|
Replies:
|
|
daib0
|
30 Aug 2013, 06:07 PM
Post #51
|
|
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
- Posts:
- 35,935
- Group:
- Contributors
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- 30 December 2010
|
- Bahamoth
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:27 PM
- daib0
- 7 Aug 2013, 07:56 PM
- Bahamoth
- 7 Aug 2013, 03:49 PM
As long as 'bad' language isn't directed at someone with malicious intent, nothing wrong with a bit of blue language. I do like a bit o' blue.
yep, but on a football forum you can't often tell if it's malicious or not because you can't physically hear that sound of voice; so I always erred on the side of caution. Also, if someone does, the next will do it a bit more, and so on ...
What I don't understand is how it is wrong to use a swear word but okay if you block out a couple of letters. I'm not having a go at anyone. It's a genuine problem I have with society. A swear word is bad, just like ANY word, ONLY when it is used with malicious intent. For example, you can use non-swear words to really hurt someone and I think those should be frowned upon and NOT words that were seen to be vulgar by the invading French. It's so arbitrary. I'm assuming everyone is aware that the words that are currently seen as inappropriate are only thought of that way because they were Anglo-Saxon words and the 'polite society' were French and thought that the 'uncivilized' inhabitants of Britain were horrible and vulgar. They attempted to eradicate all Anglo-Saxon words. They would have succeeded too had that been a good and workable plan. Our Anglo-Saxon words are far too good at what they do to ever be replaced. So, it annoys me when these words, which are perfectly good words, are frowned upon because of some poxy invaders who didn't like the local language. I am in favor of keeping the forum a friendly place and one in which is inclusive of people of all ages, but I don't see why putting the odd asterix here and there is somehow more friendly than not doing that. We all know what word people mean, and that doesn't upset people, what's so bad with actually seeing it?? If we have people using 'bad language' in a way that is intended to offend, then that should be stamped out. A related note, just because people are offended about some things, doesn't mean that should matter. Being offended doesn't make you right. Also, apparently Operation Yewtree are cracking down on old man celebrities with beards. Watch out, Bill Oddie. I agree and I don't agree. Of the historical origins I can't argue one iota. And, of course there's not that much bad with mild swear words, but ... as I said previously we can't often tell in which way it's meant.
If Hayes or myself told you to f-off, you'd almost surely realize that it was a bit of fun or a gentle wind-up, but what for those members who we don't know very well, or who post little? It has happened, and we did have to ban a probably genuine supporter for use of swear words which were aimed at individuals on here (about 14 months ago now).
We're not mind readers, why should a mod be put in the position of being 'God' and deciding the intent of a certain post? At least by writing a couple of **s the poster is aware of possibly sensitive words he/she is writing so that in itself makes it much softer. I've been saddened this week by the top poster (in number of posts) of another forum being banned for excessive use of swear words aimed at others on that forum - a shame, because he didn't really mean it I'm sure, but it got unbearable for some (and that doesn't mean me).
And I still don't understand what the big thing is in swearing anyway. Why not choose other words to let off steam? If I said that "nancy-gander-pidgeon" was a swear word no-one would take any notice because it's not conceived to be bad. So we have to say bad words to be listened to? Sorry, I can't buy that ...
|
Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share !
|
| |
|
SuffolkRoyal
|
30 Aug 2013, 06:11 PM
Post #52
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,793
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- 29 December 2010
|
- daib0
- 30 Aug 2013, 06:07 PM
- Bahamoth
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:27 PM
- daib0
- 7 Aug 2013, 07:56 PM
- Bahamoth
- 7 Aug 2013, 03:49 PM
As long as 'bad' language isn't directed at someone with malicious intent, nothing wrong with a bit of blue language. I do like a bit o' blue.
yep, but on a football forum you can't often tell if it's malicious or not because you can't physically hear that sound of voice; so I always erred on the side of caution. Also, if someone does, the next will do it a bit more, and so on ...
