SmashWiki talk:No personal attacks

Using profanity is not a personal attack

I believe that the policy should be edited to state something like: However, the use of profanity in itself does not constitute a personal attack after the line: Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors. This could clarify what personal attacks are, and perhaps dissuade users from making personal attacks in response to profanity (which they construe as a personal attack). e.g. This might not have happened in response to this if the user had known that profanity is not a personal attack per se. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Though I don't believe the situation you provided would have been solved by this amendment, I do support it as it is an unwritten rule we observe, and rules are better written than unwritten. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 10:11, 30 January 2012 (EST)

I would support clarifying in the policy that profanity does not necessarily constitute a personal attack, though I would oppose the discouraging of profanity, as it conflicts with the no censorship policy of SmashWiki. As for the linked situation, I doubt it would of turned out different if these amendments were made; I was frustrated at that point with Avengingbandit's refusal to read, I would of used the word "fucking" regardless of if profanity was discouraged or not, AB would have certainly blown up regardless of this policy clarifying that profanity isn't a PA, and my response as a whole was probably what set him off, rather than the word "fucking". Omega Tyrant 17:40, 30 January 2012 (EST)

The line, "Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors." is already in the policy. Are you proposing we remove it? DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 18:25, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Misread Mousehunter's post. I would propose removing it, as besides the aforementioned contradiction, its placement in the policy is out of place. Omega Tyrant 19:54, 30 January 2012 (EST)

I would support removing it, as it doesn't seem to fit the scope of the policy, nor is profanity prohibited. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} 21:28, 30 January 2012 (EST)

I agree that profanity in itself is not a personal attack, but nevertheless it is unnecessary in most situations and often times using profanity against someone simply provokes them to make ad hominem attacks in response. As per Omega Tyrant, there is a no censorship policy, but everything should be decided logically pertaining to the individual situation as opposed to blindly obeying a certain rule. For example, one could argue that disallowing personal attacks is itself in violation of the no censorship policy, but that is not true, because banning something that obviously shouldn't be done isn't considered "censorship." I for one am strongly against the casual usage of profanity because, again, I believe that it serves no purpose other than to aggravate others and there are young people on this wiki that shouldn't be exposed to that kind of behavior. Thus, I would propose that something be added to the article saying that throwing around profanity is strongly discouraged but not the same thing as a personal attack. Something can also be said about different levels of profanity, as some swear words are mild while others are rather severe. As of now, the only time the word "profanity" appears in the article is to say that "the use of profanity does not automatically constitute a personal attack," which, although true, gives off the wrong impression when nothing else is said about profanity whatsoever. Naked Snake 01:49, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

In my opinion, the only time profanity is used is when their is a heated argument, or when a personal attack will occur. Indeed, it does increase the chances of personal attacks and outrage in general. I'd have to agree with Naked Snake. The usage of profanity generally increases the tension and hatred in a discussion (excluding friendly conversations). Allowing it to be used freely increases the chances of a personal attack. MegaTron1XD 11:05, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

There's no real benefit to allowing profanities, it doesn't make anyone look more professional or particularly strengthen their argument, nor does it make the Wiki look any better off. I don't see much swearing in general here, The only user besides vandals I seemed to see it come out of was OT, but the encouragement is there. This site has registered users as young as 10, so while there shouldn't be any punishment for usage of profanities, it should be discouraged. Toast ltimatum 11:19, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I would agree that banning profanity completely is a bit overboard, but at least something should be written to discourage casually using profanity in talk pages (and it goes without saying, wiki pages themselves). Naked Snake 21:25, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Personally, I think this is a non-issue given how rare profanity seems to be. If profanity starts to become common enough to easily notice, then yeah we might need an official discouragement, but currently it seems unnecessary. Toomai Glittershine The Incomperable 21:31, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, there's no harm in discouraging it. The benefit of doing so is to prevent some people in the future from using profanity commonly. Not all policies have to be in response to something that's already a big problem, but rather something that could potentially be a problem (and has been a problem in many other websites and wikis). Naked Snake 21:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Yeah there's no harm in being proactive with discouragement. I do think, however, that it would be outside the scope of SW:NPA, and belong on SW:TALK or maybe SW:MoS. Toomai Glittershine The Quiet 21:42, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

