Decision - Wub censor smiley alternate

[Last Roman]

how about we get rid of the ing stupid censor emoticons all together?

[Senno]

Apparently he thinks he is being provocative somehow....

[Lord Condormanius]

Well, if someone can prove to me that the present system doesn't work, perhaps I would consider changing it to be a good idea. At this point, I can't see that happening.

[Agent Provocateur]

Why not just delete the word and leave a blank? It might still underline the fact that someone has sworn, but at least it would take all recognition out of it. It would just leave a sentence with a hole in it.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Something's better than nothing, LC. Begone with you naysayers.

And Senno, no-one asked you to clicky clicky on thready thready.


On topic, the censor problem can be brought down to a few points. The wub was put there not to divert attention from swear words, but to stop people using them. In this regard they are working, Sim has the figures. This, however, is based on the assumption that asterisks-censored swear words are inappropriate to a site like this. Seeing where TWC is going - i.e. becoming a child's play area - you may have a point. Whether out of some kind of nostalgic loyalty to a bygone time of freer expression, or whether out of my own views on freedom of expression, I see a problem and have to stand up to it.

[Lord Condormanius]

Something's better than nothing, LC. Begone with you naysayers.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I'm not one for change merely for the sake of change.

This, however, is based on the assumption that asterisks-censored swear words are inappropriate to a site like this.

I don't think that is the assumption at all. I think the assumption is that asterisks don't make the poster feel as foolish as the does.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I'm not one for change merely for the sake of change.

I mean, although the Curia does not have official power, if it can get a message across to Hex, if it can do an ounce of difference, it's worth it.

I don't think that is the assumption at all. I think the assumption is that asterisks don't make the poster feel as foolish as the does.

Then we must ask, why should the poster feel foolish for swearing? What kind of site administration is this that forces a style of vocabulary - already censored might I add - into mocked seclusion?

[Senno]

Something's better than nothing, LC. Begone with you naysayers.

And Senno, no-one asked you to clicky clicky on thready thready.

Don't need an invitation. This is an open thread. Hence I expressed my opinion. Sorry it doesn't match with yours (not really)......

And there's not really a workable Decision here, at this point.

[Lord Condormanius]

I mean, although the Curia does not have official power, if it can get a message across to Hex, if it can do an ounce of difference, it's worth it.

Fair enough.

Then we must ask, why should the poster feel foolish for swearing? What kind of site administration is this that forces a style of vocabulary - already censored might I add - into mocked seclusion?

Not this again. You already know my explanation of why. We have been over this several times. Profanity, in most cases, is nothing more than a shortcut to thinking. We want to discourage its use. Embarrassment is a pretty good tool for this.

[Gaius Baltar]

Three days, Gaius

Awesome, you do a great job. I just hope we can come together, in a bi-partisan fashion, and do whats right for the people.

They deserve a good . We all do.

No bailouts for clowns.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Not this again. You already know my explanation of why. We have been over this several times. Profanity, in most cases, is nothing more than a shortcut to thinking. We want to discourage its use. Embarrassment is a pretty good tool for this.

You're right - the argument always comes around to this. I guess I can't change the opinion that we shouldn't persecute people for subjective reasons. Oh well, some things never change.

[Agent Provocateur]

Not this again. You already know my explanation of why. We have been over this several times. Profanity, in most cases, is nothing more than a shortcut to thinking. We want to discourage its use. Embarrassment is a pretty good tool for this.

Except that the face isn't really embarrassing is it? It is kind of cute, an amusing little typographical expletive to make people smile. Instead of underlining to everyone you don't have the imagination to express yourself without resorting to the mental equivalent of a cow farting.

[Lord Condormanius]

You're right - the argument always comes around to this. I guess I can't change the opinion that we shouldn't persecute people for subjective reasons. Oh well, some things never change.

Dress it up however you like, but the fact remains, regardless of what you might think is subjective, most civilized and educated people agree that profanity belongs in the gutter, not in public discourse.

Except that the face isn't really embarrassing is it? It is kind of cute, an amusing little typographical expletive to make people smile. Instead of underlining to everyone you don't have the imagination to express yourself without resorting to the mental equivalent of a cow farting.

Well, I don't know, but the only people who seem to be upset by it are those who want to use profanity. Whether it is embarrassing or not, who knows? It does seem to be working, however. This leads me to believe that there is no reason to change it.

[Hotspur]

Decision failed - 25:30:7