I want to go on record about certain parts of the forum rule, 2 parts specifically.
Inappropriate Language
Colloquial use of words such as 'gay', 'retarded' and 'raped' is similarly disallowed, as insensitive and offensive.
I accept that, in an essentially public forum, some minimum standard of language can reasonable be required. I also believe that what is appropriate or not appropriate will not always be completely clear. The "insensitive" criteria is drawing the line far to conservatively. While there is no easy line to draw, banning common language, which clearly has multiple meanings seems unreasonable, over-zealous and should be removed.
It is clear that in modern English the word "retarded" (as an example) has at least the following meanings
a) having a disability.
b) really bad
c) really good (surprisingly)
Banning more modern usage is reactionary, and authoritarian.
Repeated Bad Spelling and/or Grammar
Continuous bad grammar, "text speak" or bad spelling in posts will not be tolerated....
This is quite silly and is based on a misunderstanding of language. 'Rules' of spelling and grammar do not exist outside of arbitrary, and hardly useful, social constructions. This rule should be removed for this reason.
Thanks for reading:)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
I fully support the staff in this matter. IMHO, the use of the word retarded when referring to a mentally disabled person is archaic. It is like calling a flight attendant a stewardess or calling an administrative assistant a secretary. Is it really going to kill you to use one or two more syllables?
I do not think the other uses that you listed for the word retarded are acceptable either.
Banning more modern usage is reactionary, and authoritarian.
Except that the "modern usage" is what would be most often encountered on the forum. Especially being used in a derogatory fashion towards other posters. Hence why it's phrased the way it is... The colloquial use is what is banned, not the word themselves. If I wanted to say that "My professional growth was retarded by my boss, as she had a personal grudge against me.", then I am using the word in the appropriate way. On the other hand, saying "My boss is so..."
This is quite silly and is based on a misunderstanding of language. 'Rules' of spelling and grammar do not exist outside of arbitrary, and hardly useful, social constructions. This rule should be removed for this reason.
Speaking as someone who finds "133t speak" and/or texting to be difficult to read, and therefore communicate with the person making the post, I don't see anything wrong with a moderate expectation that a person will use reasonably good grammar to communicate.
A staff member could clarify on the enforcement on this rule, but rarely do I see people infracted for a few misspellings and/or missing apostraphes. It's the truly problematic and difficult to read posts that are ever directly addressed by the staff.
It takes a significant history of unreadable posts before action is taken on that rule. Think of posts where the content is almost not there at all because it is so poorly written.
I can't think of the last time that rule was enforced. It exists as a contingency.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
Inappropriate Language
Colloquial use of words such as 'gay', 'retarded' and 'raped' is similarly disallowed, as insensitive and offensive.
I accept that, in an essentially public forum, some minimum standard of language can reasonable be required. I also believe that what is appropriate or not appropriate will not always be completely clear. The "insensitive" criteria is drawing the line far to conservatively. While there is no easy line to draw, banning common language, which clearly has multiple meanings seems unreasonable, over-zealous and should be removed.
It is clear that in modern English the word "retarded" (as an example) has at least the following meanings
a) having a disability.
b) really bad
c) really good (surprisingly)
You will have a difficult time finding b or c in any reputable dictionary.
They are slang terms and, as colloquial devices, they are mostly restricted to regional or cultural areas and are not officially recognised as part of the language.
In particular, the colloquial use of retarded is restricted to young adults and teens (~10-25) who have had significant exposure to American culture.
This is similar to how gnarly=good is largely restricted to surfer culture, sick=good is restricted to the 90's and 'shizzle' is restricted to whatever culture that is.
Repeated Bad Spelling and/or Grammar
Continuous bad grammar, "text speak" or bad spelling in posts will not be tolerated....
This is quite silly and is based on a misunderstanding of language. 'Rules' of spelling and grammar do not exist outside of arbitrary, and hardly useful, social constructions. This rule should be removed for this reason.
This is actually one of the more crucial rules.
VVh3n ppl spk lik tIs uz got ahrd r34dz tym n stu0ghf.
So, we explicitly ask users to not post in such a style.