What I don't understand is how it is wrong to use a swear word but okay if you block out a couple of letters. I'm not having a go at anyone. It's a genuine problem I have with society. A swear word is bad, just like ANY word, ONLY when it is used with malicious intent. For example, you can use non-swear words to really hurt someone and I think those should be frowned upon and NOT words that were seen to be vulgar by the invading French. It's so arbitrary. I'm assuming everyone is aware that the words that are currently seen as inappropriate are only thought of that way because they were Anglo-Saxon words and the 'polite society' were French and thought that the 'uncivilized' inhabitants of Britain were horrible and vulgar. They attempted to eradicate all Anglo-Saxon words. They would have succeeded too had that been a good and workable plan. Our Anglo-Saxon words are far too good at what they do to ever be replaced. So, it annoys me when these words, which are perfectly good words, are frowned upon because of some poxy invaders who didn't like the local language. I am in favor of keeping the forum a friendly place and one in which is inclusive of people of all ages, but I don't see why putting the odd asterix here and there is somehow more friendly than not doing that. We all know what word people mean, and that doesn't upset people, what's so bad with actually seeing it?? If we have people using 'bad language' in a way that is intended to offend, then that should be stamped out. A related note, just because people are offended about some things, doesn't mean that should matter. Being offended doesn't make you right. Also, apparently Operation Yewtree are cracking down on old man celebrities with beards. Watch out, Bill Oddie.
I agree and I don't agree. Of the historical origins I can't argue one iota. And, of course there's not that much bad with mild swear words, but ... as I said previously we can't often tell in which way it's meant. If Hayes or myself told you to f-off, you'd almost surely realize that it was a bit of fun or a gentle wind-up, but what for those members who we don't know very well, or who post little? It has happened, and we did have to ban a probably genuine supporter for use of swear words which were aimed at individuals on here (about 14 months ago now). We're not mind readers, why should a mod be put in the position of being 'God' and deciding the intent of a certain post? At least by writing a couple of **s the poster is aware of possibly sensitive words he/she is writing so that in itself makes it much softer. I've been saddened this week by the top poster (in number of posts) of another forum being banned for excessive use of swear words aimed at others on that forum - a shame, because he didn't really mean it I'm sure, but it got unbearable for some (and that doesn't mean me). And I still don't understand what the big thing is in swearing anyway. Why not choose other words to let off steam? If I said that "nancy-gander-pidgeon" was a swear word no-one would take any notice because it's not conceived to be bad. So we have to say bad words to be listened to? Sorry, I can't buy that ... That would depend on whether it was a really butch pigeon
|
|
|
| |
|
Owlish52
|
30 Aug 2013, 06:15 PM
Post #53
|
|
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
- Posts:
- 10,584
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #144
- Joined:
- 23 May 2011
|
I shall henceforth use NGP in place of any swear words - it'll confuse the heck out of new members...
|
|
"It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52
|
| |
|
Bahamoth
|
30 Aug 2013, 08:42 PM
Post #54
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,352
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #286
- Joined:
- 21 February 2012
|
Hmmm... I don't think the issue is that people want to 'go and have a good swear', more that we ARE adults (in the majority) and capable of using swear words in moderation. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the forum change. I'm expressing a frustration with society since it is beyond logic that these word be considered rude in the first place and, secondly, that substituting the words for others, or worse still, substituting letters for asterix is somehow acceptable. We all know what the word is supposed to be. How is it now not offensive if it's tweaked? It's irrational.
|
|
|
| |
|
Bahamoth
|
30 Aug 2013, 08:57 PM
Post #55
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,352
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #286
- Joined:
- 21 February 2012
|
- daib0
- 30 Aug 2013, 06:07 PM
- Bahamoth
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:27 PM
- daib0
- 7 Aug 2013, 07:56 PM
- Bahamoth
- 7 Aug 2013, 03:49 PM
As long as 'bad' language isn't directed at someone with malicious intent, nothing wrong with a bit of blue language. I do like a bit o' blue.
yep, but on a football forum you can't often tell if it's malicious or not because you can't physically hear that sound of voice; so I always erred on the side of caution. Also, if someone does, the next will do it a bit more, and so on ...
