Guild Wars Wiki talk:No profanity/Talk Archive1

Pre-draft suggestions

I spent a little time coming up with 2 plausible alternatives to coming up with a list of words to prohibit. As the wiki is a user-controlled and regulated entity (for the most part), I feel that these proposals offer a community-based way to deal with excessive profanity on the wiki.

1. User:Elviondale/Profanity - Would allow for the user tagging of offensive content and given enough concurrence, would allow for the removal of content.
2. User:Elviondale/Profanity2 - More hands-off in terms of content control, but allows users to tag pages with an 'offensive warning' template. Given enough concurrence, a message would be displayed to visitors to the page.

-elviondale (tahlk) 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Profanity isn't the problem, trolling is. Cutting down on swearing would solve nothing. -Auron 01:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then as sysops, figure out a way to stop it. I'm trying to do my part here. I've seen nothing in terms of suggestions from anyone with the power to do something more than revert- its just been idle chatter. -elviondale (tahlk) 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pretty much given up on this topic. They don't care enough to ban asshats based on general asshattery, and it would be stupid on our part to have to write a policy detailing what asshattery is just to get bans on said individuals. If the sysops aren't banning them now, they won't ban them then. -Auron 01:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we detail what that is (and is that the new buzzword or what?). I understand that the sysops might not want to rule the wiki with an iron fist, but its a bit obvious that something needs to be done with even an ANet employee gets involved. If you read my suggestions at all, you'll realize that they aren't about penalizing people for using the f-word or coming up with a list of b& words. If you find something offensive, users can tag it as such and with enough agreement either a warning appears and/or content is removed and user is blocked for a period to reflect. -elviondale (tahlk) 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way Auron, I think you're just a little mad cause the asshats won, mirite? I also don't think even if you did care about this topic that it would in any way be any better than it is now. --- Raptors / RAAA!

Elvion, I can't support either of your proposals because they simply don't accomplish the goal at hand, which is to remove things that are generally considered offensive. 5 people out of the thousands that view this wiki is hardly significant - if 5 people decide that they don't like the word "blue", should that be removed from a page? Yes, you specify certain categories - but even those categories are subjective. Suppose someone deems an image of a female elementalist in Istani armor as "pornographic" - should 5 people who share their beliefs be able to remove that from the wiki? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that that kind of argument can continue forever without reaching a solution. Clearly some content is obviously provocative and offensive to some, and there should be a method to deal with that. Yes, it may be that on occasion the poster may feel they were censored unfairly - but that's a frequent result of people's actions being removed because of policy. If somebody is going to post something like "F**K F**K" etc. all over the place, for example, there should be no need to hesitate to remove it. And excuse me for barging my way into policy discussion unintroduced. :) Biscuits 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

@Aiiane - While I understand that 5 is far from a majority (and a value picked at random), I think that represents enough of a consensus that something is clearly offensive. As to your example of word 'blue'- thats prevented according to the guidelines proposed in the first one, and regarding the female elementalist, since its in the game as official content released from ANet and therefore meets guidelines set forth by the ESRB. If you disagree with what I have 'proposed', feel free to come up with something yourself. People are good at sitting on their hands and doing nothing besides shooting everything else down. My pride is not hurt when you say my ideas suck (even though you didn't quite use that language), but I would appreciate the admins, specifically, who have a little bit of influence and weight to throw around to realize that this is a serious issue and they need to contribute in some way or another. In no way am I calling for an overthrow of you guys/girls or am asking that everyone step down- I'm asking that you understand the need for a (concrete) policy of some sort regarding offensive material so that additions to the wiki such as Raptors' have official sysop responses and action. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against Elviondale's drafts as they are guided by what is basically voting, and voting doesn't really accomplish anything, IMO. For example, someone who has a few friends and is willing to troll could just go to any page (like the Elementalist Sunspear example given above) and get 5 people to "vote" that it's offensive. I think the problem here is more a question of how does the community want to deal with this. We could have a very detailed policy listing everything that isn't allowed, but we know that someone is going to find a way to slip in the cracks of said policy and troll anyway. In other hand, we could have a very open policy just saying "trolling is forbidden", and leave it to each user/sysop/etc to judge what is trolling and what isn't. Again, this has the problem of not only relying too much on the judgment of the users/sysops/whatever, but also those users who are willing to troll could just go to a random user's page and accuse him of trolling - without any policy saying exactly what trolling is, that kind of accusation could be thrown around endlessly. Erasculio 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you leave it to the sysops to decide what is trolling and what isn't, they could all have different views. There's no way that could work. --- Raptors / RAAA!

