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

Super. I definitely agree that the ball should roll no further than this, though.

EDIT: Actually, no. There's that whole insect thing.

 

Uh oh.

 

Whats the "insect thing?"

 

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.

 

It's about time the rule got changed.

2008-2009 L.A. Lakers: World Champions!

 

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...

 

It's probably just you missing something.

 

can we say WAF if we're not specifically referring to 'the' F, but just in general to 'a' F?

 

Well, huzzah.

 

I imagine he means that you can still get banned for posting a cartoon drawing of a bee next to the letter S.

 

Is this the change Obama was talk'n about?

 

Oh.

Well, that's dumb.

So who do we talk to about repealing the whole rule about starring out any acronym whatsoever?

 

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?

 

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.

 

The very concept of using logic was foreign to this entire affair.

 

Thank you, Jello

 

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?

 

Best explanation so far.

2008-2009 L.A. Lakers: World Champions!

 

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.

 

Yes, your monthly fees will double. Sorry, its the price you pay

 

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.

 

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.