Members's nick and bad words

[KWo]

@Aspirin - it was You one of the people wanting open this topic at Agora - I did so.
I guess, if some member will appear at BU with nick as "dick" in English or (the same after translation in Deutsch language) - You will be the same pissed off like me - after seeing the nick of this Polish guy.

[EDIT]
It's probably doable to make the list with collected all bad words in at least most used languges. It's sufficient if every moderator or every frequently visitor-member of BU will create the list of bad words in his own language and send it to admin of BU. And this list could be as the bad words of BU. After joining the member with some nick we dodn't like we can ask him what the country is he from and then - we will be able to recognize if he used the bad word of our list because he really wanted use it to piss off the people - with 100% knowledge of the bad word meaning - or he did so without any bad intention (like someone said - the same word in other country may not be as a bad word - other meaning).
It's probably doable - but maybe we don't need make so - since I've noticed only one member here with a pissing off nick.
[/EDIT]

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

I'm against that. It's censorship. Only blatantly racist nicknames should be forbidden, and *maybe* very pr0nographic ones (let's not forget the age average).

@botmeister: anyone can be politically incorrect all the time, as long as he respects the others.

Luckily the BU community so far is the most respectful and mature community I've seen in ages... actually, the longer I see this "no politics" rule, the more I think that it shouldn't be here.

[@$3.1415rin]

yep, I don't see a hard problem there at the moment, but if KWo see's that differently ...

@pmb : that 'no politics' policy ... well, it's anyway not taken too seriously, is it ?

@KWo : Since we want to be a little bit democratic here and for sure a open forum, I think such stuff should belong here, the pm feature is for private stuff, not for such discussions, imo

[botmeister]

actually, the longer I see this "no politics" rule, the more I think that it shouldn't be here.

I have the same feelings. If I remember correctly, we wanted to avoid heated conflicts as were seen over at Nukebox. However the problem over there was a lack of respecting other peoples views by a webmaster, and not really due to what was being discussed.

I've become a believer in following fudamental individual rights, as opposed to following collective rights, or majority rights. However, in life compromises have to be made, so long as they are sensible and do not overly infringe on individual rights.

Censorship is a form of collective rights, where a group or majority may be offended by something, and wish to not see it. The individual who is censored has had his fundamental rights of freedom to express viloated. In my view, the right of individual must take precedence, however if someone is pushing their brand of offensive material onto another group that does not want to see it, then the individuals in that group are having their rights to view what they choose violated. The compromise is to ensure that those who don't want to be offended will only see the offending material if they seek it out, while those who enjoy the offending materials ensure that they do not push it onto other unless requested.

Having thought about this issue some more, I think the sensible thing to do is to have nicks (and sigs) fall under the same rules as the regular postings do. I think we do have rules in there already to deal with racist remarks and so on, and there really is no reason why Nicks and sigs should be exempt for these rules, or should fall under a new set of rules.

Now as for the politics rule, I think it is worth reconsidering so long as we have a designated forum for political discussions, then only those who wish to debate need to participate, everyone else can simply choose to stay out and not read the posts should they be offended by what is said.

@Everyone:

Does what I say seem like a reasonable solution?

BTW: Thanks to Kwo for bringing this up for debate.

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

I am yet to see a post by you that does not sound reasonable...

Sounds like a good solution to me.

[stefanhendriks]

sounds good to me too botmeister. Also , i think politics would be nice to have... we can always close a 'politics' forum if things get out of hand..

[sfx1999]

I would say that you should really only ban certain racial slurs. I mean, how would you talk about Dick Cheyney if you banned bad words? Then there is the argument about the vernacular. I mean, I use curse words frequently. Most people around when I say them don't care. I don't use them in a vulgar way, usually. It tends to be either a metaphor or when I get frustrated/injure myself (like when I stub a toe).

However, not too many people use slurs everyday. I rarely ever hear anyone say the N word.

[botmeister]

mean, how would you talk about Dick Cheyney if you banned bad words?

Thanks for that one, you made me LOL!

According to the existing rules, bad words are permitted, but are discouraged. In other words, you can say fuck, piss, shit and so on, but be tactful about it, and try to keep the use to a minimum.

When you're pissed off, let the words fly, I find it's good therapy.

[stefanhendriks]

well, as the rules already say, they are permitted but discouraged. So whats the big deal here? Some name like "Dick Cheyney" would still be allowed...

[sfx1999]

Damn I spelled Cheney wrong.