Ever been to a fanforum? Between that kind of "agreement" between moderators and what the community here decides by electing (or not) those who apply to the position of sysops, we could have a fairly decent system of sysops deciding what is trolling what isn't. However, I don't like this system, nor would I want it for the wiki - I still think that sysops should have only a janitorial role, and making this kind of decision (even if it does qualify as taking the trash away : P) would go slightly beyond that. But a specific policy of what is allowed and what isn't prevents users from using common sense. Erasculio 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Erasculio- everything you mentioned I've already debunked and explicitly worked around what you said. At least read my suggestions before you bash more of them. Until anyone can come up with a suitable alternative, I guess I really can't take any of the naysayers seriously. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an alternative - the current absence of a policy is better than your suggestion. It is open for the exact kind of abuse I mentioned - tell me, how does your draft counter someone claiming that the Elementalist Sunspear armor is sexual content, so it's offensive, and getting four other contributors to agree? Erasculio 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

and regarding the female elementalist, since its in the game as official content released from ANet and therefore meets guidelines set forth by the ESRB

You'd rather this whole ordeal happen over and over again rather than have a reasonable policy in place preventing the situation we just had? That seems a bit ludicrous to me. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is irrelevant. I didn't ask about how you could reply to the claim that the Sunspear armor is sexual content - I asked how your policy draft could answer it, and so far it does not mention anything about being guided by ESRB or not. A bad system (and for the reasons I stated, your draft is, to me, a bad system) only promotes more abuse, instead of helping the wiki. I would rather have a decent, well-thought policy in place instead of something hurried and thus flawed. Erasculio 03:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means start typing. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. As I mentioned, I would rather have a well-thought policy as opposed to just rushing into writting whatever, hoping eventually someone would be able to make something half decent. What this issue needs is exactly what is happening on this page (other than you being unwilling to accept criticism) - a discussion of what the policy needs to achieve, of how limiting it must be, and then, only then, for a policy draft to be written. I have already added my thoughts on two ways I see for this policy to act, and I wish the discussion turned in that direction instead of lingering any longer on the quality of your draft. Erasculio 03:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How am I not accepting criticism? Honestly... you sit there bashing my ideas, and thats fine- go for it. But don't sit back in your chair and say 'that idea sucks' without contributing more than your 'thoughts on two ways' already lost in the text- when, clearly, you don't care to see any change at all. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to say it in a different way, then: I like the fact you tried to find a way to deal with the problem "right now", and I am trying to find a way to change the current situation (given recent events), otherwise I would just ignore this discussion. But I think this issue is a very complex one - something that is going to require a lot more discussion between the community, as the changes it requires are things that could (possibly) move the entire role of sysops in a different direction. We are also trying to deal with abuse done by contributors, so we must be ready to deal with any loophole the contributors themselves could find. Is it frustrating to have to worry about such small things and that kind of loophole before being able to actually take action? Yes, it is, if I could I would like to just ban the trolls, it's not like it's hard to find them. But in order to prevent any kind of abuse in the future, we don't have many options other than going slowly now. Erasculio 04:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's reasonable- I guess I'm just disappointed at the lack of gusto compared with yesterday and the absence of any indication that anything was being done-especially from those that decried that the issue died down last time. check at the bottom of the next thread for more... -elviondale (tahlk) 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"I think that represents enough of a consensus" (with regards to the 5-people number) - you can't represent consensus with a number of people. What if 5 people think it is, and 10 people think it isn't? Is that consensus? By your reasoning, it would be, but that's not what consensus is. I'm against any solution based off of simply a certain number of people saying it's offensive, with no consideration of the reasoning of those who may not consider it to be, because that's the very basis of an exclusionist policy and not one that is in any way conducive to the goals of the wiki. You ask for the suggestions of the sysops, so I'd point you to here: [1]. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'd rather have a policy regarding this than an arbitration committee. You've already denounced 5 as an appropriate number, how can an arbitration committee really be that more effective than 5 individuals? I mean granted, there is a bit more accountability (quite a bit more). I would rather see the committee-that-hasn't-been-enacted-yet (correct?) handle matters where the content deemed offensive has been done so errantly and the author seeks some name-clearing. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not denounced 5 as a number, I've denounced any policy that's based on exclusionist principles. It could be 1, 3, 5, 20, 100, or even 1000, and I'd still be against it, because it takes none of the opposing arguments into account. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so then if someone legitimately opposes the labeling of something as offensive, bring it up before the arbitration committee. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what I mean when I say "exclusionist". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing aside any thoughts that what you said might be condescending in nature, yes, I know what 'exclusionist' means. You seem to be looking past that my thoughts are entirely community-based except in the occasion that there is a legitimate argument for keeping said content in the wiki. Anything less than getting every single member of the wiki (including b& accounts and so forth) together for any sort of decision would be exclusionary in nature, so that's not too practical of an application. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be condescending and looking at your response, you are indeed misunderstanding what I'm referring to. I'm referring to excluding content, not excluding individuals in making decisions. In essence, it should not be harder to add content to this wiki than it is to remove it, which is what your proposals would make be the case. It is much more likely that any given content will be good content as opposed to bad content, and thus the chance that a malicious user would take advantage of an easy way to remove content is greater than the chance that a non-malicious user would need to resort to asking ArbComm to remove content, thus, it's favorable to require ArbComm intervention to remove content, rather than to require ArbComm intervention to keep content from being removed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok- that clarifies things a bit. When you had mentioned exclusion, it was surrounded by numbers, so I thought in context it was referring to the exclusion of members. I see your point, however its just as easy now to remove content from a page. The policy (ideally) wouldn't protect anyone from the consequences of tagging and/or removing content- it simply offers an accepted way to label something as offensive (especially look at my 2nd idea, which calls for only the warning at the top and no removal of content. I understand that that message could have an impact on the design of a user page, but something like guildwiki's butt-ugly Wikia absorption would even suffice if a minimalistic approach was to be taken... something that if a parent sees, they know that if they have a peeping-little-Billy sitting behind them, they probably shouldn't scroll any further down. This however would not give anyone the license to go crazy with adding links to goatse... so some sort of moderation would still be needed- similar to what was done to the aforementioned link. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I wish to make a small correction on your part elviondale: [...]but its a bit obvious that something needs to be done with even an ANet employee gets involved. (your comment, dated 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)). Please see this thread and especially Gaile's responses. Gaile was acting as a member of the wiki, NOT in her presence as an A.Net employee. (Although I understand that people might think that her voice does seem to weigh a bit more then others.)