The issue of inappropriate language has been discussed extensively before, but the best way I can think of to explain the problem with colloquial use of words like "retarded" is by analogy. To say that someone or something is "retarded" (when you mean something other than "suffers from developmental disability") is to cheapen the experiences of those who actually are or have actually had close relationships with those who are. It's presumptuous, rude, misguided, and offensive. An analogous situation using another of our "context-sensitive" words would be if I said "Rape victims need to shutup because being raped is actually a lot of fun" even though I've never been the victim of sexual assault. Does that make any more sense?
You will have a difficult time finding b or c in any reputable dictionary.
Consulting a dictionary for the correct meaning of the word is like consulting a used car salesman for the correct price of a car, or consulting a member of the cultural majority for the correct thing to eat for breakfast. It assumes that a certain group in society should be able to dictate to us how we use a shared tool. It is based on a common misunderstanding of what language is.
They are slang terms and, as colloquial devices, they are mostly restricted to regional or cultural areas and are not officially recognised as part of the language.
There is no officially recognized standard for the usage of words, and if their was, if would be ludicrous. What foundation could possibly be used to establish this? Slang and colloquialisms are just as much a legitimate part of language as anything else.
In particular, the colloquial use of retarded is restricted to young adults and teens (~10-25) who have had significant exposure to American culture.
This is similar to how gnarly=good is largely restricted to surfer culture, sick=good is restricted to the 90's and 'shizzle' is restricted to whatever culture that is.
Not quite sure how this proves anything.
This is actually one of the more crucial rules.
VVh3n ppl spk lik tIs uz got ahrd r34dz tym n stu0ghf.
So, we explicitly ask users to not post in such a style.
Actually, this make it a redundant rule. The above post could surly be handled easily under spamming or possibly other rules.
In response to "retarded" not being modern usage. This is just plain incorrect. Listen to how people talk. Just because you don't like something does not make it old-fashioned.
I want to differentiate between 2 things:
1) using the word with the intent to insult eg "Hey user123, you are retarded", and
2) using the word to describe something eg "Reprinting Wit's End is so retarded"
I don't support the first use, but I do support the second. Given that it is not intended to insult, I find it well within the bounds of what should be acceptable. There may be other examples which are not so clear.
Thanks
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
I fully support the staff in this matter. IMHO, the use of the word retarded when referring to a mentally disabled person is archaic. It is like calling a flight attendant a stewardess or calling an administrative assistant a secretary. Is it really going to kill you to use one or two more syllables?
I do not think the other uses that you listed for the word retarded are acceptable either.
I don't support using the word "retarded" and I still use the word stewardess and secretary. People really say "administrative assistant" now?
Language rules are not really arbitrary. They are formed by consensus in order to facilitate communication and to display certain norms. The former is the reason for the grammar rule. The latter is the reason for the insulting language rule.
I do not particularly care - in the context of this rule - what "gay" means in the dictionary. Nor do I care whether you're intentionally insulting a specific person or not. Using "gay" as a negative term reinforces the connotation of homosexuality as a negative property. It does so even if you, personally, do not actually associate homosexuality with negative connotations. It does so even if you had no intent of conveying that message in your statement. As much as you might want your message to be able to escape social context, it cannot.
You mentioned that the dictionary does not necessarily describe current usage. To a certain extent, that's true. And to that extent, we can decide what we want that current usage to be. I do not want "gay" to mean "bad". Presumably the administrators of the site are pursuing a similar goal, given that policy.
d.
I want to differentiate between 2 things:
1) using the word with the intent to insult eg "Hey user123, you are retarded", and
2) using the word to describe something eg "Reprinting Wit's End is so retarded"
The way I feel about this is to give respect to those of us who may be disabled in some way. My brother-in-law (just as an example) has mild disabilities, but is always offended whenever the word retarded is used, whether it is being used towards him or in a colloquial manner. Words like Retarded have been given a lot of social baggage and hence we feel are not appropriate for general, colloquial use. It is the same with the word "*****". It's correct usage is towards a female dog, but if used to refer to a person would be deemed as trolling or flaming here.
Language rules are not really arbitrary. They are formed by consensus in order to facilitate communication and to display certain norms. The former is the reason for the grammar rule. The latter is the reason for the insulting language rule.
They completely are, if they were not we would have a criteria for distinguishing between different languages as to which ones are correct or not. A nonsense proposition.
Moreover, consensus may be a reasonable foundation to facilitate communication, but is not a reasonable foundation for establishing norms. If it was, then consensus could be used to justify many thing we find abhorrent.
