1: No, it's defined as an offensive word toward lesbians... 
</noscript>
2: Yes
Madkatmaximus wrote: lol Alemas this was just posted yesterday, far from a clear consensus
Is there really that many people who haven't voted, though? I mean, there's 30+ votes on this already...
Caysie98 wrote:
Caysie98 wrote: My vote is no
Because I've never seen anyone use it against another user and I don't think anyone will. I don't see it as a "swear word" and it's pretty much the same as saying "jerk"
I've seen it being used against another user several times. If people are using "jerk" toward another I'm not opposed to blocking that either.
LegoSuperBowser wrote:
Caysie98 wrote: My vote is no
Says who.
Drew has stated it on threads multiple times.
Caysie98 wrote: My vote is no
Why? (opposes without reasons usually aren't counted)
Madkatmaximus wrote:
Basil Karlo wrote:
Madkatmaximus wrote:
Basil Karlo wrote:
Madkatmaximus wrote: No.
Why?
</noscript>
I've never seen it used to insult another user, and it's usually just used to refer to people like Varien and Jason Derulo.
</noscript>
I actually have seen it used to insult a user several times...
</noscript>
Well I can't prove you wrong.
</noscript>
I still really don't see the need for it to be blocked, if someone's abusing it, kick them.
I suppose you're right, but my reason for wanting it blocked is pretty much "If you're not allowed to use it to refer to another user (in a negative way. this of course would exclude things like dumb which are allowed but shouldn't be used to refer to another user), you shouldn't be able to use the word at all."
</noscript>
Madkatmaximus wrote:
Basil Karlo wrote:
Madkatmaximus wrote: No.
Why?
</noscript>
I've never seen it used to insult another user, and it's usually just used to refer to people like Varien and Jason Derulo.
</noscript>
I actually have seen it used to insult a user several times...
</noscript>
Madkatmaximus wrote: No.
Why?
</noscript>
LegoSuperBowser wrote:
LegoSuperBowser wrote: "Justin Beiber is an Idiot." is fine, but "Justin Beiber is a douchebag" isn't? Idiot is never used in a postive landmark, either. So even if I was joking saying I think "Sannse" is a douche bag, that wouldn't be okay, but if I called her an idiot in a joking way, that's fine? I'm sorry, but the two are parallel.
But "douche" isn't a curse, (just like buck or brick etc) but rather a word you don't want users to get their hands on anymore, I get that.
I think this actually sums it up pretty good. (I thought I should also note that I wouldn't be totally opposed to having idiot blocked either.)
Vonness11` wrote: I vote no, we don't block it.
Why?
LegoSuperBowser wrote: "Justin Beiber is an Idiot." is fine, but "Justin Beiber is a douchebag" isn't? Idiot is never used in a postive landmark, either. So even if I was joking saying I think "Sannse" is a douche bag, that wouldn't be okay, but if I called her an idiot in a joking way, that's fine? I'm sorry, but the two are parallel.
People are less likely to take offense to "idiot" than "douche". I've always viewed "douche" as a curse.
after talking with Spy, I don't really think this term should be allowed. much like "retard", it's never really used in a non-insulting context (there is one that can be used, but I've never seen it used here.) I'm fine with "idiot" being used in a non-serious context, but I've always viewed this one as a word where (joking or not) it's still offensive.
Yes.
TheShadowAssassin wrote: This could either work really well or fail hard, so it will be interesting to see.. I am indifferent, however..
Per this. A reason I'm hesitant to support is because someone would automatically oppose a user keeping their rights after getting kicked or banned for policy violations, and in some cases, that could pose a huge problem.
Samed5 wrote: Let me go a bit more into detail for my reason to oppose. It is highly illogical and nonsensical to demote moderators who have done nothing wrong. Most of our current mods have never done anything to deserve getting demoted, and there's no reason to demote them for a reason as trivial as there being 'too many mods'. Those 'extra' mods aren't hurting anyone, and if you're so OCD that you keep having to bring up demoting good moderators for nothing, you need to get a life. Furthermore, I and other older mods were promoted in a time when getting moderator rights was difficult, and you actually had to prove to the admins that you'd do good at the job. These days, getting mod rights is nothing but a popularity contest; the users whom everyone likes get the supports, while the people who just aren't that popular get opposed. If we decide to do this, we should also revote on all patrollers and admins. That's the only way it'd be fair.
Per this as well.
The only moderators that should no longer have their rights are the ones that aren't benefiting the community (mostly the ones that don't take care of situations when they should.)
Marcel77799 wrote:
Marcel77799 wrote:
Every CM online has taken care of a situation like you mention at least once so... And go and demote an active CM... You'll see what happens.
It really doesn't matter if they took care of a situation, it depends if they use their rights when they should. If an active mod complains that they were demoted even though they didn't use their rights when they should have, then I don't really understand their logic.
Marcel77799 wrote:
Well, how do we define "not doing their job". And if we do that... Man, that will make so people go mad... It's not a good idea TBH.
"not doing their job" is defined by not taking care of any sort of situations that happen. There would be no legitimate reason for people to get mad about this because the users in question didn't do anything anyways...
Goggles99 wrote:
Goggles99 wrote: No.
Because "retard" is not an official term for any form of intellectual disability. It's really only used jokingly (or not jokingly) as an insult these days. It's not like saying "autistic" or "bipolar" or "cancer victim" or "muslim". I assure you there is no doctor in the world that would actually classify anyone as being a "retard". If you forgot your car keys or wore you jacket inside out though, there are many people who will in friendly jest call you retard along with other words like idiot or silly or dumb...these are all harmless words that have the potential to be used wrongly. There is nothing wrong with the words themselves.
Also the last thing this wiki needs is more silly rules that do nothing but create more difficulty for the mods and more drama. I've never seen anyone here called a retard in a literal way that they can take offense to.
Keep it simple. Punish a user for attacking or bullying another user. Don't punish them for the particular words that they may or may not have used in their attack. Bullies will ALWAYS find a way to insult. Blocking a word like that will not help anyone.
If it's not an official medical term, that means there is no good context to use it in and just provides more reason for blocking it.
Goggles99 wrote: No.
Why?