I'm going to hold out on voicing my opinion on this proposed policy discussion, as I haven't thought it over enough. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "the committee-that-hasn't-been-enacted-yet (correct?)"

To clarify: The arbitration commitee has already been elected. However there is currently some discussion about which cases the arbitration committee should work on. --Xeeron 12:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Corrran and Xeeron for clarification. I read numerous times Gaile's clarification that she is approaching this as a wiki member only, but still- thats like Alan Greenspan going up to a friend and saying- "I'm just saying this as a friend, but that's probably not a wise investment". -elviondale (tahlk) 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any such policy. The last thing we need are self-appointed wiki morality police. If a userpage offends you, simply refuse to read it, and perhaps ask the user in question to tone it down on their talk page. —Tanaric 23:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, duh. —The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Skakid9090. 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the point of this at all. The responsibility isn't to avoid it, its to disallow it and to not post it at all. @Tanaric's flawed logic- I'm sorry, but in order to choose not to read something, you must have already read it; and in a case like Raptors, its blatantly in-your-face. I haven't seen anyone pushing for banning words deftly used within a sentence- its outright offensiveness that needs to be prevented. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of people on here that haven't been desensitized by fragging people for the past 16 years in the latest FPS. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a fascist, kids. — Skakid9090 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about being a facist and that glib response misses the point that others are trying to make. It was more than slightly suggested by Gaile that we have to come up with some kind of policy as if this wiki continues to include content which could be deemed contrary to anets interest and the T for teen rating in their view, could result in this wiki being reconsidered by anet. (I am well aware that Gaile tried to clarify these points later, but I personally dont see how it mitigated what she said in the first instance). Personally I appreciate the effort put into this by Erasculio, Aiiane and Elviondale. Please Elvion dont be offended by my following comments, as i think you have invested alot into this topic and are truly trying your best, but i have to agrre with some others in that i dont like the idea of a voting system. I may be oversimplifying the issue in the extreme and i apologise in advance if i am, but consdiering that this Wiki is hosted on the GW servers and that it is accessible in game, would it not be wise to do as Thor suggested and perhaps try and dicern what anet wouldn't allow one to say in "All Chat". This by extension may be the groundings for what people on this wiki are not allowed to put up either. It seems logical to me that if the game prohibits certain things from being said, then the official wiki should follow this train of reasoning and hus make the same things disallowed. Again maybe thats a mass oversimplification, but it might be a good starting point. Ultimately though, we do have to come up with something. This isnt about an arguement of the ethics and morality of profanity as that debate has been waged now for nigh on 6000 years and i doubt that this wiki will work out an answer to it anytime soon. Instead we should be focusing on what steps are needed towards protecting the feelings and rights of ALL members of this community and again this would bring me back to my previous point. If it is commonly felt that Anets policy on profanity in game is adequate within the confines of the game itself, why can we not enact that same policy within the confines of the official wiki? Warmest regards -- Salome 03:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. I'd rather see something implemented (anti-trolling/anti-offensive material/etc) than nothing at all. As to the comment elsewhere that any 13 year old wouldn't be offended- I have a sister older than that who would definitely be offended by such offensive content (as Raptors. I don't mean to single him out, but his content is the best example of this). Those in opposition to any measures must realize that many people find profanity offensive- moreso than should be ignored. Just because you might have a higher tolerance to it does not mean that you are free to write what you want and not care what others might think. While foul language might seem like a mark of maturity... guess again. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Part of being an adult is dealing with things you don't particularly like. For example, I have never played an FPS online -- I did not attack you and I didn't appreciate that comment. Nevertheless, I'm dealing with it. Please also note that I am one of the sysops on Raptors's list. I think it's a fun form of self-expression.Since this game's EULA only allows teenagers to play, everyone in the game is ready for lessons that teach them to be adults.