As stated above, the 'facilitate communication' argument could be provided for using spam rules or others.
Using "gay" as a negative term reinforces the connotation of homosexuality as a negative property.
I presume it is open to debate the extent of this reinforcement. While the jury is out, I would strongly err on the side of caution. As stated in the OP, I realize this is a matter with shades of gray in it (the 'correct grammer/spelling' argument however is not)
It's correct usage is towards a female dog, but if used to refer to a person would be deemed as trolling or flaming here.
They are both equally correct. The fact that one is insulting (and reasonably banned) and the other is not, is irrelevant to the discussion.
Probably more helpfully, the fact that one is upset or offended should be balanced against other things when making a decision. She my comments above about my position.
Thanks
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
---
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
The word can still be used in its proper context, "The combination of Jace2.0, stoneforge mystic, batterskull and squadron hawks in the same standard environment retarded the development of other deck archetypes due the powerful combinations these cards created."
The meaning of this statement is because caw blade was such a powerful deck, the majority of players used it as they felt it was there best shot at winning. It was much easier to "copy/paste" a winning caw blade deck and pilot that than it was to study the meta-game at the time and develop a deck that was capable of winning.
Whereas "cawblades a retarded deck and only tards use it" is derogatory and insulting.
You can still use the word gay to describe happy as that is one of its meanings, but the word rape has no other meaning than sexual assault.
Believe it or not, the reason why we give words meaning is so we communicate what we want to each other. Giving your own meaning to words only leads to testicles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This will explain everything you need to know about me!
They completely are, if they were not we would have a criteria for distinguishing between different languages as to which ones are correct or not. A nonsense proposition.
We do! We can distinguish, in particular, between how well languages express various concepts.
Moreover, consensus may be a reasonable foundation to facilitate communication, but is not a reasonable foundation for establishing norms.
Actually, it is. Such norms do not have to be all-encompassing moral ultimatums. But they can certainly define the parameters of reasonable discourse. And it is entirely reasonable to say "please stick to this set of norms" when describing the rules of a particular community.
The way I feel about this is to give respect to those of us who may be disabled in some way. My brother-in-law (just as an example) has mild disabilities, but is always offended whenever the word retarded is used, whether it is being used towards him or in a colloquial manner. Words like Retarded have been given a lot of social baggage and hence we feel are not appropriate for general, colloquial use. It is the same with the word "*****". It's correct usage is towards a female dog, but if used to refer to a person would be deemed as trolling or flaming here.
And I have multiple people in real life that have disabilities that use the word retarded also. That argument is a really poor one.
Why have we drawn the line at using that word and not dumb or stupid? Both of which can, do and/or did at one point refer to deaf and mute people? The words have evolved to mean something else.
It is like the word ******, most people use it today not in its homophobic sense, but in a "douch bag" sense.
I have heard people say
"That card is retardedly powerful."
They could just as well say
"That card is extremely powerful."
But I would be hard pressed to find a person that would take offense to the first usage. And if I did find that person, I would be hard pressed to take them seriously.
Consulting a dictionary for the correct meaning of the word is like consulting a used car salesman for the correct price of a car, or consulting a member of the cultural majority for the correct thing to eat for breakfast. It assumes that a certain group in society should be able to dictate to us how we use a shared tool. It is based on a common misunderstanding of what language is.
It's more like consulting a user manual to fix something, as opposed to just taking a shot in the dark. If you later take it to someone who knows what they're doing, they'll know you just stabbed around a bit.
Because, it's more about the construction of the tool than its use.
Quote from Foreigner »
There is no officially recognized standard for the usage of words, and if their was, if would be ludicrous. What foundation could possibly be used to establish this? Slang and colloquialisms are just as much a legitimate part of language as anything else.
For English? No, there isn't one such a body. Instead, it's determined by more of a consensus amongst linguists and the publishers of dictionaries.
It should be noted that for many other languages there are such bodies.
German has the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung, French has the Académie française, Spanish has the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, and so on.
I think English is lesser for not having one, but that is another subject altogether (along with 'American' not being English ;)).
Quote from Foreigner »
Not quite sure how this proves anything.
It's pointing out that because it is a slang definition, the criteria for understanding that definition is not 'Speaks English', but 'Speaks English and belongs to a select group of individuals'.
