SmashWiki talk:No personal attacks

Add topic
Revision as of 21:28, January 30, 2012 by Dr. Pain 99 (talk | contribs)

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)