Finally, by your logic, a <insert oppressive religious/social zealot> who believes that Guild Wars leads to witchcraft/mass murder has the moral authority to demand the game be taken offline. After all, if one person is offended, the content must be removed.

—Tanaric 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, sorry, but I'm not understanding exactly what you are against. We already have a "wiki morality police" - the community set a line between what is allowed and what isn't, as seen on the "No personal attacks" policy (that's the stuff that isn't allowed already), and the community tries to enforce it, using the help of admins when that help is needed (which should be the exception, not the rule). I see the request being made here by Elviondale and others (a request I agree with) not to create an official "morality police", but rather to move the line that is already there so more things (things that bother those users) are considered "not allowed". The means of how to do that are still under discussion, but I don't see anything in the idea itself that is very different from what we already have. Erasculio 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric- I should have constructed that paragraph a little better, as only the first sentence was directed towards you. The rest was for the gen pop -elviondale (tahlk) 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, im sorry but i have to agree with Erasculio on this. We are not proposing the introduction of a totally new concept into the wiki, rather we are proposing an extension of the already existing guideliens towards the expected standards of the wiki. -- Salome 19:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What the expected standards of the wiki are can only be described by community consensus and back when the current policies were introduced, there was consensus for GWW:NPA, but no consensus for a ban on swearing. --Xeeron 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Beyond this, a personal attack is readily definable and enforceable. A ban on obscenity or "offensive" content is not.

More importantly, for me, is that this sort of thinking reflects a societal trend that I abhor. Grab any two people at random and they'll disagree on plenty of things. No two people agree on everything. For example, I find tattoos and body piercings -- even common ear piercings -- to be revolting beyond belief. I feel a little ill when I see them. However, even though I'm emotionally and physically discomforted by these things, I'd never argue that they should be banned. I choose to ignore them, I choose not to get them myself, and I choose to advocate against them to my friends -- those are all non-obtrusive and completely fair, I think. However, what right do I have to restrict your freedom of choice?

If ArenaNet chooses to mandate a no-swearing policy, that's their choice. Don't make that choice for them just because you think it might be inevitable. We were told at this wiki's inception that it was ours to run.

Here's the healthy, adult reaction: "Oh, I find this page offensive. I won't look at it again." People today tend to assume they have a right to never be offended or discomforted -- this right simply does not exist.

—Tanaric 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ri) But at the same time, we have to draw a line between what is accepted and what isn't. I'm not saying we should act against consensus, far from it, I think this entire discussion is aiming at trying to reach a consensus. And I think it's worth considering how we already take content and classify it as "offensive" - we have stated that "personal attacks" are offensive, and so all users are careful to avoid such attacks, even if we don't have a list with all possible kinds of personal attacks in order to specify exactly what is considered as such. Likewise, stating that "swearing" would now be classified as offensive would follow the same pattern - we would not make a list of all possible kinds of swearing (just as we don't have a list of all personal attacks), but the message would be to avoid that kind of thing.

The same kind of parallel may be done regarding the mature reaction to each thing. If a contributor insults another...The mature thing would be for the contributor being insulted to simply ignore it as a childish act. But that wasn't the consensus here - the consensus was that such insults are troublesome enough to deserve action. The same could be said about swearing, especially when one considers how we have wiki users who are not adults yet.

My point is that this kind of feeling isn't anything new - just as in the past users felt uncomfortable enough with personal attacks to make a policy against it, now a few users feel uncomfortable enough with swearing to suggest a policy against it. I understand opinions saying that swearing is simply not offensive enough or bothersome enough to deserve a ban from the wiki, but I don't understand opinions saying that we should simply ignore offensive things, as that's not what the policy here (and more importantly, the consensus from which said policy was born) states. I think there is a limit between censorship and excessive passivity that is important to be noticed, even if nothing changes as a result of this discussion. Erasculio 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like mandating what users can say or not say, but I certainly won't have any issues with something that at least tries to rein in potentially offensive behavior. As in other policy discussions, I sometimes get frustrated that restrictions get rejected in the name of "freedom", especially when those restrictions does nothing to stop them from either using or contributing to this wiki. From past policy discussions, I feel that a segment of this community do not like policies that govern user behavior. I'm wondering if the reason NPA got established is because it was established early.