I agree. How is it decided when these things are added/who writes the articles? Naked Snake 22:20, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Generally, things are implemented once we believe consensus on the discussion is achieved. It doesn't usually matter who does it. Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 22:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Support to let this achieve consensus more quickly. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, I might as well throw in my support as well. I can add a section to the Manual of Style if/when consensus is reached. Naked Snake 22:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

I know I'm a bit late but I'll throw in my support as well. ChuckNorris 16:37, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I added a section on profanity on the articles Toomai mentioned. Naked Snake 12:49, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Already mentioned on SW:NOT, so this would be kind of redundant. Mr. Anontalk 13:11, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Not everyone reads every article, especially ones that aren't as prominent. Naked Snake 13:14, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Users should be expected to have an understanding of all of the wiki's main policies. This includes SW:NOT. Mr. Anontalk 13:44, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

EC:I'd also like to note that on the history of that page, Dr. Pain proposed inserting language to discourage profanity, but he was reverted by his old pal Emmett. That would indicate that according to the way the policy has been interpreted, there is nothing officially discouraging profanity. Discouraging profanity is effectively trying to control people's opinions, as it is not just censoring the user of profanity, but also forces other users to view that kind of behavior in a negative light, regardless of whether they have a problem. If anyone here doesn't like the use of profanity, that is a personal opinion, and it will not be forced on other users. Mr. Anontalk 13:44, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Discouraging profanity

Naked Snake, while I applaud you being bold, wait for consensus before making such changes to policy pages. Look at the reasons given by myself, OT, and Dr. Pain on this talk page, as well as those by Emmett and Semicolon elsewhere. Mr. Anontalk 13:58, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Go look at the discussion above. The discussion that you refer to occurred quite a while ago, and I brought up a new point recently which has had general support from everyone besides you, so I felt that it achieved "consensus." It has been over a month since my initial suggestion, and Toomai said that anyone can go ahead and do it once consensus is reached. Referring to your point, then I could argue that disallowing personal attacks is also censoring users. It censors users that like attacking people, and it forces others to view these attackers in a negative light. So why is it not allowed? Because it's just a bad thing to do. Same goes with profanity, and keep in mind that I only suggested that it be discouraged, not banned. And it's not just my personal opinion that I don't "like" profanity, but rather that profanity opens paths to personal attacks, which aren't allowed. Some regulation and rules are always necessary so that things don't get out of hand. Your argument that all perceived censorship is bad would invalidate a lot of other policites. Naked Snake 15:23, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Anyways, I see that you reverted my edit already, but I won't get into an edit war with you or anything of that sort. I'll wait for an admin to come along and make a decision regarding this. Naked Snake 15:23, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Personal attacks are censored because allowing them would significantly impair the community's ability to collaborate. The same thing cannot be said for profanity. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word "fuck". There is something intrinsically wrong about calling another user a "fuckhead".

I offer this challenge: tell me how a wiki can "discourage" an activity without eventually handing out bans.

While Omega Tyrant and Dr. Pain have not commented yet, both of them are active users and probably still disagree. Mr. Anontalk 16:01, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

I agree with Anon with all due respect, I don't think we should discourage profanity on the basis that it's within the realm of possibility that someone under-age will make an account or that there are under-age users here. For one, by creating an account and proving to be constructive editors, they prove to be mature, and thus don't require any kind of parental clause in a policy protecting them. The fact is that it should be left alone since it's so specific. As stated above, there are numerous examples of Shadowcrest and OT using profanity in their walls of text without explicitly offending/personally attacking the user they're talking to. If a certain activity is to be discouraged, it might as well be confirmed to conflict with policies. For example, if SW:TALK were to "discourage" using talk pages in the fashion of a chat room, it would eventually need to be made against policy, therefore "discouraged" ultimately becomes "forbidden". Blue Ninjakoopa^(Talk) 18:04, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

If Omega Tyrant and Dr. Pain feel that way, then let them say it instead of simply assuming they will and using that as an argument. Regarding your actual argument, though, it then becomes a matter of personal opinion what counts as "impairing the community's ability to collaborate." Give me an example where the word "fuck" would actually benefit the discussion. It's easy to imagine a situation where it would start a flame war (e.g. "fuck you, your argument's gay and stupid"), or when it provokes others ("that's just fucking stupid shit" as opposed to "that's a stupid idea") but when would it actually help? When you use those words, you're generally attacking a person or an idea with no substance and just flaming.

