I want SS back.
Kydle wants SS back too and thus all your arguments are invalid. Kydle overrules all.
Who's with me?
Support: 2
Opposed to adding (SS) back: 17
Consensus
Do not add (SS) back.
5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Bourgeoisie
Jdude420 wrote: Moved to CV, and added "Support: Oppose:". I oppose, it was abused a lot in the past and I'm pretty sure it would be again if it was put back up.
then remove every other emote that's been abused:
- (bb)
- :)
- ;)
- (yup)
- :]
and the list goes on
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
invalid reason
Slicer Vorzakh wrote: no
no u
1v1 irl
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Benboy755 wrote:
TheShadowAssassin wrote:
ToneTyphoon wrote:
It's never been abused like SS...... so there's no real issue here.
It's not about how frequently it is used, rather, it is about the context in which it is used.
It's never been abused like SS...... so there's no real issue here.
Context notwithstanding, it's still just an animated LEGO emote.
But swear words are just words. It's how things are used that makes them inappropriate. :)
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
ToneTyphoon wrote: It's never been abused like SS...... so there's no real issue here.
Oh but I know some things that are abused. 
</noscript>
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Just curious, but emotes like (bb) still exist, but why was SS removed? Can we get SS back because BB is surely more suggestive and innuendo-ish.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
I think there should not be a "one size fits all" policy set up that predetermines what a moderator should do. That's what a moderator is there for: Use their judgement to make the best-suited actions for the given situation. You can't apply a predefined set of actions to take for every situation. It just doesn't work. Not every form of abuse/disruption in chat is the same, so you can't expect that the "solution" to that abuse/disruption will always be the same. I definitely have to agree with Goggles99: If a moderator is unable to apply common sense and good judgement to solve a problem without having to follow a predefined set of rules on how to handle a situation, they shouldn't be a moderator.
Additionally, there shouldn't be a count to the number of warnings. Warnings generally don't do much. Communication, however, solves problems more than warning, kicking, banning, blocking, etc. I often see moderators oppressing their opinions above other people as warnings like "Stop" without really explaining what or why. A good skill to apply when moderating chat (or moderating anything) is "trying on someone else's shoes", in other words, view the situation from their point of view. Maybe they aren't trying to be disruptive? Maybe you're interpreting their comment differently than they meant to say it? That's why bluntly warning someone doesn't solve problems. However, if you communicate with them, like asking them what they meant by their comment, and then sharing your interpretation of it, gets things across better. It resolves conflict, solves problems, and overall makes chat much smoother and peaceful for everyone.
This has been your daily dose of advice from me.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Avalair wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
I don't think I've heard anyone say that since 3rd grade.
Lilac Neko wrote: No, don't unblock. It's unnecessary. You can easily use other unblocked phrases like "that ticked me off."
People say it all the time in chat...
</noscript> Or are you talking about IRL only?
Anywhere
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Lilac Neko wrote: No, don't unblock. It's unnecessary. You can easily use other unblocked phrases like "that ticked me off."
I don't think I've heard anyone say that since 3rd grade.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Jdude420 wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
Well technically if you had no redxs, that doesn't really mean it's allowed. You can always ask people not to use certain words (and obviously you're never going to be able to make everything that could be offensive into a redx filter (and if you try to add every possible offensive statement to the filter, that'll be the last day I'm a user here)).
Jdude420 wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
I didn't say it isn't Brickimedia, but I used it for reference that even without redx-ing words, there's nothing there encouraging people to use those words you don't like. Redx or not, I doubt there will people other than trolls using them.
I believe you mean "I didn't say this is Bricki"? :P
I didn't say it isn't Brickimedia, but I used it for reference that even without redx-ing words, there's nothing there encouraging people to use those words you don't like. Redx or not, I doubt there will people other than trolls using them.
And I also never said I supported unblocking all the redxs, so there's no need to get that defensive.
Whether or not the word(s) would be commonly used is beside the point, it would still be an allowed word - and if it's allowed on chat it's allowed on the Wiki. Which anyone can see, including prospective MBers who may wish to join.
The initial paragraph wasn't aimed at you, but rather was a general statement. I apologize if I sounded overly defensive.
Valid point. Oh, yes I agree - trying to block every possible offensive word would be rather silly, but words that are commonly found offensive (especially by Christians [more specifically Christian homeschoolers]) like the f-word, s-word, or other words should obviously not be allowed, IMO.