Tanaric, I just had a thought when I read your argument. I realised that if I voiced objection to the NPA policy, saying that it's not really my right to stop you from having the freedom to insult me... might the NPA get rejected? By extension, do we have a right not to be insulted? If we can accept a policy that tries to broadly cover what is considered a personal attack, I can't see why we can't try to produce a policy to cover what is considered offensive.

I'm more concerned with trolling though, profanity or no profanity. See the next section for good examples. -- ab.er.rant 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit a way of dealing with trolling would be desirable too, but to be honest I think it will have even more problems in its creation due to the conceptual nature of what is trolling and what isn't. I do think its rather disappointing that in light of the massive argument on gaile's page, this topic seems to have lost its interest for most of the community and there has been a lack of enthusiasm in regards to suggesting possible ways to fix the current situation we find ourselves in. -- Salome 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of my effort has been focused here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, NPA exists to prevent ad hominen attacks. It's a way to make sure discussions are fair, and that no-one is driven away from the wiki. The difference between NPA and this is that a personal attack is obvious, and judging if something violates NPA is subjective objective. If I call someone a name, it's nothing but a personal attack, and can't be argued otherwise. However, you can't be subjective objective about offensiveness, as Tanaric has said.

The problem I have with the policy is that it restricts users based on the personal preference of others, rather than on what's necessary. -- AT(talk | contribs) 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

However, we don't have to be subjective about what is prophanity and what isn't - I'm sure there are some words that anyone here would agree are swearing, such as the ones in Raptor's page before this discussion began. For that kind of thing, we wouldn't need any subjectivity, and so preventing that kind of thing from being in the wiki is something any user could do. Erasculio 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire question of whether profanity should be disallowed is subjective, Erasculio. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I still haven't heard a convincing argument for removing profanity. If the argument is that it's offensive to some users, then it's still subjective. (note: I was using the wrong definition for subjective above, have corrected. Blame it on lack of sleep)-- AT(talk | contribs) 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if profanity should be removed or not from the wiki is something subjective and still on discussion, but that wasn't what I was trying to say - I was aiming at the comment about how saying something is a personal attack is objective, while claiming something is offensive would be subjective. However, a personal attack is also offensive - we have taken something subjective (being offensive) and turned it into something objective (personal attacks) by making a statement about what, exactly, is considered offensive (as seen on the NPA policy). That's why I think saying a prohibition to profanity (which for now is one of the main elements in this discussion) would be too subjective isn't exactly right; just as it was done with personal attacks, it could be done with profanity. We would end not with a vague, subjective policy such as "anything offensive isn't allowed" (I doubt anyone is suggesting that); rather, with a specific and objective (or at least as objective as NPA) policy saying "no swearing". Sorry if I'm sounding confusing or repetitive, I'm still trying to find a good way to make clear the point I'm trying to make. Erasculio 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I do see what you're getting at - that personal attacks are offensive, so there's already precedent for policy based on that. However, I disagree - the way I read NPA, I could be as offensive as I liked, as long as I only comment on content, not contributers. Of course, that wouldn't win me many friends. On the other hand, I could be very polite in attacking someone's character, and still violate NPA. -- AT(talk | contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We're starting to talk in circles here... I have a problem with the page name, since its pretty obvious that an attempt to block profanity (to a degree) can't and shouldn't be made. What we're dealing with here now is out right offensiveness. As it stands right now, the path of least resistance while still achieving some sort of anti-trolling/anti-(serious)offensiveness (such as the case of Raptors' page, which is what the benchmark is for this whole debate) would be to grant greater flexibility and allowance for sysops or bcrats, whichever this responsibility would fall to, to remove content deemed significantly offensive.