Blue Ninjakoopa: I didn't say that only young people would be affected. Everyone has the potential to get angry and start insulting people, and on the internet a lot of insults come from cursing at people. Just because someone is not a ten year old doesn't mean they're mature and reasonable. Admins can make decisions for themselves regarding whether something is considered a personal attack because of profanity (see my example above). In that example, if the profanity was removed, then there would be nothing left. Writing to discourage profanity will make that person think twice before doing something like that and then they may decide not to use a personal attack after all.

I don't presume to be a know-it-all or right on everything. If the important people on the wiki are against this proposal, then so be it - I won't push it. Naked Snake 19:35, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, banning profanity won't stop profanity or flame wars. What does banning or discouraging profanity accomplish??? Nothing at all. Absolutely fucking nothing. If i say absolutely flipping nothing instead of absolutely fucking nothing, does the meaning change at all??? lol censorship. These are words in the English dictionary that somebody decided to call "bad". They are just like any other word. Grow up. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:16, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

And what does saying "absolutely fucking nothing" accomplish that "absolutely nothing" does not? Just because I don't like profanity doesn't make me immature. I simply proposed something out of a genuine concern to help, but what do I get? A rollbacker that insults me by telling me to "grow up" and makes fun of the situation.

Based on what I see here, I've decided that I'm not going to waste any more effort trying to push this cause. I will wait for an admin (or whoever is required) to review the discussion and make a final decision. I'll accept that decision, whatever it might be. Thanks for reading, everyone :) Naked Snake 23:57, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Absolutely fucking nothing conveys anger; absolutely nothing does not. And no, disliking profanity does not make you immature, but it's rather selfish of you to push for a discouragement on profanity just because you don't like it. If you don't like swear words, nobody said you had to use them, but don't take them away from the rest of us. Regardless, I do respect your "I'll back down if this isn't what the Wiki wants" attitude. Certain other users should stick to that more often. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 00:02, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Keep in mind that it is just as selfish of you to push not discouraging profanity. You disagree with me; there's nothing wrong with that. I'm only here to help, not to flame or insult anybody. You're a rollbacker, so you must have done something to help the wiki, and for that I do respect your opinion. Naked Snake 00:07, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

See, here is where your position has its fallacy: not restricting profanity is allowing more liberty, and allowing people to express their opinion. Restricting profanity imposes your opinion on others.

In some cases, restrictions can be made on behavior if the behavior detracts from other users; banning personal attacks protects the victims from unnecessary attacks. However, restricting profanity benefits nobody (note that racist/sexist language can be restricted under SW:NPA, so being "offended" can't really be used as a reason; there is no reason why the word "shit" is intrinsically offensive, as opposed to say, the N word). Mr. Anontalk 00:41, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

I think Semicolon argues this well, when he responded to a proposal to restrict profanity (proposed by none other than me, 3 years ago):

"There's a whole bunch of reasons why we shouldn't. Among them is that freedom of expression is something we value here on Smashwiki. Another reason is that what use is it to 'control' people's words? If I have to say 'flip' instead of fuck, what are you changing? You're changing a sequence of sounds that's completely arbitrary to the meaning. If it's the negative emotion that you are trying to keep away from yourself, then you're extremely naïve. If it's the combination of the sounds that make up the word fuck that you're afraid of, you're a retard. I'm going to assume you're not a retard, and it's the negative expression that you don't like. 1) Grow up. 2) Changing the word doesn't change the capacity to express negative emotions. 3) If we all start saying 'flip' and 'crap' and 's word' and 'witch' instead of what they really mean then we sound like a bunch of tools and immature 8 year olds who have sensitive ears. We're not changing the language policy."

Mr. Anontalk 00:10, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

No need to keep bringing up other peoples' opinions from the past, things can change with the times. As I said, I've already said all I wanted to. If the wiki decides that discouraging profanity is bad, then so be it. Naked Snake 00:13, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

I put his response because I think his argument still applies (minus rudeness of course). Mr. Anontalk 00:28, 8 August 2012 (EDT)