[This Again] Can we get rid of the WT* rule yet? - RULE CHANGED

Discussion in 'Communications' started by AaylaSecurOWNED, Dec 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Everton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    Super. I definitely agree that the ball should roll no further than this, though.

    EDIT: Actually, no. There's that whole insect thing. :p
  2. JoinTheSchwarz Comms Admin & Community Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2002
    star 8
  3. FlareStorm Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2000
    star 6
    Whats the "insect thing?"
  4. Jedi_Reject_Jesse Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2004
    star 7
    Never did like the "keep it PG" guideline. I can think of a few choice screencaps from THX 1138 (PG) that would get me banned.
    The PG-13 notion leaves an even bigger hole...
    So I'd agree with BF2K on this issue.
  5. DarthTunick SfC Part III Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 10
    It's about time the rule got changed.:)

    2008-2009 L.A. Lakers: World Champions!:cool:
  6. Spider-Fan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    Perhaps its a product of having just woken up, but I am not following the logic of allowing this specific acronym leeway but not others of a similar nature. Wouldn't the same logic that applies to being lenient to this apply to other similar acronyms?

    The only thing I can imagine would justify WTF over others (mil*, b* etc) would be to give the people what they demanded, which seems so utterly backwards to me. If people complain enough and harass MS enough they can have anything changed?? That seems like dangerous precedent to set.

    If it was a matter of agreeing that its ridiculous to censor the individual letter, why does that not apply to other accronyms?? Because 50% of mods didn't want it?? It seems like an illogical and ridiculous accommodation, especially when Wise has apparently approved the change. You would think the heart of the issue is not a single acronym but the censoring of single letters of certain acronyms in general, and that WTF was merely representative.

    I'm usually cool with most decisions made by MS or can at least understand the logic, but this seems like such a ridiculous ruling and has completely missed the point. Or is it me missing something here, because this really just doesn't make sense to me...
  7. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    It's probably just you missing something.
  8. GIMER Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2000
    star 6
    can we say WAF if we're not specifically referring to 'the' F, but just in general to 'a' F?
  9. Katya Jade Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2002
    star 7
  10. AaylaSecurOWNED Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    I imagine he means that you can still get banned for posting a cartoon drawing of a bee next to the letter S.
  11. darth_gersh Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2005
    star 6
    Is this the change Obama was talk'n about?
  12. AaylaSecurOWNED Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    Oh.

    Well, that's dumb.

    So who do we talk to about repealing the whole rule about starring out any acronym whatsoever?
  13. Only-One Cannoli Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2003
    star 7
    Ok so, we're allowed to say wtf now - does that or does that not include family friendly porn? Because wtf and porn are really connected on the internet, where do we draw the line?
  14. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    It was a compromise measure because considerable numbers in MS were not comfortable in allowing every abbreviation with profanity. WTF made it because we specifically focused debate on that initialism and an argument was made that, culturally, the three letters are sufficient in representing an idea of shock and surprise without necessarily implying the profanity contained therein. That is, the three letters can stand on their own.

    Similarly, as per (earlier) MS discussions, the acronym "snafu" has turned into a word on its own and is no longer closely associated with the acronym it came from (and a distinction was drawn between that and *ubar).

    Confusing? Yes. Inconsistent? Probably, but this kind of razor-thin rationality was the only way the policy could be changed. Baby steps, people.
  15. Spider-Fan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    The logic of the ruling still baffles. I get its a compromise, but frankly I would rather see MS stick to their guns about a subject then compromise over a single acronym but continue with old policy concerning the matter as a whole. Especially since Dani was using precedent as a matter of logic to question the policy (and its inconsistency) to begin with.
  16. Strilo Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2001
    star 8
    The very concept of using logic was foreign to this entire affair.
  17. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Spider-Fan: MS is not a monolith. There are easily as many opinions in MS as there are outside of it regarding enforcement, the interests of the community, etc etc. This decision was not made simply to appease a few people as you seem to suggest--but rather, was a discussion between mods involving user feedback. It was as much a compromise to appease mods of different opinions as anything else.