I've been thinking and have re-evaluated my position, based on input from Aiiane and Erasculio and derived from the thoughts above, that an allowance be made to whichever administrative group to remove such content when they deem it necessary and it has been brought to their attention by a device similar to the Admin notice board- following some sort of baseline that they had previously set forth regarding trolling/disruptive/patently offensive material. This would follow in step with current policy regarding NPA and vandalism. If blocking such content is to be considered censorship by voices within the wiki, then by all means, we need a way to remove isolated, extreme incidences such as we have recently encountered. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so much talk on something I consider to be so simple (note, not aimed at any one person, just continuing the indentation from previous discussion). But if someone could answer me one question, I'd appreciate it. If I use the f-word on the wiki, how does it add to the wiki? In other words, what is it about the swearing that is so essential to the well being of the wiki? (and the bonus question: Is it really impossible for people to speak clearly without swearing?) --Nkuvu 04:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) -elviondale (tahlk) 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, then why is so difficult to stablish a policy that "allows" to remove any word that the game chat filters in the normal level, and do not allow to reinsert them? Just that, not ban or anything else (unless one user keep reinserting the words) just permit to remove words, the list of the words is already in game. if that kind of simple policy is accepted, what does the wiki lose? ... nothing in my point of view. Coran Ironclaw 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put the idea of just using Anet's own definitions of profanity forward a few times now, as have a few others on this page. No one has responded yet as to why we cant just use that, it really does seem like the simplest course of action in this case and Aiiane, my comment above wasnt a jab at anyone on this page, it was just a comment about how many people argued the point on gaile's page as opposed to the comparatively few people here who seem to be discussing the issue. -- Salome 05:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nkuvu, the way I see it, "fuck" is a perfectly meaningful word of the English language, with its very own nuances and uses that can't be found in other words. I don't understand how my saying "This last update was fucking awesome" is offending you, your family, friends or pets? Do you get offended simply because you feel you're expected to get offended? Why does "I'm pissed off" insult your sensitive ears more than the word "sensitive" in the sarcastic way that I just used it? Why would you get more upset at me saying "My ranger's weapons aren't worth shit" than at the supposedly-refined prude who writes "My ranger's weapons aren't worth a Number Two" or "My ranger's weapons aren't worth a s#!$"? The meaning is still exactly the same, the focus is just being shifted from what he's trying to say (the worthlessness of those weapons) to the word he's trying to masquerade. Are any of these three "dirty words" I used nearly as irritating as the hostile tone of the entire message?

Words are just groups of squiggly lines, by themselves they're absolutely nothing, they're meaningless; it's the motivation of whoever they're coming from that gives them purpose, that makes them offensive or polite, hateful or friendly. It's like getting angry at the rock that someone hit you with; yeah, rocks can be pretty painful if someone bashes your head with them, but it doesn't mean there's anything hostile about them per se. --Dirigible 06:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The community does not have to prove that this is a bad idea, the burden of proof is on those advocating the policy. I am yet to hear a good reason why this should be implemented. -- AT(talk | contribs) 05:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I don't find profanity offensive. In certain extreme situations, I don't know any way to express myself better than with the word "fuck." Not that I ever really intend to use that on the wiki -- but even in this case here, where I'm discussing the word objectively, your proposed policy would have me punished. That seems downright ridiculous. Curiously enough, the word "fuck" is extremely relevant to (proposed) wiki policy right now -- to make discussing it a punishable offense is ludicrous.

Of course, the words themselves are never what's offensive. No rational adult (or child, for that manner) should be offended by my discussion any specific words like this. It's only when they're used in a manner to insult or offend that they become offensive -- but even then, they only become offensive to a minority.

If we start discussing a "no offensive content" policy, I worry about what we end up limiting. Sure, preventing Raptors from posting a variety of profanity on his user page doesn't really bother me. Allowing such a subjective argument is a pretty slippery slope, though. Next, we'll disallow User:Prussian Blue from linking to their personal site from the GuildWiki -- which, again, doesn't really bother me -- I think white supremacy is abhorrent. However, while Raptors was merely being a troll, User:Prussian Blue truly believe in what they do, and, after all, plenty of other people have links to causes they believe in. Next, an average religious person will post links to his church, which actually is pretty offensive to me -- now what happens? What if somebody identifies themselves as a Boy Scout? That could be offensive to our gay members.

I'm not thinking about what we could gain. I'm much more concerned about what we can lose -- there's just too much on the table for me to support this sort of policy.

—Tanaric 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this policy is not required. Swearing isn't in the main pages of the wiki and never will be because it is completely unnecessary for the description of the game. I don't think that policing of user pages and talk pages need further legislation around 'profanity' because it is already mostly covered by other policies which attempt to deal with people trying to make a nuisance of themselves. Each way that someone might break those policies, confront or offend different people doesn't need to be listed as a new policy. It simply creates more loopholes which need ever increasing amount of bureaucratic language to cover over when each new annoyance is found and exploited. Use the admin noticeboard if you see someone being annoying/offensive and isn't responsing to requests to stop and deal with it on a case by case basis. --Aspectacle 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

TBH, half of you are missing the gist of this policy. Its a tad late and so my thoughts are bordering NPA, but I'll try to keep it down.

If we base this on everyone's opinions on what is offensive and what isn't, we'll be here for days. Wait, we already have been. If you think about it, no one cares what your opinion is, let alone you caring about mine- thats not going to happen.

This is not about using swear words in a sentence

This is about content posted on user pages which blatantly posted with the intent of being offensive and, in the author's own words, so that he can be as much of a dick as he can. Such content is disruptive to the wiki, is blatant trolling, is unequivocally offensive, and as such, should be removed. The fact that its in the userspace protects it from being edited by users. We are trying to establish:

• if, how, and when admins of some sort, when notified, can remove it and then process whereby it is handled
• if it is the responsibility of a normal wiki user to remove said content. This is indeed a slippery slope hence...

why I recommend using a system similar to the Admin notice board for events dealing with vandalism, npa, etc.