I won't disagree with the two examples you listed but what does christian homeschoolers have to do with it
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
Jdude420 wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
I didn't say it isn't Brickimedia, but I used it for reference that even without redx-ing words, there's nothing there encouraging people to use those words you don't like. Redx or not, I doubt there will people other than trolls using them.
I didn't say it isn't Brickimedia, but I used it for reference that even without redx-ing words, there's nothing there encouraging people to use those words you don't like. Redx or not, I doubt there will people other than trolls using them.
And I also never said I supported unblocking all the redxs, so there's no need to get that defensive.
I believe you mean "I didn't say this is Bricki"? :P
Whether or not the word(s) would be commonly used is beside the point, it would still be an allowed word - and if it's allowed on chat it's allowed on the Wiki. Which anyone can see, including prospective MBers who may wish to join.
The initial paragraph wasn't aimed at you, but rather was a general statement. I apologize if I sounded overly defensive.
Well technically if you had no redxs, that doesn't really mean it's allowed. You can always ask people not to use certain words (and obviously you're never going to be able to make everything that could be offensive into a redx filter (and if you try to add every possible offensive statement to the filter, that'll be the last day I'm a user here)).
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
I didn't say it isn't Brickimedia, but I used it for reference that even without redx-ing words, there's nothing there encouraging people to use those words you don't like. Redx or not, I doubt there will people other than trolls using them.
And I also never said I supported unblocking all the redxs, so there's no need to get that defensive.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
I'mDivergent wrote:
General-Han wrote: NO! DON'T unblock it! Please. I find it quite offensive. Please don't....
I can see you not liking it. But how do you find it "offensive"? It's just a harsher term for pee.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
I'll put it out there that at Bricki we don't have any words filtered, but never do I see people using words that you guys would consider "redxs". I don't think it's necessary to remove them all, but at the same time I don't think it would have any negative effect. They'd still be frowned upon here, redx or not, so I doubt many people (except those who like to test the rules obviously) would even think about using them.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
LegoSuperBowser wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
No wrong or right answer to this as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with you opposing because of your friends, or supporting for your own interests, but I do have a problem if you're trying to make people feel bad about supporting.
^^^
FortressOfNight wrote:
LegoSuperBowser wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
Not holding the interests of another person who you have never met, who lives across the world, who you only talk to sometimes, above your own is hardly "the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation". Trying to guilt trip people into changing their votes, however, may be.I have to agree with Fort. You can't expect the whole community to cater to a few users just because they have silly parents. The community has the right to vote on changes they see as beneficial. If it impedes upon a select few's interests, that's not really worth scrapping everyone else's interests for.
So you have to decide which side you're willing to lose; the majority or the minority. No one ever cares about the minority, so generally people will just say farewell and go on living their wonderful chat days in peace with their fellow friends. What I'm getting at is, why does it have to be that way, when both silly parent's kids and mature parents kids can be on the same site with the "mature" parents kids "suffering" to a degree by not using their preferred words? Is that too selfish to ask? That it seems is the question.
FortressOfNight wrote:
GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
Starrocks923 wrote:
He's meaning to say that voting A while knowing a number of users' presence on this site depends on is the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation, and I, quite frankly, don't disagree. Avalair wrote:
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
The purpose of voting to unblock the word Piss could be for other friends who would want to use it, but yes, the main purpose of it is for users who individually want to keep using it.
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
Just sayin'
I thought that was self-explanatory, though?
But at the same time, there is a point where some people need to set the line on what their parents let them do/not do. I'm not saying be a rambunctious child with no respect for parents, but at the same time your parents don't always realize what's good/bad, which is where you make choices based on what you think is in your best interest. Not your parents' idea of your best interest necessarily. Obviously LMBW is a place where a lot of you manage to socialize with people you all get along with—that's a really good thing for you to have in your life. Don't just let your parents take that away from you because they think it's not good for you for some silly reason such as words that are allowed/disallowed.
Hh my goodness that text I almost needed to zoom in 
TBH, my parents don't like me being on here because of it being a time waster. Which considering all the gaming I do, I'd rather waste time here than in a video game. That's not rebutting my parents, but managing my time. I don't agree with you about not listening to your parents about certain things you should be able to make decision on yourself, I think that's one of the major problems with today's world, parents letting their kids make choices themselves that from an early age they shouldn't be making themselves. But that's my personal opinion, and certainly subjective. But I agree with Fort, don't make people feel bad about their vote.
