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)