Non PC Words.

kneemos

Reading through the DRF and I discover bugger,retarded and ugly are words you can get banned for using.
Context is everything of course but it is subjective.So can we have a list of non PC words that may cause offence?

Insect Overlord

Are you actually being serious..?

kneemos

An File wrote: »

Are you actually being serious..?

Most certainly am.
If I could get banned for using them at least I should know what they are.

El Guapo!

There is no list.
Bit of common sense. Be grand.

Sheep Lover

El Guapo! wrote: »

There is no list.
Bit of common sense. Be grand.

But common sense isn't all that common?, wouldn't it better if it were outlined?, then there would be no ambugity.

El Guapo!

Sheep Lover wrote: »

But common sense isn't all that common?, wouldn't it better if it were outlined?, then there would be no ambugity.

If rigid lists are put in place then you get rules lawyers trying to be smart arses. If you read the charter of a forum and get a feel for the flow of the forum you'll be fine. Just keep the "Don't be a dick" rule in mind too.

Sheep Lover

El Guapo! wrote: »

If rigid lists are put in place then you get rules lawyers trying to be smart arses. If you read the charter of a forum and get a feel for the flow of the forum you'll be fine. Just keep the "Don't be a dick" rule in mind too.

But the final say is always based on someone's opinion, your version of being a dick could be different to my version of being a dick and so on.

kneemos

El Guapo! wrote: »

There is no list.
Bit of common sense. Be grand.

As is apparent from the DRF one person's interpretation of bugger can be completely different from a mods interpretation.
I've been here a while and not in a million years would I have thought I could be banned for using "ugly".
So not so sure common sense will suffice.

Tokyo

kneemos wrote: »

As is apparent from the DRF one person's interpretation of bugger can be completely different from a mods interpretation.
I've been here a while and not in a million years would I have thought I could be banned for using "ugly".
So not so sure common sense will suffice.

Well considering that the forum charter mentioned in the DRP you bring up specifically states:

Please don't make demeaning comments about the appearance of actors/guests that appear in your favourite soaps/tv programmes (saying things like they're ugly, flat chested etc.).

it couldn't be more clear-cut that calling someone ugly is grounds for infraction.

El Guapo!

kneemos wrote: »

As is apparent from the DRF one person's interpretation of bugger can be completely different from a mods interpretation.
I've been here a while and not in a million years would I have thought I could be banned for using "ugly".
So not so sure common sense will suffice.

That's why I mentioned reading the charter of a forum you're posting in.
It's not that difficult really.
Tbh, asking for specific lists of words that'll get you banned is trying to be awkward just for the sake of it. Use your head and a bit of common sense and you're grand.

kneemos

El Guapo! wrote: »

That's why I mentioned reading the charter of a forum you're posting in.
It's not that difficult really.
Tbh, asking for specific lists of words that'll get you banned is trying to be awkward just for the sake of it. Use your head and a bit of common sense and you're grand.

It's not fair on people to have rules that are open to interpretation.Nor is it realistic to expect people to read and remember every forum charter.

No good making rules and not making them foolproof.

Tokyo

kneemos wrote: »

It's not fair on people to have rules that are open to interpretation.Nor is it realistic to expect people to read and remember every forum charter..

so... it's not fair not to list out every non-PC word? And it's not fair to expect people to read them even if we do?

Which then falls back to the initial response - use some common sense, and keep the 'don't be a dick' clause in mind.

El Guapo!

kneemos wrote: »

It's not fair on people to have rules that are open to interpretation.Nor is it realistic to expect people to read and remember every forum charter.

No good making rules and not making them foolproof.

So you don't think its realistic to ask people to read a forum charter but it is realistic to make a big list of banned words and phrases and expect them to read and remember that?
The majority of posters on the site manage to get by just fine. It seems to me that the people kicking up a fuss about this type of stuff are the same people who frequently find themselves on the wrong end of a ban hammer.

kneemos

El Guapo! wrote: »

So you don't think its realistic to ask people to read a forum charter but it is realistic to make a big list of banned words and phrases and expect them to read and remember that?
The majority of posters on the site manage to get by just fine. It seems to me that the people kicking up a fuss about this type of stuff are the same people who frequently find themselves on the wrong end of a ban hammer.

Not at all unrealistic to expect someone to read a forum charter,but there's not just one.
If there is a "big list of banned words"I would certainly want to know what they are.

Tombi!

For a quick TL;DR, see bottom of post
Having a list of banned words outside of common sense isn't helpful. It just gives people a chance to be rules lawyers.
Furthermore even the ban words here are bypassed at times. We were joking around on AH once and one of the mods just said "alright knock it off with the swearing". That was it.
Mod could have just carded us all and been on their way.

It's not that the rules are open to opinion, really. It's more of the mods can use their judgement on what punishment (if any) is fair.

Taking the word "retard" for example. I say "ah sure that's retarded". I might get carded; it would definitely depend on the forum I use it in and the context.
But if I'm going around calling posters retarded all the time, I should be warned/infracted/whatever.