What I don't understand is how it is wrong to use a swear word but okay if you block out a couple of letters. I'm not having a go at anyone. It's a genuine problem I have with society. A swear word is bad, just like ANY word, ONLY when it is used with malicious intent. For example, you can use non-swear words to really hurt someone and I think those should be frowned upon and NOT words that were seen to be vulgar by the invading French. It's so arbitrary. I'm assuming everyone is aware that the words that are currently seen as inappropriate are only thought of that way because they were Anglo-Saxon words and the 'polite society' were French and thought that the 'uncivilized' inhabitants of Britain were horrible and vulgar. They attempted to eradicate all Anglo-Saxon words. They would have succeeded too had that been a good and workable plan. Our Anglo-Saxon words are far too good at what they do to ever be replaced. So, it annoys me when these words, which are perfectly good words, are frowned upon because of some poxy invaders who didn't like the local language. I am in favor of keeping the forum a friendly place and one in which is inclusive of people of all ages, but I don't see why putting the odd asterix here and there is somehow more friendly than not doing that. We all know what word people mean, and that doesn't upset people, what's so bad with actually seeing it?? If we have people using 'bad language' in a way that is intended to offend, then that should be stamped out. A related note, just because people are offended about some things, doesn't mean that should matter. Being offended doesn't make you right. Also, apparently Operation Yewtree are cracking down on old man celebrities with beards. Watch out, Bill Oddie.
I agree and I don't agree. Of the historical origins I can't argue one iota. And, of course there's not that much bad with mild swear words, but ... as I said previously we can't often tell in which way it's meant. If Hayes or myself told you to f-off, you'd almost surely realize that it was a bit of fun or a gentle wind-up, but what for those members who we don't know very well, or who post little? It has happened, and we did have to ban a probably genuine supporter for use of swear words which were aimed at individuals on here (about 14 months ago now). We're not mind readers, why should a mod be put in the position of being 'God' and deciding the intent of a certain post? At least by writing a couple of **s the poster is aware of possibly sensitive words he/she is writing so that in itself makes it much softer. I've been saddened this week by the top poster (in number of posts) of another forum being banned for excessive use of swear words aimed at others on that forum - a shame, because he didn't really mean it I'm sure, but it got unbearable for some (and that doesn't mean me). And I still don't understand what the big thing is in swearing anyway. Why not choose other words to let off steam? If I said that "nancy-gander-pidgeon" was a swear word no-one would take any notice because it's not conceived to be bad. So we have to say bad words to be listened to? Sorry, I can't buy that ... That's exactly my point. We shouldn't be saying 'f-off' at all. That's is not acceptable even as a joke BECAUSE of, how you say, it's not always possible to tell if it is meant in jest. Using a swear word in that context isn't acceptable for that reason, I agree. Swear words aimed at someone is not on. However, someone saying GTF in is an expression of joy. The 'thing' with uttering swearwords is that they ARE more passionate and emphatic than anything else yet created. Swear words reveal hidden emotion. Who here hasn't had a falling out with someone because of an accidental slip of the f-bomb? And by that, I mean 'Will you effing hurry up?' (or something like that). Said without a swear word, it's fine, but then you slip in the f word and suddenly it becomes an issue and a fight is started.
So, swearing is powerful, but I don't think that society should be so blanketed as to say it's never acceptable. I think we should all be grown up (as a society) to be able to tell the difference between an acceptable use and not. I don't agree with people throwing it around blindly, like, saying 'like' a lot. For many people it is just verbal diarrhea.
I 100% believe that you, David, say 'nancy gander pigeon' to let off steam. I can picture it now.  However, swearing is much more efficient way of doing it. It's all about just letting go. Being restrained with venting causes more pressure to build up.
Anyway, I honestly don't care about not swearing on a forum. I do think it's stupid to choose different expletives, or to censor the expletives. I think it would genuinely be better if it was all just rephrased to not include the need for a swear substitute.
