Profanity and the CoC
I am writing this meta article to attempt to clarify [to the best of my knowledge] recent changes in the way that the CoC is being interpreted . As most of you know , the formal statements in the CoC do not mean as much as the way it is interpreted . But that aspect changes over time . Here is the statement in the CoC over the use of profanity :
http://thenewstalkers.com/notes/Code_of_Conduct
5. Use profanity judiciously and sparingly. It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members. When entering an heated debate, it is best to leave profanity at the door so as to not inflame an already intense thread or article. Common sense and common courtesy are recommended regarding both the use of, and, the taking offense to "objectionable" language; those asked to refrain from posting a given word or phrase by a fellow member are expected to do so to them, while those taking offense should consider avoiding comments/articles in which those words/phrases appear.
I think it is safe to say that there was a very loose interpretation of that rule in the past . But from my perception things are changing . We are now going to have a much tighter interpretation in the future . Now , I don't expect that there will be problems between "consenting" participants . If any pair of you have gotten used to each other's profane banter , there should be no reason to stop doing that now . But when problems arise between antagonists here and especially with new members then there is going to be a much tighter interpretation from now on .
BTW there is a simple motivation for that . We are trying to expand membership here . It won't happen if visitors to the site are turned off by the zoo-like atmosphere here . OK , I am far from the final word on this subject but that is the way I perceive the current approach to the rules . Since this is a community oriented site your feedback on this topic would be much appreciated . If you do express your opinion , try to address not only your current participation but also the possibility for new members to join in . Thanks and let's have a clean break before you go to your neutral corners [so to speak] .
Tags
Who is online
184 visitors
I'd like to start things off by apologizing to iarn for introducing profanity into a discussion we were having . I am sure I could have found a better way to express myself but , frankly , I had gotten used to the way profanity is flung around here . As a result I was lax . Live and learn ...
Eloquence is appreciated especially if you don't crap all over someone else in the process . [I'm guessing that "crap" is not considered profanity .]
Randy ,
Thanks for expressing your POV . Do you think that the "Animal House" thingie might be having an effect on our problems with increasing membership ?
I can't speak with authority about that . But I've heard that the use of the term "teabagger" was a factor for some former members . In any case I don't know how you can separate the inter-personal feuds from the language used .
Mike!
Matt challenges your quote:
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
You should never Fuck with Matt when he knows a quote.
And now I have set the tone.
Adults curse. It's fine in fun and play. It's fine between long established friendships where cursing is part of the banter. It's not fine if I tell Mike to go Fuck himself. It's a lot like porn. We know it when we see it.
Yes.
Yes, and part of the dynamics.Cursingonly ramps up these nasty exchanges. But let me be clear... this isn't about cursing, although in the last couple of days cursing has been anintegralpart of the exchanges. It is really about section 3 of the CoC. Let me demonstrate again with Mike.
I tell Mike... Come on, you have got to be fuckin' kidding.
That's OK.
I tell Mike... You're a fuckin' asshole.
That's not. That is an insult.... even to Mike, who may or may not care, since it's Mike. But the group isn't a group of Mikes...
And really even Mike would like to stop...how does he like to put it??? Oh yeah, backbitting. Mike doesn't like backbitting and neither does anyone else, least of all the mods.
OK, I'm done.
Tru dat. We have some woman members here who don't like that term and don't want to be subjected to it.
Perrie ,
I feel the need to point out that limiting the use of profanity does not necessarily solve the problem . For example I could have said : "You have your head up your posterior . " instead of using "ass" . That avoids the profanity but not the meaning . Is that a CoC violation ?
Yes.
But a classy one.
Still, I would have deleted it.
So I should have left it with "head in the clouds" . It's too bad because some people really need to have their high flyin' theory brought down to earth . The language I used was designed with that purpose in mind .
Maybe you should have simply said "your opinion doesnt jive with what i know to be fact".
I like the use of the word "Jive"
Which brings me to another insult and CoC violation.
You're nothing more than a Jive Turkey.
Well... maybe if this was the 70's...
Now...pretty funny!
Pete ,
Although that might have worked it didn't seem to express the massive disconnect I was perceiving at the time .
It can get out of control though.
