Re: Front Paging Profanity

Do we really want curse words on the front page? ... Is this something that should be condoned at the Monastery?

I rather suspect that a concensus agreement on what constitutes a "curse" or "swear" word will be hard to achieve. There are a few that are obvious, but beyond that there's a large gray area. And unless there's a concensus agreement on where the line is, we'd just be setting ourselves up for a string of arguments.

I say take it on a case-by-case basis via Moderation, and let the editors sort things out.

Comment on Re: Front Paging Profanity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Front Paging Profanity by adrianh (Chancellor) on Oct 15, 2002 at 20:27 UTC
Agree totally with dws. The combination of consideration and editors should reflect the general community opinion on content. If you object to the language in a node submit an appropriate consideration. I've not seen anything that I personally find offensive so am happy with the status quo.	[reply]
Re: Re: Front Paging Profanity by PetaMem (Priest) on Oct 18, 2002 at 08:20 UTC
It shouldn't be too hard to eliminate the obvious ones. And yes, there are possibilities for 3l33t versions of them to sneak in, but my hope is, that is unlikely to happen. My estimate is, that many of these "obvious" words sneak in because when the focus is on topic, there is no/less focus on form. This may be true for both the author and the reviewer/frontpager. So my vote is: Yes - lets at least establish basic mechanisms to keep a "monastery-like" spirit in here. THis is what I liked most when entering the monastery, and I - too - think that profanity made it somehow into. "Früher war alles besser." ;-) Bye PetaMem	[reply]