Edited by Bahamoth, 30 Aug 2013, 08:58 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
daib0
|
30 Aug 2013, 09:17 PM
Post #56
|
|
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
- Posts:
- 35,935
- Group:
- Contributors
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- 30 December 2010
|
we're closer than we previously thought then ...
|
Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share !
|
| |
|
cribsie
|
30 Aug 2013, 09:52 PM
Post #57
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,760
- Group:
- RR Assistants
- Member
- #554
- Joined:
- 11 March 2013
|
Personally, I've got no problem with swearing when used to emphasize a point when spoken, but I don't like to see it in black and white. I don't know why, that's just the way I feel, maybe it is because sometimes you can't tell the tone of the writer. For people who don't mind swearing on this forum, would that also go for the internet in general? If you just mean this forum then you would presumably put a prominent warning on the banner in case young children were reading.
|
|
My Reading FC History Site The Biscuitmen
|
| |
|
SuffolkRoyal
|
30 Aug 2013, 10:07 PM
Post #58
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,793
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- 29 December 2010
|
Each to their own.
But I'm content that this forum has a decency policy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hayes
|
30 Aug 2013, 11:45 PM
Post #59
|
|
- Posts:
- 24,797
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #25
- Joined:
- 31 December 2010
|
- Tilehurstsouthbank
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:50 PM
- Hayes
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:31 PM
- Bahamoth
- 30 Aug 2013, 05:27 PM
- daib0
- 7 Aug 2013, 07:56 PM
- Bahamoth
- 7 Aug 2013, 03:49 PM
As long as 'bad' language isn't directed at someone with malicious intent, nothing wrong with a bit of blue language. I do like a bit o' blue.
yep, but on a football forum you can't often tell if it's malicious or not because you can't physically hear that sound of voice; so I always erred on the side of caution. Also, if someone does, the next will do it a bit more, and so on ...
What I don't understand is how it is wrong to use a swear word but okay if you block out a couple of letters. I'm not having a go at anyone. It's a genuine problem I have with society. A swear word is bad, just like ANY word, ONLY when it is used with malicious intent. For example, you can use non-swear words to really hurt someone and I think those should be frowned upon and NOT words that were seen to be vulgar by the invading French. It's so arbitrary. I'm assuming everyone is aware that the words that are currently seen as inappropriate are only thought of that way because they were Anglo-Saxon words and the 'polite society' were French and thought that the 'uncivilized' inhabitants of Britain were horrible and vulgar. They attempted to eradicate all Anglo-Saxon words. They would have succeeded too had that been a good and workable plan. Our Anglo-Saxon words are far too good at what they do to ever be replaced. So, it annoys me when these words, which are perfectly good words, are frowned upon because of some poxy invaders who didn't like the local language. I am in favor of keeping the forum a friendly place and one in which is inclusive of people of all ages, but I don't see why putting the odd asterix here and there is somehow more friendly than not doing that. We all know what word people mean, and that doesn't upset people, what's so bad with actually seeing it?? If we have people using 'bad language' in a way that is intended to offend, then that should be stamped out. A related note, just because people are offended about some things, doesn't mean that should matter. Being offended doesn't make you right. Also, apparently Operation Yewtree are cracking down on old man celebrities with beards. Watch out, Bill Oddie.
I must say I entirely agree with that statement about language,pity we would be in the minority,a fellow mod moderated what was a mild word of mine recently.
Yes Mike, but don't think your special!  As long as we have rules & regs, they need to be upheld. I don't mind a bit of swearing, but it's one of those situations where you can't really have a 'Halfway House' because someone is bound to push the envelope. Just look at HNA? Swearing on there is the norm and a lot of it in my eyes is just for the sake of it. No it's not,got the same rules as us,it has disguised swearing yes .but not outright
|
https://www.facebook.com/groups/www.readingfc.co.uk/?ref=bookmarks
|
| |
|
Zip
|
31 Aug 2013, 09:16 AM
Post #60
|
|
- Posts:
- 7,351
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #425
- Joined:
- 14 July 2012
|
Swearing doesn't bother me as long as its not aimed at anybody. This place is very different from Hobnob which to me needs tougher moderation. Some of the stuff on there oversteps the line. I would never allow Charlie to post on there like I would on here. RR may not be as big as HNA but its gradually evolving and its important that the younger element like Clyde,Crispy,Zip J etc don't get bored and move on. We need the younger ones on here to counter-act us older,cynical gits.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|