It's not meant to be taken as a literal example Rich, but rather as an example of how you might speak your discontent without jumping somebody's shit directly. If you applied that principle, i think you could come up with something that was applicable, and also reasonable.
Maybe next time I'll just link to a video from your fav crazed singer . Unfortunately I can't think of his name , you know who I mean ... the one who left me speechless .
Yeah , that's the guy . And I'm still speechless ...
What I am trying to do is aid and abet our commander-in-chief in her DIABOLICAL PLAN to become master of the interwebs .
Ahh... If we had more more Mikes!
Of course people swear! What the hell is the matter with everyone???
Being civil is the question.
You actually find a site that changed the word hell to heck? Damn, if the word makes it into the bible, you would think you could say it!
"we're in agreement, Cornelius said cocksucker"
I think all profanity is profane. That's why is say Fuck that shit and all the bloody cunts that use that cocksucking bullshit language up in this motherfucker. Balls.
Ummmm....yes.
LOL Iar,
I guess we should have consulted the Bee Gees:
It's just your jive talkin'. You're telling me lies, yeah.
Jive talkin', you wear a disguise.
Jive talkin', so misunderstood, yeah.
Jive talkin', youre really no good.
Yes. And you're full of shit... probably acceptable, given the context and the people.
Hey.. you must feel great! Cursing is good for your health!
Err.. you forgot Bollocks!
We dont use that in America.
I always loved that schtick!
Oooo I like a swear jar! I would win a ton!
Holy shit Randy. How many times have I got to tell you to stop your fuckin' cursing?
Regardless of the appearance of any particular word in a discussion or comment, it is the intent of and the context in which the word (phrase, etc.) is used that subjects it to the CoC (or not).
Most often (though not always), the CoC comes into play when a member feels he/she is being insulted/personally attacked. Direct attacks are fairly easy to identify while oblique attacks and innuendo ... not so easy.
A comment such as "you are an asshole," is direct while comments like "only an asshole would say that," or "your comment is the kind made only liberals/conservatives/etc.," are oblique references/innuendo.
There are buildings filled with law books all with the objective of defining and sanctioning forms of human behavior ...
And still, the court dockets are ever-full.
This discussion would best serve NT if we keep it generic; those of us who have been here from day one pretty much know who tends to do what ...
It's those whats that need to be reigned in/modified, particularly so as not to discourage/turn off the new/newer members and yet-to-be-members.
I have a problem with the form of that comment but not the content . The problem is that reactive people reading it would read the 1st part and do what they usually do ... react . The disclaimer should precede the invective . Comments ?
So now , when there is some serious work to do and decisions to be made everyone clams up . Doesn't anyone have an opinion about my previous comment ? How about some community feedback ?
As a moderator who has to potentially read many pages of that stuff I object in a big way . I would like to see something added to the CoC about that . Yeah or nay ? And how about the rest of you ... What do you think ?
If the argument includes invective as an example , then yes , that is what I'm advocating . Frankly I've only seen one person lead with the invective and then add on the disclaimer . Can you show me other examples ?
How 'bout we add ...
"Please follow the golden rule."
In reality, we all pretty much know when a "fuck you" is coming from right, left or center field ...
[[I suggest that the reader actually read the comment in its entirety instead of having the patience of a gnat. Or, if it is felt that a commenter only discusses things in a manner you do not like - ignore them.]]
You know what Fero . If that's the way you feel perhaps you would like to resume your moderator duties ? I'd be happy to give you all of the iar threads with his long convoluted but snarky replies . How about it ?
Our current format I feel is fine. It gives us all the freedom of expression that we wanted without a ton of rules.
Remember, when Dana and I started this site, we had the "5 Easy Rules". Now we are up to 10. That is more than enough. I don't think that it's healthy for dialog tolegislatefor every kind of event.
Tru Dat!
Dang girl! Your one smart Kitty. We could all use a little more control on the mental ignore button.
[[Cure: Ignore them.]]
Speaking of brevity , you just ignored what I said . I made my comment from the POV of a moderator who is required to read and digest comments . I can't ignore long convoluted comments as a moderator . Are you dodging my offer to take on that responsibility ?
Having fun ? I'm not ...