To sum up, your opinion about what words are offensive or not is irrelevant. User page policy already forbids the user from posting things patently offensive- this is an extension whereby those things can be determined if they are offensive or not and the process whereby they are removed. -elviondale (tahlk) 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the goal of your policy then why is it called "No profanity"? You muddy the water by your own choice of words. Roll it into general adminship policy if anything, but face up to the fact that you will not get any agreement on what is offensive or not. --Aspectacle 07:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how my saying "This last update was fucking awesome" is offending you, your family, friends or pets? (quoting Dirigible)

Completely missing my point. Note that I never said I was offended, but I ask what benefit swearing brings to the wiki. I'm not upset, or angry, or offended, or mad. I am baffled, however, by how many people feel the dire need to be able to swear whenever they want. --Nkuvu 06:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Elviondale, if you are of the opinion that "This is not about using swear words in a sentence", then maybe you are done with this particular topic? Even if you aren't talking about forbidding words categorically, there's others that have suggested that in the past, that are still talking about that now, and that will suggest the same in the future. This dialogue is with all of them, not only with you.

Nvuku, so you wish to disallow from being used a word that doesn't upset, offend, anger or madden you? You are right, I believe I've completely missed your point. (Or do you simply want to know that in this case that word is an adverb, that it intensifies what follows? What's the benefit of using adverbs?) --Dirigible 07:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Round and round the discussion goes. OK, consider this. Would you walk into an interview, wearing a suit and tie, and curse like a sailor? No, I am not comparing the wiki to an interview. However I do feel that there is a place for acceptable swearing, and places where it is not acceptable. Obviously I feel that the wiki falls into the latter category. There's no need for swearing here. It doesn't make the wiki better in any way.

So some people feel swearing is fine. Should we allow this language in the main pages? "Mallyx is fucking difficult." Oh yeah, that looks good. Let's do that.

But my simple point is very obviously not quite so simple, since I've had to explain myself a number of times. I'm more than a little tired of repeating myself, and the discussion here is not going anywhere. So I'm done, you folks can continue to debate this without me. --Nkuvu 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No dirigible your taking Nvuku out of context. Nvuku simply doesn't understand why so many people here have such a desire to use profanity. You argue that swear words have their own nuances and in a way i suppose they do but at the same time, other none profane words can be used to the same effect and like Nvuku, i don't see why people are defending their ability to be vulgar, when their are so many other words in the English language. Ultimately Profanity by its very definition is defined as being vulgar, abusive or irreverent language and the use of this language adds nothing to the wiki. What we are doing now is going round in massive circles with those who say it is profane arguing that it is, and those who say it isn't, arguing that they aren't offended. This argument, as I've said before, has been going on for millenia and were not gonna solve that dilemma on the wiki as regardless those who find swearing will continue to find it so, while those who don't will continue to not be offended by it. The policy that most places of business and Anet has taken is one of catering for the lowest common denominator, e.g. those who are offended. I'm not arguing that we should just do the same out of hand, but people keep stressing that we haven't proved a case for the introduction of anti profanity policy,even though it was strongly suggested by Gaile that perhaps for the good and future of this wiki we implement one. (Yes i know she said this just as a "member", but thats a bit like an investment banker friend telling you its probably not a good idea to invest money in that company;he's only told you as a friend, but you'd still be wise to follow his advice). Also to say that profanity isnt offensive in and of itself is flawed, if Raptor had of put up the racial slurs instead (suck as the P word and the N word, which im refusing to say), no one would have been arguing that those terms aren't offensive in and of themselves, even without being directed at anyone. You seem to be arguing for a form of liberalism and expression which takes into account only the individuals freedom of expression and yet at the same time ignores the human rights of those who find that behavior offensive and counter productive. You're probably gonna argue that people can find anything offensive and when does the censorship end, but we all know thats a moot point. we as a people know which words fall under the heading of a curse word and which ones don't. Expressing a view which others don't like obviously wouldn't fall under this as long as it isn't a direct attack on certain members of the community. The liberalism you argue for, is self-liberalism with no consideration of those around you! Until someone can expressly state what constructive use curse words are on this wiki, then i believe that the burden of proof lies not on those wanting a policy on this issue, but those arguing that it is indeed harmless. As ultimately all it will take is for parents to complain that their 13 year old is accessing profane material through Guild Wars and Anet will rethink this site, as Gaile has already strongly suggested. -- Salome 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Does MediaWiki has word filter?

anyone?Coran Ironclaw 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I initially read Wikipedia rather than WikiMedia (since usually the software is referred to as MediaWiki) - I'm not sure if the software has the capability, but my guess is no. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

They are always rubbish anyway, they end up filtering perfectly acceptable words that they consider trying to get around the filter, or parts of words, etc etc --Lemming 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected.Coran Ironclaw 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Making a list

If we put this policy through the tubes, there should definately be a concise list of words that we don't want to use. I'll start right now.