TL;DR: Outside of actual banned words (that show up like **** unless you bypass the automatic censor), there isn't really a way to have a big list of "no-no words". I could say things in AH that I couldn't say in Personal Issues, for example. So what you can/cannot say is in the charter. And end of the day, if you're worried, don't say it, PM a mod first and ask.

Mac

Sauve

Laptop

Lucyfur

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mac

And thin client.

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mac

Reported.

Sauve

kneemos wrote: »

Reported.

Reporteded

Lucyfur

Sauve wrote: »

Reporteded

Reportededed

Sheep Lover

Why is it permitted to take the piss in a Feedback thread?, fair enough you might not agree with the OP but it's not on to belittle their opinion and from mods aswell, who should be setting a certain standard.

kneemos

[quote="RopeDrink;93053976"

Also, please note that it doesn't boil down to what the moderator themselves think, but what is clearly upsetting the other posters. If many people found the use of a term/word/context offensive and it was being mass reported, action would be considered - not just performed on a whim as implied.[/quote]

That's hardly any better,makes it even more erratic IMO.

Sauve

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Why is it permitted to take the piss in a Feedback thread?, fair enough you might not agree with the OP but it's not on to belittle their opinion and from mods aswell, who should be setting a certain standard.

Ara I'm only having the craic. Sometimes a bit of craic does no harm

kneemos

RopeDrink wrote: »

It is more versatile and adaptive to respective communities that way, compared to writing a 'list' of 'banned' words dictated by a person (or group of people) and outright stomping on them entirely from then on.

As people say, some find X offensive while others might not - times also change and words drop in meaning or their uses change, much like what was discussed in the thread regarding the word 'retarded'.

Ultimately, context in a lot of cases is key, plus it doesn't take much to exercise a bit of common sense when posting.

Fair enough.
Bottom line is though some words are open to interpretation.It's not like these words have to be used or there aren't any alternatives.

My point was that if there is going to be rules at least don't leave them with glaring loopholes.

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

Fair enough.
My point was that if there is going to be rules at least don't leave them with glaring loopholes.

And what do you think a list of words will do?

kneemos

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

And what do you think a list of words will do?

Make people aware that they may be banned if they use them.

El Guapo!

kneemos wrote: »

Make people aware that they may be banned if they use them.

Again, common sense and a read of the forum charter will give you the info you need.
It's not like there's a random word of the week that'll get you banned. Use your head and don't be a dick and you'll avoid being banned.

Tombi!

kneemos wrote: »

Make people aware that they may be banned if they use them.

So we don't use them. We use words that mean the same but aren't specifically banned.

Thus, the loophole.

Cookie_Monster

banning words is all a bit draconian wouldn't you think?

The restriction on some words in specific contexts in specific fora is reasonable but a general ban is too much.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

banning words is all a bit draconian wouldn't you think?

The restriction on some words in specific contexts in specific fora is reasonable but a general ban is too much.

So the word c.unt should be allowed?

That's an offensive word (to some) and is banned and rightly imo so yeah i think a general ban on some words is a good thing. Saying that if i type out **** it gets starred like this but i see many post like cunt cnut and kunt and nothing gets said. If you are going to ban an offensive word to the point it is in the swear filter then it should be banned in all forms.

Dozen Wicked Words

RopeDrink wrote: »

Reported for use of bad word! :pac:

A C.unt is just a cockney on a scuba diving treasure search.*






*may be too obscure.

Cookie_Monster

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So the word c.unt should be allowed?
.

of course it should unless it's used to abuse other posters

Gordon

kneemos wrote: »

Context is everything

Exactly, this is one of the reasons why there is no list, and won't be.

OldGoat

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

of course it should unless it's used to abuse other posters

Much as I'd love to agree with you I can't. Some words are deeply offensive to some people irrespective of the context you place upon it. Sometimes it is the word and not the context.

zombieHanalei

This is a stupid request. Context is everything.

Take the word bitch; if I call someone a bitch I am abusing them and would deservedly pick up a card.

However a "naughty list" would by extension have me earn a card for referring to a "bitch in heat" in the Animals & Pet Issues forum; which would be ridiculous.


There are very few words that aren't ambiguous in that respect. The important thing is the intent with which a particular word is used. I would have felt that was glaringly obvious so I really do question the true intentions of the OP here.

Edit; actually maybe I'll take that last bit back because having looked through kneemos previous posts I believe he started this thread in response to someone calling someone elses friend retarded. And to be honest, I'd agree with him/her over the use of that word, the word "retarded" is a major bugbear of mine as it almost exclusively used as a means of derision of either a person or what they are saying. It's below the belt and almost never used in a correct context. (Incidentally, one of my biggest "bugbears" is the word bugbear itself!)

Dav

We're not making a list of Banned Words for people - discretion and context are the 2 deciding factors for any mod to make any decision on anything they do, including determining if a word is being used in anger or context. If you don't want to run into problems, don't post things that cause problems - this bizarre insistence people seem to have on absolute lists of rules and/or the right to be abusive within some sort of imagined boundary of "acceptable abuse" needs to go away, we're not going to indulge it.