Rich,
I think that there are times, that you as a mod, as do all the other mods, have to make a judgment call. Not every infraction needs a reaction. They often just work themselves out. If they don't and there is an escalation, then it is important to step in, unless otherwise notified by a member.
No one should be expected to read every post.
[[They often just work themselves out.]]
Not lately ...
Here's my question, why do meta articles get such participation?
Seems to me this issue is simple, here at NT, curse just don't make it personal. Fuck that, as opposed to fuck off.
What the hell is so tough to understand?
Now, I understand that some people don't like cursing, of any kind and, well, that's kind of tough shit.
I am newer to the site, and to this discussion, than most, but I'll throw my 2 cents in, just the same.
Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy were funny Mother Effers, but that was what they were selling. The humor that they had was presented spiced with the shock of the language they used.
Bill Cosby, on the other hand, was also funny, but presented without the edge and the bite of the language.
In other words, there's a place for it, and some places where it is just not needed nor appropriate.
I like to refer my friends and family to my own column, and that is a place I would like to know they are not going to find profanity, since it is not really inline with the things I tend to write, my style, nor my humor.
Other's columns have different tones, different styles, and different things are appropriate.
Where I find it difficult to refer people, and why I think we might be having a hard time getting more members, is because of the fear that the main forums, where the hard news is, will become the wild west, as the MSNBC comlumns did, or as NewsVine did, and there will be no place where a conservative such as myself can have a civil disussion or arguement with a liberal without being called everything under the sun that cannot be said on TV.
I think that on personal columns and articles, it could be OK to stretch the boundries and push the envolope a bit in this area, but on the comments in the extremely public and hard news articles, it might be best to temper it a little.
JMHO.
Captain Kid:
Good point, and one which has been discussed numerous times.
Fact is, that very few, I really can't think of any, curse regularly and constantly. Sure, you may get a bullshit now and then, but fuck is rarely, if ever used (except for effect in meta articles!).
But I certainly do get your point. That would argue, however, for banning cursing, of which I am not in favor.
Well... for my two bits... I think that rule is pretty clear just the way it is written.
I have learned a few things during my time in the blog-o-sphere... Most important among them is that angry language almost never (perhaps, just plain never) inspires productive conversation. I have also learned that many people come to these forums with little interest in "productive conversation"... Often, venting anger is the primary goal, even if that isn't understood by the person doing the venting. That is NOT my interest!!! Although I admit my emotions do get the better of me from time to time.
I do use a little profanity now and then... but I have found profanity to be MUCH more impactful when it is used, as stated in rule 5, "sparingly."
Exactly Mal!
You've got me Terry. No matter where you go, meta is always a big hit (personally, I've grown to hate them)
The rest of the post, spot on!
Captain,
I see your concern, but for many of our articles that are not of a political nature, there is no cursing. To the credit of the group, they usually self moderate.Also the moderator sets the tone, so if you don't want cursing on your articles, then you are allowed to enforce that. I am sure you have had no problems with the articles that you have ran here so far. So I know if I go into one of Mac's photo essays, it will run clean. Today Mal put up an article "Questions from a Thoughtful Christian to an Atheist" and I am sure that it will run clean.
This site pretty much mirrors real life. If your concern is that people you invite to read your articles will see cursing, I am sure if you direct them to your articles they won't. And I am also sure, that in their real lives, when they are in public, they do hear cursing. What they think is probably what I think... that they have a lacking in their vocabulary and class.
I didn't say I had encountered these issues here. That is one of the reasons I moved here.
I did over on NewsVine, though, and eventually was not allowed to moderate my own column to prohibit this from happening.
I referred many people to NewsVine, and by the end therewere 2responses I was getting was.
1. "It's just a bunch of immature partisan squabbling. I don't see anything compelling or of value there."
2. "It's just a bunch of closed cliques that doesn't seem very welcoming of newcomers. All they seem to want to do is compliment themselves and each other on what they've written."
Here, with new blood, new site, and smaller group, we have not devolved into that, and I hope we don't. I hope we continue to look at things critically but civally, from both sides and with cordial and respectful discourse and discussion. I hope we continue to be a laboratory and classroom where we can all teach each other what we know, because everyone knows something that somebody else doesn't know.
But with growth comes the danger of that, and with extremely familiar and cliqueish behavior comes the danger of running off newbies.
