SmashWiki talk:No personal attacks: Difference between revisions
Naked Snake (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Naked Snake (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::::I would support removing it, as it doesn't seem to fit the scope of the policy, nor is profanity prohibited. '''''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=red>D<font color=#DC0000>o<font color=#A50000>c<font color=#6E0000>t<font color=#370000>o<font color=black>rP</font>a</font>i</font>n</font>9</font>9</font>]]''''' [[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<sub>{ROLLBACKER}</sub>]] 21:28, 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. '''''[[User:Dr. Pain 99|<font color=red>D<font color=#DC0000>o<font color=#A50000>c<font color=#6E0000>t<font color=#370000>o<font color=black>rP</font>a</font>i</font>n</font>9</font>9</font>]]''''' [[Special:Contributions/Dr. Pain 99|<sub>{ROLLBACKER}</sub>]] 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 | 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. [[User:Naked Snake|<font color="darkgreen" size="2px">'''Naked'''</font>]] [[User talk:Naked Snake|<font color="darkgreen" size="2px">'''Snake'''</font>]] [[File:200px-Naked Snake.jpg |19px|]] 01:49, 6 July 2012 (EDT) |
Revision as of 00:49, July 6, 2012
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)