Language use on DCP

[CloudHype]

Off topic, I know but it does tie into the current issue.

Twit is a word with two defenitions. One is playfull (foolish, said in jest) and the other is an insult (annoying, ie... annoying person in all situations). Therefore, calling somebody a twit can have two different meanings.

I don't know the situation around the ban itself but that incident alone (IMO) should be resolved by a moderator in a PM setting between the two parties. In essence, the mod is moderating the arguement or in this case the clairifactaion (sp?).

That being said, if the use of the above mention word is the reason for the ban then I could see Jimi's point even if he had prior issues because there is a gray area with the word and its useage.

Now here is where this issue can be brought into this topic:

Two way words (words that wont get filtered)... its gray and open for interp. In context of an inuendo, can be vulgar, or can be seen as playfull.

I'll say the policy is not complete enough, again, it's only for profanity and can be read as this:

All profanity is vulgar and frowned upon. Find another way of saying it and your good (Intent is still there BTW). It's gray and there will be problems if it is not cleared up. That's the problem we currently have, things where not clear from the get go.

[Slow Adam]

What about |)amn ? Is this word really a problem to anyone, six year olds included?

Please don't slap my wrist for filter circumvention on this one, I'm just trying to ask a question about a word that IMO is completely benign.

Thanks.

[Jeff Ream]

i'm not gonna get wound up about it, cause i'm about out of here again and really after tonight, it's just a ####### website in the grand scheme of things.

but i will say this....

at least once a year we go thru some form of crackdown on rules enforcement. we fight, we ague, the crackdown goes into effect, and within 6 weeks, if not less, back to normal. happened under George, happened under Mike, has happened since Rich took over as the head FTSM.

IF DCP wants to get really serious about this, they need to enforce this forever. Honestly, reading the posts from those above, the ambuity is incredible. I mean this is set up to basically invite inconsistency, which has long been an issue in DCP rules enforcement.

I suggest extremely clear rules, 100% forever consistent enforcement, or basically make it so the guidelines continue to be treated as they are:

a joke.

we have people attacking people all the time....i know i have hit the report button in the non OT forums tons of times. never hear a peep. CE forum...oh god, i've even reported friends there. nothing.

if DCP rules enforcement has one consistencty, it's the inconsistency, and nebulous guidelines don't help it at all. i feel bad for the mods...they are set up to fail and they get a ton of #### for trying to do a job that is doomed for failure.

so create crystal clear rules...not like we have now...enforce them, or really, quit wasting time with the annual crackdowns.

DCP is 5 years old, and this is probably the 10th time we've gone and on about this.

i have a trash mouth...i'd be banned, so all i can say is "ah #### it"

cya

[JMS0527]

AND OF COURSE... I would like to point out that ALL of the above is strictly IMHO

...so absolutely no intent was made to offend, disagree specifically or harm anyone.

:)

Geno,

That post was offensive and inexcusable...

So, my reply to you is.......

Sorry...trying for a moment of levity here

[Lancerlady]

I'm really surprised that there is a thread up there full of name calling and vulgarity in "MY opinion" but it is still going full force. In the general discussion.

If I was a parent of a teenager, coming on to this website and saw some of the discussion being exchanged on that topic, I wouldn't want my kids being around that kind of mess. That bothers me more then cussing. Please let me clarify, Not the topic, but the discussion of name calling and tearing each other down.

I hope they figure out what's "gotten out of hand" around here and fix that aspect of it instead of worrying about some filtered cuss word.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Lancerlady

[GGarrett]

Geno,

That post was offensive and inexcusable...

So, my reply to you is.......

Sorry...trying for a moment of levity here

[LisaLisaMoMeesa]

I will appreciate your carefull consideration of the issue and your suppport.

-john

John,

I appreciate your take on this. It was never my intent to "push the outter limits" of what I can get away with, nor do I have an axe to grind on another subject (nor do I think your comments were directed specifically at me, at least I hope not, I just wanted to throw that out there).

My point was and will continue to be: OF COURSE there is going to be ambiguity. THere will be ambiguity because #1 Humans are the fourm admins and #2, Humans are the ones having the conversations. There SHOULD be room for admins to understand the context, the number of times this person has sworn, was it done in a joking manner (Man, I need a good kick in the arse for tha one) or was it mean spirited ("Eff you" or something.)

What I particularly like is BECAUSE there IS ambiguity in the guidelines, you have afforded your admins the ability to send a PM that says something like "Hey LIsa....you got a bit crazy in that Hillary Clinton Flip Flop thread with all the F-bombs, don't you think" at which point, as just about anyone here can tell you I would have responded..."Yeah...I guess you're right" and would have fixed it. (In fact, I had thought I should go back and fix it, but the screaming newborn took priority)

I feel like, given the fact that human interraction REQUIRES flexibility in the rules, I feel satisfied with your resolution of this problem and your admins giving a warning will go a LONG WAY towards helping the membership understand fully the rules, and when and where they can be a little flexible and when and where they cannot. No warning = no understaning = angry membership.

Rock on.

Edited February 3, 2007 by LisaLisaMoMeesa

[ea1974]

John,

I appreciate your take on this. It was never my intent to "push the outter limits" of what I can get away with, nor do I have an axe to grind on another subject (nor do I think your comments were directed specifically at me, at least I hope not, I just wanted to throw that out there).

My point was and will continue to be: OF COURSE there is going to be ambiguity. THere will be ambiguity because #1 Humans are the fourm admins and #2, Humans are the ones having the conversations. There SHOULD be room for admins to understand the context, the number of times this person has sworn, was it done in a joking manner (Man, I need a good kick in the arse for tha one) or was it mean spirited ("Eff you" or something.)

What I particularly like is BECAUSE there IS ambiguity in the guidelines, you have afforded your admins the ability to send a PM that says something like "Hey LIsa....you got a bit crazy in that Hillary Clinton Flip Flop thread with all the F-bombs, don't you think" at which point, as just about anyone here can tell you I would have responded..."Yeah...I guess you're right" and would have fixed it. (In fact, I had thought I should go back and fix it, but the screaming newborn took priority)

I feel like, given the fact that human interraction REQUIRES flexibility in the rules, I feel satisfied with your resolution of this problem and your admins giving a warning will go a LONG WAY towards helping the membership understand fully the rules, and when and where they can be a little flexible and when and where they cannot. No warning = no understaning = angry membership.

Rock on.

Good point. Lisa

Mike

[Scerpella]

We are not television, and that behavior would likely get you cited for indecent exposure. Black bar or not.

Perhaps legal adulthood (21) should in fact be a requirement for participating in the OT Forums?

[Skylinersop16]

Adulthood is 18, drinking age is 21