• Fuck
• Shit
• Dick

If anyone can think of anymore, you should add it here. We need to make sure that these words won't be used on the wiki and informing everyone what these words are and of their meaning is the perfect way to do this. In fact, they should be in bold at the top of the policy page. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No. -- (gem / talk) 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "no" should go on the list... -Auron 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Auron, please take a look at Guild Wars Wiki talk:No trolling. Comments like those have no relavence to the discussion, no matter how badly you "WTFPWNED" Gem. — Skakid9090 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mgrinshpon said: "If we put this policy through the tubes, there should definately be a concise list of words that we don't want to use." I replied with. "No." -- (gem / talk) 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe what Auron said would be considered a joke... --Lemming 00:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GJ following the yellow brick road. — Skakid9090 00:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with this overly joking nature of many users currently in this wiki. Most of the discussions (even on policy pages, which is alarming) go widely off topic, include lots of bad jokes and irony that one can't possibly be sure about in a text based media. -- (gem / talk) 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with all the fascism. — Skakid9090 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Humor is a perfectly valid medium for criticism. --Edru viransu 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the No trolling policy intends to prevent comments like Skakid's, I'm even more against it now than before. That's the second-funniest thing I've read so far today (the first is Dirigible's "syphilis" comment). —Tanaric 05:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Guild Wars Wiki talk:No trolling and read the very first sentence on the page carefully. --Xeeron 10:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

T for Teen arguement

Online Rating Notice

Online games that include user-generated content (e.g., chat, maps, skins) carry the notice "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" to warn consumers that content created by players of the game has not been rated by the ESRB.

— Skakid9090 02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, and according to ESRB's wikipedia page, T is 13+... and I've never seen a 13 year old complain about/get offended by swearing. This argument is definitely moot. -Auron

Yeah? I've seen a 30-year-old be offending by language and he and his family uninstalled GW bc of it. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

-Auron 07:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

lol good, one less retard — Skuld 07:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me back my damn violin lol. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 07:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

He uninstalled the game because of language? You know there's a language filter right? Did he know that? Even so, if he's THAT worried about language, I'm glad I didn't have to play with him. Sounds like he'd be a terrible bore if something so simple as 'language' offended him. --Fenix 09:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a word on the filter: When you play the game for example in German, the language filter filters out some NPC names as they include english bad-words.. poke | talk 11:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The filter also makes it so my group always calls a target on "----ed Cleric" instead of Damned Cleric. I don't know why I can't even call a target without the filter jumping on me; if it is in the game, it should be fair game, right?Miss Innocent 03:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think were getting a tad off track here? Surely Elvion's aim was just to highlight that it does not matter what age you are, but that some people find the use of profanity vulgar regardless. This really shouldnt degenerate into a discussion about Elvions friend, but rather focus upon the fact that many people find the use of profanity vulgar and as stated before this is the OFFICIAL wiki, linked to by the game itself. Therefore a consideration of if content is appropriate in light of that, is needed. The fact that such a huge to do has been caused by this is evidence of the fact that many find trolling and the use of profanity, somewhat vulgar and offensive. Thus perhaps instead of just being glib in responce to Elvions statement (such as submitting pictures of the worlds smallest violin), you could instead attempt to respond in an adult and constructive manner and perhaps together, the people from both sides of the debate can find some form of copromise, which is workable on this wiki. Personally i dont understand why this issue is being debated so hotly, it seems somewhat obvious that as an official wiki it should follow the same guidelines as that of which the game itself uses for chat in the "All" channel, but then not everyone views things the same way. -- Salome 12:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

@Skuld and Auron- well that was a bit uncalled for. Try to bring up the maturity level a notch or two please. -elviondale (tahlk) 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

no u — Skuld 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Maybe you should refrain from posting until you have something constructive to say? -- Salome 19:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

no u — Skuld 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And with that, I lose all respect for the above users. -Anon

Since this policy is clearly a slippery slope...

...I've provided an alternative policy that sends us right to the bottom. Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Block anybody the IRC channel suggests. —Tanaric 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The word ninja offends me

So please ensure that all references are deleted. Prease.

Other words that offend me:

Bad
Stink
The
A
An
And
Is
Be
To
For
It

Please protect my child from these words, and others like them. Oh shit, I said and! Oh, I said and again! And again! Oh woe is me! Oh... shit.

-The Knight Who Until Recently Said Ni --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:74.184.5.4 .