Personally, I think it's rather generous to consider such usage as slang, since the proper way to interpret such usage is to consider it a use of personification and thus an insult towards the object in the same vein as it would be towards a human.
And using such conditions as pejoratives is unacceptable.
Quote from Foreigner »
Actually, this make it a redundant rule. The above post could surly be handled easily under spamming or possibly other rules.
If the post is relevant and on-topic, but murder on the eyes or overly difficult to understand. Then that rule is applied, because the post: isn't spam (they are contributing and on-topic), could be trolling (but, that requires perceived intent), and I'm at a loss to see another rule that could be applied.
As a parallel, what would you think if the community started using "you're such a Foreigner" as an insult, or said "you did a Foreigner" to mean you ****ed up?
Replace Foreigner with your own name if you want, but I don't know it.
Can you see why that's offensive, or at least offensive to some?
Other people are very offended by it, and that's why I don't use those words like that. I think it's completely reasonable for the forums to maintain that their content doesn't contain such words.
Foreigner, you are trying to argue that a rule be changed by saying that language is arbitrary. By that line of thought, all of the forum rules are arbitrary. Furthermore, words being offensive is entirely arbitrary. *****, ****, and ******* are not offensive except when the person saying and the person hearing what them to be understood as offensive.
You set yourself on a slippery slope that would logically lead to the removal of all forum (and hell, all societal rules as well). All rules, not just those in language, are formed via convention. That doesn't make those rules inherently wrong.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Inappropriate Language
Colloquial use of words such as 'gay', 'retarded' and 'raped' is similarly disallowed, as insensitive and offensive.
I accept that, in an essentially public forum, some minimum standard of language can reasonable be required. I also believe that what is appropriate or not appropriate will not always be completely clear. The "insensitive" criteria is drawing the line far to conservatively. While there is no easy line to draw, banning common language, which clearly has multiple meanings seems unreasonable, over-zealous and should be removed.
It is clear that in modern English the word "retarded" (as an example) has at least the following meanings
a) having a disability.
b) really bad
c) really good (surprisingly)
Banning more modern usage is reactionary, and authoritarian.
Repeated Bad Spelling and/or Grammar
Continuous bad grammar, "text speak" or bad spelling in posts will not be tolerated....
This is quite silly and is based on a misunderstanding of language. 'Rules' of spelling and grammar do not exist outside of arbitrary, and hardly useful, social constructions. This rule should be removed for this reason.
Thanks for reading:)
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
I do not think the other uses that you listed for the word retarded are acceptable either.
Except that the "modern usage" is what would be most often encountered on the forum. Especially being used in a derogatory fashion towards other posters. Hence why it's phrased the way it is... The colloquial use is what is banned, not the word themselves. If I wanted to say that "My professional growth was retarded by my boss, as she had a personal grudge against me.", then I am using the word in the appropriate way. On the other hand, saying "My boss is so..."
Well, that should illustrate the rule.
Speaking as someone who finds "133t speak" and/or texting to be difficult to read, and therefore communicate with the person making the post, I don't see anything wrong with a moderate expectation that a person will use reasonably good grammar to communicate.
A staff member could clarify on the enforcement on this rule, but rarely do I see people infracted for a few misspellings and/or missing apostraphes. It's the truly problematic and difficult to read posts that are ever directly addressed by the staff.
I can't think of the last time that rule was enforced. It exists as a contingency.
You will have a difficult time finding b or c in any reputable dictionary.
They are slang terms and, as colloquial devices, they are mostly restricted to regional or cultural areas and are not officially recognised as part of the language.
In particular, the colloquial use of retarded is restricted to young adults and teens (~10-25) who have had significant exposure to American culture.
This is similar to how gnarly=good is largely restricted to surfer culture, sick=good is restricted to the 90's and 'shizzle' is restricted to whatever culture that is.
This is actually one of the more crucial rules.
VVh3n ppl spk lik tIs uz got ahrd r34dz tym n stu0ghf.
So, we explicitly ask users to not post in such a style.
In response to "retarded" not being modern usage. This is just plain incorrect. Listen to how people talk. Just because you don't like something does not make it old-fashioned.