    People have different opinions--that's a fact of life. We can see that right here: you disagree with the other users, and I am sure there are some who agree with you. That's fine--sometimes compromises require sacrificing nice, clear distinctions. Our main goal was to find a way to allow at least one acronym (the most prevalent and oft-protested one) with at least some sense of clarity and consistency in policy: and the reason we found for our exception was that WTF had transcended the words it represents.

    So there were no "guns" to stick to--this isn't the userbase mowing over MS. For historical disclosure, too, this rule was never from MS to begin with: it was an owner mandate. Over time, it seems, some mods in MS decided that they liked the rule. Some mods never did. That happens.

    But oversimplifying it is probably part of what makes the reasoning so opaque to you.
  18. Rogue...Jedi Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2000
    star 7
  19. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 8
    For a brief way to understand how this happened, consider the situation with the healthcare bill in the US. You know, back room deals and "my way or the highway" and arm twisting and finagling and all that stuff - and eventually we will get a bill, just an unbearably lame one that is at least better than no bill at all.

    Essentially, this rule change was that only it didn't take quite as long. And, oh, yes, we were changing a rule about our profanity list and not trying to provide healthcare to millions of people. But the rules are different on the internet, no?
  20. DarthTunick SfC Part III Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 10

    Best explanation so far.

    2008-2009 L.A. Lakers: World Champions!:cool:
  21. Jada Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2006
    star 6
    If this whole thing was worked out with backroom deals, arm twisting and this is the change we got are we going to see an increase in our monthly user fees? I don't know if I can pay much more to post on these forums.
  22. Rogue...Jedi Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2000
    star 7
    Yes, your monthly fees will double. Sorry, its the price you pay :)
  23. Dingo Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    Is this the absolute best, most consistent, most logically straight forward rule in the world? Hell no.

    But here's some historical perspective for you. Back when I first became a moderator, there was no such thing as a profanity list. Moderation of language was done to a standard of general decency (or otherwise referred to as the "Simpsons Rule"). Over time though people pushed the envelope with finding more and more language to try and offend, while others took offence at every little word that did not fit into their perfect mode of language use.

    Thus we had as one of the first tasks undertaken when I became an admin was to have to be as pedantic as telling everyone what they were and were not allowed to say. That list started off with about a third of the entries that are there today. Over time more and more have been added to both parts of the listing because one rule breeds more.

    So we've come to the point where we have to split hairs rather finely. And this is because there is such a big difference between the more conservative view on language use and that of the more liberal view. It's a distinction that is reflected in both the user base and also the moderators, be it personal opinions or opinions representing their respective forums. We can rail against it and say that this kind of rule making is in principle anaethemic to what we should be doing, but is it fair to either side to force something through in the name of expediency? The idea of acronyms and other replacement language was brought up and had even more differing viewpoints, and so it was narrowed to this one issue. If it is something that needs further visiting, there isn't anything preventing all of us looking at the wider situation if so needed.
  24. Grimby Technical Consultant

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2000
    star 7
    Indeed. Taking into account how rare this situation is in the first place (deciding whether or not to change a longstanding forum rule), it's not surprising that settling on a compromise would be the end result. To be honest, I doubt this will be the last amendment ever made to this rule.
  25. Spider-Fan Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    To be clear my issue isn't with the rule, one way or the other. Never was, and I found the duration and veracity of the debate to be...ridiculous.

    My issue is with the application of the rules. If any mod knows me or talks to a mod with whom I have had a lengthy discussion, my big issue around here is the consistent application of rules. I don't see the point in having board wide policy of that policy isn't being applied the same board wide. In this instance I don't see what good it does to compromise on policy. If a majority ruling can't be met to change policy, then policy shouldn't be changed.

    I get its a complicated matter and there is a lot of history, a lot of bad blood and there are a lot of opinions to take into account. I am glad to see you guys are trying to find a solution, but I still don't see what this solves to make a single exception, when the heart of the matter was the issue of censoring accronyms as a whole. Again I don't care about the issue one way or the other. I just want to see the ruling, whatever is decided applied evenly, and address the larger issue, not a single acronym.

    Apparently that's an unreasonable expectation.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.