, and the AFOLs never seem to feel like the discussions are "too child-like" or restrictive as to what can be talked about. There really are no set restrictions on what can and can't be said in chat as far as words go, but they're more set on what kinds of discussions are inappropriate (i.e. discriminatory, condescending, etc) [1]. That doesn't mean we just openly let people drop f-bombs or other big swears in chat, but we won't really do anything more than advise people to use different vocabulary if their statement wasn't hurting anyone. </div> <p>If parents were that understanding, we'd have a lot less problems that we currently have. I think I speak for everyone when I say that. </p><p>However, they are not, and thus we should not continue voting on these things as though we live in our own private utopias where everyone bothers to "<span style="font-style:italic;">take a minute to understand the community". </span> </p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Packachoo wrote: No to everything. I'd rather have users and their parents be ok with the site's content. </p> </div>Parents should be okay with it either way if they take a minute to understand the community. This isn't a community that promotes bad behavior, bad language, disrespect, etc, so there's not much of a reason for parents to oppose it. Brickipedia has a parents page that gives some information to parents about the site and the community. Brickipedia's community ranges from young KFOLs (Kid Fans of LEGO) to older AFOLs (Adult Fans of LEGO), yet nobody generally feels uncomfortable there. The KFOLs never seem to feel like the community is "too mature" or having discussions that are inappropriate for kids, and the AFOLs never seem to feel like the discussions are "too child-like" or restrictive as to what can be talked about. There really are no set restrictions on what can and can't be said in chat as far as words go, but they're more set on what kinds of discussions are inappropriate (i.e. discriminatory, condescending, etc) [1]. That doesn't mean we just openly let people drop f-bombs or other big swears in chat, but we won't really do anything more than advise people to use different vocabulary if their statement wasn't hurting anyone. </div> <p>If parents were that understanding, we'd have a lot less problems that we currently have. I think I speak for everyone when I say that. </p><p>However, they are not, and thus we should not continue voting on these things as though we live in our own private utopias where everyone bothers to "<span style="font-style:italic;">take a minute to understand the community". </span> </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)
<p>No, no, no, yes.
</p>
(Edited by Ihaveawiixboxds)
<div class="quote">
<p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:
Bourg, yes, they <i>should</i> be okay with it, but that doesn't mean they are. Unfortunately some parents will actually disallow their kids from coming to LMBW if we allow certain swears.
</p>
</div>
<p>Maybe a better solution is to not necessarily allow/disallow any specific words, and merely enforce language based on the situation? That doesn't mean just let an f-word or something like that go, since there's really no reason for that kind of word on LMBW, but when someone responds with a "Damn" once, is that a big deal? No need to completely disallow a word if it <i>may</i> only cause a problem in a few situations. If at the time it's used it <i>does</i> cause a problem, take care of it, but if it doesn't cause a problem, no real need to "disallow" it. Some words can always be discouraged, but my idea of enforcing "bad" language would be more situational rather than a predefined list of words to disallow whatsoever. Basically it involves using common sense, like so many other things. :)
</p>
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
<p>1 No
</p><p>2 no
</p><p>3 no
</p><p>4 neutral.
</p>
(Edited by ObsoleteUser)
yes no neutral neutral
(Edited by Benboy755)
<p>Yes, No, No, Yes.
</p>
(Edited by Agent Spy)
- Yes
- No
- Yes (not to be used in an insulting manner)
- Yes (not to be used in an insulting manner; limited use [i.e. "that's retarded" as opposed to "shut up retard"])
(Edited by Percebais)
<p>Neutral, HECK YES THIS WORD BELONGS IN THE VOCABULARY OF PRESCHOOLERS, no, no.
</p><p>On a more serious note, neutral, no, no and no. Why do you think the community would want the S-word to be unblocked?!?
</p>
(Edited by Starrocks923)
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
It blows my mind that more people support "retard" than "damn".</div> <p>Yeah, have to agree here. Talking about Mental Retardation almost always results in personal attacks, while talking about damnation can be non-personal. </p><p>Granted, I see misuse of "damn" as one of the "lesser" swears(Which seemingly implies the problem with swearing is the word itself), but I'm okay with a certain amount of talking about it. </p>
It blows my mind that more people support "retard" than "damn".</div> <p>Yeah, have to agree here. Talking about Mental Retardation almost always results in personal attacks, while talking about damnation can be non-personal. </p><p>Granted, I see misuse of "damn" as one of the "lesser" swears(Which seemingly implies the problem with swearing is the word itself), but I'm okay with a certain amount of talking about it. </p>
(Edited by Starrocks923)
<div class="quote">Starrocks923 wrote:
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
It blows my mind that more people support "retard" than "damn".</div>Yeah, have to agree here. Talking about Mental Retardation almost always results in personal attacks, while talking about damnation can be non-personal. <p>Granted, I see misuse of "damn" as one of the "lesser" swears(Which seemingly implies the problem with swearing is the word itself), but I'm okay with a certain amount of talking about it. </p> </div> <p>So if my internet spazzes out and I exclaim "well vodafone is bucking retarded" then that's a personal attack to someone? I think not. </p>
<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
It blows my mind that more people support "retard" than "damn".</div>Yeah, have to agree here. Talking about Mental Retardation almost always results in personal attacks, while talking about damnation can be non-personal. <p>Granted, I see misuse of "damn" as one of the "lesser" swears(Which seemingly implies the problem with swearing is the word itself), but I'm okay with a certain amount of talking about it. </p> </div> <p>So if my internet spazzes out and I exclaim "well vodafone is bucking retarded" then that's a personal attack to someone? I think not. </p>
(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)