I want to differentiate between 2 things:
1) using the word with the intent to insult eg "Hey user123, you are retarded", and
2) using the word to describe something eg "Reprinting Wit's End is so retarded"
I don't support the first use, but I do support the second. Given that it is not intended to insult, I find it well within the bounds of what should be acceptable. There may be other examples which are not so clear.
Thanks
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
I don't support using the word "retarded" and I still use the word stewardess and secretary. People really say "administrative assistant" now?
I do not particularly care - in the context of this rule - what "gay" means in the dictionary. Nor do I care whether you're intentionally insulting a specific person or not. Using "gay" as a negative term reinforces the connotation of homosexuality as a negative property. It does so even if you, personally, do not actually associate homosexuality with negative connotations. It does so even if you had no intent of conveying that message in your statement. As much as you might want your message to be able to escape social context, it cannot.
You mentioned that the dictionary does not necessarily describe current usage. To a certain extent, that's true. And to that extent, we can decide what we want that current usage to be. I do not want "gay" to mean "bad". Presumably the administrators of the site are pursuing a similar goal, given that policy.
The way I feel about this is to give respect to those of us who may be disabled in some way. My brother-in-law (just as an example) has mild disabilities, but is always offended whenever the word retarded is used, whether it is being used towards him or in a colloquial manner. Words like Retarded have been given a lot of social baggage and hence we feel are not appropriate for general, colloquial use. It is the same with the word "*****". It's correct usage is towards a female dog, but if used to refer to a person would be deemed as trolling or flaming here.
I was sad to read some of the stuff people posted in that thread.
My YouTube Channel
Thanks
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
The meaning of this statement is because caw blade was such a powerful deck, the majority of players used it as they felt it was there best shot at winning. It was much easier to "copy/paste" a winning caw blade deck and pilot that than it was to study the meta-game at the time and develop a deck that was capable of winning.
Whereas "cawblades a retarded deck and only tards use it" is derogatory and insulting.
You can still use the word gay to describe happy as that is one of its meanings, but the word rape has no other meaning than sexual assault.
Believe it or not, the reason why we give words meaning is so we communicate what we want to each other. Giving your own meaning to words only leads to testicles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPtQHIc9QWw
And I have multiple people in real life that have disabilities that use the word retarded also. That argument is a really poor one.
Why have we drawn the line at using that word and not dumb or stupid? Both of which can, do and/or did at one point refer to deaf and mute people? The words have evolved to mean something else.
It is like the word ******, most people use it today not in its homophobic sense, but in a "douch bag" sense.
I have heard people say
"That card is retardedly powerful."
They could just as well say
"That card is extremely powerful."
But I would be hard pressed to find a person that would take offense to the first usage. And if I did find that person, I would be hard pressed to take them seriously.
Everyone else seems to be able to follow what I am saying, hence meaningful (but in my opinion misguided) answers.
A real word example would be nice.
Thanks:)
You colonization of language is not appreciated.
Please answer my question rather than being flippant
Because, it's more about the construction of the tool than its use.
For English? No, there isn't one such a body. Instead, it's determined by more of a consensus amongst linguists and the publishers of dictionaries.
It should be noted that for many other languages there are such bodies.
German has the Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung, French has the Académie française, Spanish has the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española, and so on.
I think English is lesser for not having one, but that is another subject altogether (along with 'American' not being English ;)).
It's pointing out that because it is a slang definition, the criteria for understanding that definition is not 'Speaks English', but 'Speaks English and belongs to a select group of individuals'.
Personally, I think it's rather generous to consider such usage as slang, since the proper way to interpret such usage is to consider it a use of personification and thus an insult towards the object in the same vein as it would be towards a human.
And using such conditions as pejoratives is unacceptable.
If the post is relevant and on-topic, but murder on the eyes or overly difficult to understand. Then that rule is applied, because the post: isn't spam (they are contributing and on-topic), could be trolling (but, that requires perceived intent), and I'm at a loss to see another rule that could be applied.
Replace Foreigner with your own name if you want, but I don't know it.
Can you see why that's offensive, or at least offensive to some?
Other people are very offended by it, and that's why I don't use those words like that. I think it's completely reasonable for the forums to maintain that their content doesn't contain such words.
Draft it on Cubetutor!
You set yourself on a slippery slope that would logically lead to the removal of all forum (and hell, all societal rules as well). All rules, not just those in language, are formed via convention. That doesn't make those rules inherently wrong.