Policy Confusion Regarding Words | Fandom

This post is locked.

Dr. Satl, M.D.·11/30/2016 in Community Discussions

Policy Confusion Regarding Words

I'm forced to ask. Why are the words "retard," and "retarded" not allowed on chat? First of all, they have multiple defined meanings.

Example: "My progress was retarded by an obstacle."

Even the alternative definition as defined by Dictionary.com says that it is used to refer to people who are "stupid," or "foolish." If we are going to keep a word banned because it could be used in an insulting way, then we should go ahead and ban "moron," "stupid," "idiot," and others that could be used to hurt someone's feelings. These words are unblocked because they can be used without ridiculing others, and if they are used in that context, we have common sense policy that applies.

This is my last point. If we are going to worry about potentially offending a small minority of people who likely don't even use the wiki, then why aren't the words "autistic," "crippled," "hunchback," "midget," "psycho," and others blocked? It simply doesn't make sense to block one specific word that has multiple meanings, yet consider these words perfectly acceptable. Anyway, these are simply my thoughts.

(Edited by Dr. Satl, M.D.)

0

Impossibubbles·12/1/2016

Riolu777 wrote: I've voiced my argument on this before, you can find it here. The consistency is an issue though, thanks for pointing that out. Now, of course, since I don't believe that "retard" should be allowed, I would have to fall in line and say that I don't think the other terms should be allowed either. But I can only see "autistic" being the term, out of those you list, that is used on here at any notable frequency. So perhaps we need to decide if both get blocked or both get unblocked.

Butttttttt, only the admins can decide that! Thanks to Thread:283053, this community discussion is ultimately useless, as the community can no longer determine the legality of these words.

Community discussion is just that. It's for the community to discuss and voice their opinions. It may not have any bearing on the changes actually implemented, but it isn't "useless." So please don't be condescending and don't write off what people have to say just because this isn't a community vote.

(Edited by Impossibubbles)

0

Impossibubbles·12/1/2016

My personal view has mainly been majority rules. I don't put much stock in protecting the feelings of a very small group of people. But, that's just me and my rather cold view of things.

Consistency is the main issue. Either all mildly offensive terms should be banned or none of them should be. This half and half in between thing is stupid.

(Edited by Impossibubbles)

0

Riolu777·12/1/2016

Impossibubbles wrote:

Riolu777 wrote: I've voiced my argument on this before, you can find it here. The consistency is an issue though, thanks for pointing that out. Now, of course, since I don't believe that "retard" should be allowed, I would have to fall in line and say that I don't think the other terms should be allowed either. But I can only see "autistic" being the term, out of those you list, that is used on here at any notable frequency. So perhaps we need to decide if both get blocked or both get unblocked.

Butttttttt, only the admins can decide that! Thanks to Thread:283053, this community discussion is ultimately useless, as the community can no longer determine the legality of these words.

Community discussion is just that. It's for the community to discuss and voice their opinions. It may not have any bearing on the changes actually implemented, but it isn't "useless." So please don't be condescending and don't write off what people have to say just because this isn't a community vote.

I'm not writing it off, and the condescension is mocking the absurdity of that vote and the weird position it puts the community of this wiki in. I don't think we anticipated that it would end up being the admins regaining near-total control over parts of this wiki's decision-making, most glaringly blocking and unblocking words. We can receive input, which is always good, but that unfortunately doesn't mean much when it's still only 5 or 6 users making the final decision. We aren't a perfect representation of the majority of the wiki's thoughts.

(Edited by Riolu777)

0

Impossibubbles·12/1/2016

Riolu777 wrote: I'm not writing it off, and the condescension is mocking the absurdity of that vote and the weird position it puts the community of this wiki in. I don't think we anticipated that it would end up being the admins regaining near-total control over parts of this wiki's decision-making, most glaringly blocking and unblocking words. We can receive input, which is always good, but that unfortunately doesn't mean much when it's still only 5 or 6 users making the final decision. We aren't a perfect representation of the majority of the wiki's thoughts.

Oh of course not. I think the vote was horribly ill-conceived, and I'm not sure if the people voting thought it through all the way. Allowing a select few to speak for an entire community can hardly accurately represent the community's interests. I just think the condescending mocking comes off more directed at the community because they were the ones who ultimately voted in the policy, and it just doesn't feel very appropriate or befitting.

(Edited by Impossibubbles)

0

Riolu777·12/1/2016

Impossibubbles wrote:

Riolu777 wrote: I'm not writing it off, and the condescension is mocking the absurdity of that vote and the weird position it puts the community of this wiki in. I don't think we anticipated that it would end up being the admins regaining near-total control over parts of this wiki's decision-making, most glaringly blocking and unblocking words. We can receive input, which is always good, but that unfortunately doesn't mean much when it's still only 5 or 6 users making the final decision. We aren't a perfect representation of the majority of the wiki's thoughts.

Oh of course not. I think the vote was horribly ill-conceived, and I'm not sure if the people voting thought it through all the way. Allowing a select few to speak for an entire community can hardly accurately represent the community's interests. I just think the condescending mocking comes off more directed at the community because they were the ones who ultimately voted in the policy, and it just doesn't feel very appropriate or befitting.

Then we're in agreement, lol. Well I don't intend it to be toward the people who voted for it, rather toward the ethos of the wiki as a whole. If that makes sense. Probably doesn't.

(Edited by Riolu777)

0

Tadonyx·12/1/2016

I agree with this.

(Edited by Tadonyx)

0

Gae wilf·12/6/2016

Keplers wrote: psychosrus plz ban

oh wait

Comment made my day. And people who are psychos wouldn't be on here.

(Edited by Gae wilf)

0

Rapmilo·12/6/2016

Hah. No one will ever use the word "retarded" in that other context you mentioned. Let's face facts, "retard" is a word predominantly meant as an offense, even though blocking it may be (somewhat) extreme.

I would say we should unblock the word so long as it is used responsibly in chat.

And on a side note, this whole consistency thing is great and all but I feel as if most of this community is taking it a bit too far. We can't possibly be completely consistent, its just not likely to happen any time soon. There will always be other synonymous words or other substitutes that users can use, and spending our time finding and opening CVs regarding these words is not very productive.

I say we drop these trivial block/unblock this/that word discussions, because frankly they seem to be a huge waste of time.

(Edited by Rapmilo)

0

D8D5D3496EFD8E59A·12/6/2016

Gae wilf wrote:

Keplers wrote: psychosrus plz ban

oh wait

Comment made my day. And people who are psychos wouldn't be on here.

i thought he was a pedophile

(Edited by D8D5D3496EFD8E59A)

0

Brick425·12/6/2016

...Why did we have to gravedig this thread, again?

(Edited by Brick425)