Ahh.. now I see!
I think that there are a few factors that lead to that, and I am hoping to avoid that pitfall. The first of those was the voting up of comments and articles (as well as the collapsing). These functions serve to make cliques. The usagainstthem kind of thing.
The other difference here is that everyone is treated as an equal, even the mods. There is not adecisionmade here that the community has not been a part of or voted on.
Finally, we always try to be welcoming of newbies. It has been the hallmark of the group. Functions like chat and the activity board, makes the community more cohesive. Even silly things like the smiles do that. All of these functions makes the group fun and takes the edge off of the bickering side of things.
I hope you concur.
I'm going to start chopping up that comment into little pieces to satisfy the CoC . Is that what you want ?
Not true, not true at all. There are substantive differences between your posts and Mike's posts, not only substantive, but tone as well. You may not think so, but I would bet that the difference is clear to most who post.
True, Iar, very true. And it's a function of self policing, which I think this site does about as well as any I have ever seen.
Much of that, methinks, comes from the fact that we know who began this group and we don't want to piss her off. She's put a lot of work into this place, just so we can take swipes at each other.
Me, if I want to piss folks off and take swipes at lost of assholes at one time, I will go visit the Vine for a day and get that crap out of my system, LOL!
I'm with Feronia. If a reader of a post, ain't gonna read the entire post, then that's their fault, not the poster's!
Well said.
Captain:
You have NV pegged. The first two years I was there were, well, absolutely wonderful. By the end of 09, though, it had become a sewer and is even worse now. I only visit to say hi to the NYT Fugees, long time friends.
It is different here, and as long as we remember that one person went to a hell of a lot of trouble to make this place for us, and that we treat each other as we would her (more or less), all of this will be fine.
And, thanks again Perrie!
Ah, no it's not. "some" means just that, some.
"In general" means pretty much all of them, with the rare exception.
Words do matter.
<shrug> Your bias is showing, as well as your limited knowledge.
But, whatever.
OK Randy . I'm going to leave it as it is . But I'd like you to explain something . You apparently think the [RDS vs Mike] interactions are the ideal standard by which to judge all that is done here . But I don't expect that is possible . This is a very diverse group we have here . Your judgement on this issue seems to be consideringonly your own experiences and not those of other members .
As an example of your biased focus I will point out to you your prior use of the word "teabaggers" . Many of the ladies on our site found it offensive . I'm glad that you chose to withdraw using that term in your comments . But I'm not sure that you understand the issues involved in asking you to stop using it . Are you sure that in this dispute with Bruce you are not making a similar mistake ? In fact , are you even admitting that you made a mistake in using the T word ?
Randy, if a person on this board said "in general" about gays, or blacks, or any group of people which you identify with/support, methinks you might have a different reaction.
You make my point.
Randy ,
Please see this comment :
Randy:
Seriously, you cannot imagine how bizarre and blind your post below re: Bruce actually is to most of those who read the various interchanges between the two of you.
Frankly, Bruce is 100% correct where your "skirting" the line is concerned and just because Mike tolerates it, ignores it, does not make it okay.
IMO.
Different Mike. Frankly, RDS poisons every interchange he was with Bruce, and with others as well.
IMO, of course.
It's the same on every site John, every damned one.
Thanks for your input Captain . From my POV when one person curses in anger , it starts a chain of counter-reactions that end up in a major melee . These usually require a moderator to step in and squelch the argument . Often that kills the thread discussion . The entire result is counter-productive to what the thread was about .
Thanks for giving your honest opinion Randy .
I suspect that those words will come back to haunt you in the future . They are practically a manifesto of self-centered action . Good luck justifying that by any "moral" standard .
Great movie scene, D'wayne!
You know.. Matt's quite the character. He's always looking over my shoulder when I am on... but if I ask him to join... he always says.. "Ahh... you know me.. I don't have much to add"... which is total BS, since he loves to put his two cents in.
Maybe he keyboard shy?
That's a great attitude Mike . It would never work for me but then that's just the kind of a-hole I am .
That's becuz you're not a liberal . They cuss more because they use their lizards brains to "think" with .
*licking my own eyeball
Hey! Even lizards have hearts!
But they are cold blooded ...