Timeline for Toward a philosophy of Chat
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2019 at 22:44 | comment | added | user212646 | @TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen Can Win 10 be a dick? | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 0:37 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | That is where context and knowing the channel is handy. | |
| Dec 11, 2015 at 0:34 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox | @TravisJ Yes, that's a part of what I put in my answer. Something has to be over-the-top for me to flag it "offensive", but boy, I'd really like to flag "rude" or "trolling" when I need some assistance. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 21:43 | comment | added | sbi | @Catija: meta.stackexchange.com/a/105244/133368 | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 21:01 | comment | added | Travis J | Overall, I agree that intent is a large issue, and not words. However, your examples really don't reflect that very well. "<User> is acting like a <insert vulgar or negative reference>" is not appropriate because it is derogatory regardless of which word used. Should stupid or childish or ignorant be banned? No. But a sentence like "user is acting like a stupid ignorant child" is basically an attack on that user, and profanity has nothing to do with it. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 20:59 | comment | added | Wad Cheber | @Catija - Amen. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 19:45 | comment | added | Mark | @ArtB, censoring words doesn't work. I saw a dramatic demonstration of this about a decade ago: an online game I played had a problem with a newcomer-hostile culture. They attempted to solve it by automatically censoring "newbie", "noob", and "n00b" to a different phrase, with the only result being that "fellow player" became a scathing insult. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 17:23 | comment | added | Catija | @JourneymanGeek How do you know that flags come from users "trolling chat rooms" and not simply from people who come in to chat or ask a question? Chat flags are generally anonymous. This attitude that people are "interlopers" trying to get people in trouble for innocuous comments is one of the main issues I see because people feel that the flags aren't warranted or aren't done in good faith... but you have no way to know that's the case at all. There is not a troll under every rock. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:52 | comment | added | Sled | Well I can't imagine anyone getting upset by being called a "cakesniffer" no matter how mean-spirited. Look at the cable dub of Scarface, using "melonfarmer" was deemed acceptable for TV, bu the other word was not, so I would say yes it does make it better. Second, this is entirely public site so a 13 year old from 50 years in the future could see anything so I'm not sure that is a useful standard. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:49 | comment | added | Bob | @KitZ.Fox That largely falls under Be Nice -- if someone makes a reasonable request to tone it down a bit, at least properly consider the request and there is absolutely no reason to behave aggressively towards them. It also goes with the context problem -- occasional profanity in-context typically isn't an issue ("why doesn't this damn thing work?!") but random profanity intended to annoy others would be a form of spam. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:44 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox | @ArtB Words aren't the problem. You can't fix the attitude with regex. If you take away my ability to say "motherfucker" regardless of whether the context is appropriate or not, then I will start using "cakesniffer" instead. Does that make it better? On the other hand, if you tell me that you are 13, I will automatically and instinctively refrain from swearing. It's not about the LCD, it's about respecting that we are different from each other. We can comment on that and try to be respectful of others without being dicks to each other. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 15:41 | comment | added | Sled | @KitZ.Fox if you sink to the lowest common denominator is that healthy? If I have to run everything through a million possible perspectives from which offense could be taken its exhausting and toxic in its own right. Some people find "rule of thumb" offensive (and not without someone reason), but at some point it seems like there needs to be "its valid for you to feel this way, but we feel that is an accepted form of expression in the community". How about "master" and "slave" when talking about hard drives? Not offending anyone ever seems like a bad goal, and better to white/black-list words | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 13:23 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | We wouldn't typically automatically tell off someone for using words that rhyme with witch and duck in context of a conversation. We'd like to avoid a chilling effect, or accidentally scunthroping. However if someone comes in and uses that all the time, we warn and suspend. Intent should matter as much as content. Calling someone something that rhymes with witch is never cool - using it in that context that bob did happens, and referring to a female dog as a "bitch" might even be accurate.Part of the problem actually comes down to people trolling chatrooms and flagging to disrupt things | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 13:19 | comment | added | TRiG | @Bob. There are still inconsistencies. English Language & Usage allows questions about profanity, but does not allow such words in titles, which might show up in the hot questions lists on other sites. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 13:18 | comment | added | Bob | @Mego That system, controversial as it is (current popular opinion by votes is "yes", but word of authority was "no" 6 years ago), was decided before chat existed. Doing differently in chat would introduce inconsistency between parts of the site, true, but at the same time I feel that system does not translate well to chat. When people use colloquial language, less-proper language (ranging from the subjective categories of informal to obscene) will creep in, and trying to enforce an absolute ban on specific words would also be inconsistent. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 13:10 | history | edited | Bob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 241 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 13:05 | comment | added | Bob | @TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen And that's exactly the problem. Different people have different opinions of which words are offensive - it's hard to define (consider: "bloody", "damn". consider euphemisms: "fudge", "fsck", "fark"). If you have any good ideas of how to deal with that, I'm all ears -- but I can't think of anything better than what we currently do now, which honestly isn't very good. IMO, one way to achieve more consistency is to consider how the word is used and what the sentence as a whole is saying, not which word is used. Still imperfect, obviously. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 12:09 | comment | added | TRiG | I would say that "win10 is being a bitch" is a problem, not because of vulgarity, but because it is using a specifically feminine word as an insult. I'm a lot more comfortable with fuck than with bitch, on the basis that fuck has no target. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 7:33 | comment | added | user307833 | There's an issue, though: there has been set a precedent of context not mattering on SE. There is a certain four-letter word that rhymes with "duck" that is not allowed in question titles (and debated whether it should be allowed at all in posts) because it can be used in offensive contexts, despite the fact that there is an unoffensive context (appended to "Brain") that is used frequently on certain sites. Chat being moderated with respect to context would be completely different than the moderation on SE proper. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 7:07 | history | edited | Bob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 4:22 | history | edited | Bob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:52 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | And this is why electing moderators who've demonstrated good judgement is so crucial... For main, and for chat. | |
| Dec 10, 2015 at 3:21 | history | answered | Bob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |