Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1669199-20170416030900

So last night on this forum I've had a brief off-topic conversation with NotLessOrEqual about our language policy (specifically, the line near the top that says, "Don't use profanity. Censoring vulgar words is not acceptable on the wiki either.", although we also touched upon the language policy described on the Chat Policy page), and he basically expressed to me how he felt it was a problem how vaguely defined the policy was and how arbitrarily it's enforced. I gave a brief history on why I think the language policy has been as vaguely defined as it's always have been, and why the policy has largely kept the same form throughout the years since it's inception, but upon reflecting on everything we were discussing I found myself agreeing with his suggestion that we should perhaps try to make the language policy more defined, less arbitrary, than it currently is, because in it's current form it does rely quite heavily on User discretion and interpretation on where, when and how the policy in general should be enforced (although to be fair, the version of this policy we have set aside for the Chat Policy page does go into detail on what kind of language is and isn't allowed and how it may be used, but even then I think more detail could be added to help make the list more comprehensive and clear-cut). As I explained to NotLessOrEqual, I speculate that the reason that we never really seemed to have many issues with how the language policy was vaguely defined was because for the longest time the majority of Users/Admins here held similar interpretations on the rule, and everyone just went along with these commonly-shared, unwritten interpretations as we went about enforcing the rule whenever we felt it was being violated at any point. Speaking for myself at least, keeping this idea of enforcing the rule at my own discretion in mind, and after having enforced the rule in this manner for years on end now with there being next to no real conflicts between myself and any of the other Admins and most of the other Users over how I went about enforcing the rule (I think there might've been one instance in the past where I punished a person on the Wiki for violating the language policy, and they went to other Admins to try and get their punishment overturned, but it never went anywhere since the other Admins this person contacted expressed agreement with my stance on why I chose to enforce the rule in that particular instance, and so the case was quickly closed.), it would seem that over time I just stopped thinking about the language policy at length and just enforced it at my own discretion whenever I saw any instances of it being violated -- basically running on "autopilot" whenever I went about attempting to enforce the rule.

So as I was wrapping up my conversation with NotLessOrEqual, I decided that it'd be a good idea to get a discussion rolling on possibly making the language policy on the Wiki more defined and clear-cut than it currently is, and see if we can come up with a comprehensive list of what kinds of language is and isn't allowed around the various areas of the Wiki and whether or not any exceptions can be made if any uses of certain words/phrases/etc. are used in certain contexts and connotations (i.e., using the word "ass" to describe a donkey rather than describing the buttocks, to name one example.) -- in other words, a list of Do's and Don'ts on what and how certain kinds of language can be used around the Wiki and, by extension, the Wiki Chat. To be honest it makes sense to me why we've always had such a language policy like the one we've currently got: Sonic the Hedgehog is a children's franchise, and many of us back in the day felt that since we likely get a lot of visitors/Users on this site who are likely on average pretty young in age as a result of being the targeted audience for the franchise it made sense to us to make more of an effort to police our own language compared to how other Wikis that cover media targeted for older audiences might've chosen to do so. It was mainly born out of a desire to not alienate younger readers/Users who may consider visiting our Wiki for whatever reason, if they decided to look at how we normally interacted with each other on the Wiki, out in public for all to see. It may have been born out of noble intentions, but a vaguely defined rule is still at risk of being exploited, even if the majority of everyone else here were to hold a common interpretation on any vaguely defined rules we may have -- which is why I think a discussion should be had about improving the language policy so we can reduce the likelihood of the rule being abused in any way.

So I'll start this off by listing some of my own ideas on how we can change the language policy: For one, I think it'd be a good idea to make a decently-sized list (nothing unreasonably large, like, say, an entire essay's worth of words and phrases.. We don't need to be that thorough) on what kinds of words aren't allowed to be used, for both the main language policy and the language policy we have set aside for the Wiki chat, rather than making a brief line or two of that only talks a little about what exceptions can be allowed while everything else isn't, like how the language policy is currently written on the Chat policy page. We should also think about whether or not any exceptions can be made to use any specific words/phrases given they are used in certain contexts, like in the example I gave earlier. I don't think every single instance certain words are uttered here on the Wiki should be necessarily punished or be threatened with punishment regardless of the context and connotations in which they are used -- we should be willing to give exceptions under certain circumstances so the language policy isn't too stifling.

For what sort of words I think would be permissible to use regardless of context and connotations, I think all the words considered to be "mild profanity" that listed in the Chat policy page for the chat's language rule (damn, crap, piss, hell) are perfectly okay to use, although I think that we could perhaps ignore trying to avoid directing these words at any Users like the Chat policy pages says unless the specific User in which the words are being directed at specifically asks that they not have those words spoken to them, in which case if someone is intentionally ignoring these requests and using this sort of language when engaging with the User in question, then instances like these could be seen as a violation of both the language policy and can be enforced accordingly. Here are a few examples of words and phrases which which I think we should avoid using on the Wiki and the main chat room in the Wiki chat unless used under specific contexts/circumstances (which I will refer to as examples of "strong profanity" since they will obviously be more severe than the examples I've listed under "mild profanity"): Shit, fuck, cunt, dick (unless "dick" happens to be the name of something being addressed or mentioned, like "[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Armey Dick Armey]"), god-damn/goddamn/god dammit/goddammit/, shithead, asshole, bullshit, fucker, slut, whore, prick... As for possible exceptions to potentially facing discipline for using these words? Well, one example that immediately comes to mind is when quoting what someone else on the Wiki has said, like if you were to address someone's usage of any words considered to be strong profanity to them directly, or when reporting them to a Moderator/Administrator. As for other examples I can think of, as of this writing I got nothing, but perhaps we can all think of other ones if we put our heads together, and list them all together along with any examples of mild and strong profanity that we decide is either okay to use or off-limits.

Here's one example on what this sort of list could look like:

"Use of "Strong profanity" is strictly prohibited on the Wiki and the Chat Room. Mild profanity (damn, crap, piss, hell) will be tolerated as long as both (or all) parties consent to it. Using mild profanity with Users who would prefer specific, or all examples to not be used when speaking to them directly will be seen as a violation of this policy and be dealt with accordingly.

*"Here are examples of mild profanity: Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8... (and so on)

'''*"Here are examples of strong profanity -- use of these words for any reason, unless used in specific contexts (more details on this down below), will first be met with a warning, then a potential ban if usage of these words persists despite any warnings given:

*"Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8... (and so on)

"'''Usage of strong profanity may be permitted if they are used in the provided contexts:

'''*"Example 1:

'''*"Example 2:

'''*"Example 3"

'''*"(And so on)"

I wanna make it clear that I'm just tossing out ideas on what we could consider doing while we think about how to revise the language policy, and that if anybody's got any ideas of their own that they'd like to share then you should consider sharing them so we can explore as many options as possible. That being said, I do hope that at the end of this we end up doing something about how our language policy is currently defined, even if we decide that only some minor changes are needed, because I really do think that maybe it's time we reexamine how this policy is defined and how we should go about enforcing it. I think that the less vague this policy is, the less likely it would be to misinterpret or abuse it. 