If I didn't "waste" my time on the internet like my parents used to think I was doing, I'd be nowhere in life. I'd be the typical 17 year old who works a minimum wage part time job while balancing my schedule with grade school. But I'm not, since I benefited so much from spending lots of time online in online communities (wikis, forums, etc). I'm not trying to brag but by living your life guiding yourself, you grow faster and have more ideas that make you benefit more in the long run (and short term too). I'm making more money than most people my age, am in college, and have gained so many more social skills and friends since a few years ago when I was just an awkward quiet kid in middle school lol. My parents thankfully realized that I've gained a lot of skills from the amount of time I spend on the computer. It's not about not listening to your parents like you thought I was saying. You know yourself better than your parents do though, so at some point you should be able to tell them that you know what is best for you in situations like your online habits. Since they're your parents, they should trust you to do what helps you. If they disregard what helps you and tell you not to be spending time online, that's not good. They're preventing you from expanding your intellectual and social development that you get from interacting in an online community like this.
</noscript>
This is super off topic though so if you want to reply in this conversation just bring it to my message wall or something ^_^
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
FortressOfNight wrote:
LegoSuperBowser wrote:
Bourgeoisie wrote:
Not holding the interests of another person who you have never met, who lives across the world, who you only talk to sometimes, above your own is hardly "the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation". Trying to guilt trip people into changing their votes, however, may be.
I have to agree with Fort. You can't expect the whole community to cater to a few users just because they have silly parents. The community has the right to vote on changes they see as beneficial. If it impedes upon a select few's interests, that's not really worth scrapping everyone else's interests for.
FortressOfNight wrote:
GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
Starrocks923 wrote:
He's meaning to say that voting A while knowing a number of users' presence on this site depends on is the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation, and I, quite frankly, don't disagree.
Avalair wrote:
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
The purpose of voting to unblock the word Piss could be for other friends who would want to use it, but yes, the main purpose of it is for users who individually want to keep using it.
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
Just sayin'
I thought that was self-explanatory, though?
So you have to decide which side you're willing to lose; the majority or the minority. No one ever cares about the minority, so generally people will just say farewell and go on living their wonderful chat days in peace with their fellow friends. What I'm getting at is, why does it have to be that way, when both silly parent's kids and mature parents kids can be on the same site with the "mature" parents kids "suffering" to a degree by not using their preferred words? Is that too selfish to ask? That it seems is the question.
No wrong or right answer to this as far as I'm concerned. I don't have a problem with you opposing because of your friends, or supporting for your own interests, but I do have a problem if you're trying to make people feel bad about supporting.
^^^
But at the same time, there is a point where some people need to set the line on what their parents let them do/not do. I'm not saying be a rambunctious child with no respect for parents, but at the same time your parents don't always realize what's good/bad, which is where you make choices based on what you think is in your best interest. Not your parents' idea of your best interest necessarily. Obviously LMBW is a place where a lot of you manage to socialize with people you all get along with—that's a really good thing for you to have in your life. Don't just let your parents take that away from you because they think it's not good for you for some silly reason such as words that are allowed/disallowed.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)
FortressOfNight wrote:
GuacamoleCCXR wrote:
Starrocks923 wrote:
Avalair wrote:
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
The purpose of voting to unblock the word Piss could be for other friends who would want to use it, but yes, the main purpose of it is for users who individually want to keep using it.
Voting for A is pretty selfish...
Just sayin'
I thought that was self-explanatory, though?
He's meaning to say that voting A while knowing a number of users' presence on this site depends on is the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation, and I, quite frankly, don't disagree.
Not holding the interests of another person who you have never met, who lives across the world, who you only talk to sometimes, above your own is hardly "the most selfish, uncivil and downright despicable way to act in this situation". Trying to guilt trip people into changing their votes, however, may be.
I have to agree with Fort. You can't expect the whole community to cater to a few users just because they have silly parents. The community has the right to vote on changes they see as beneficial. If it impedes upon a select few's interests, that's not really worth scrapping everyone else's interests for.
(Edited by Bourgeoisie)