how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
Logical in whose opinion? ;) Hence politics and compromise.
how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
I've never actually been told that it would be a lot of work for this to be implemented; if so, then tell me straight out.Think in a political subtext here.
As good of an idea as it is, thinking of an idea and physically implementing the idea are two different things. If coming up with a plug-in or bit of code to make this work is too complex or too time-consuming to do, or if there are other, more important projects being worked on at the moment, (which, there are) then this wouldn't be the most logical or most feasible thing to implement, now would it?
Also, different people are going to have different ideas about what an appropriate age would be, given PC's general PG-13 and kid-friendly atmosphere. I suggested 16 through 18 because that A, makes the most sense given those parameters, and B, it's the least controversial option, compared with 14. I mean, we could go vote in HQ with 14 as the cut-off, and at least try, but don't get your hopes up. Given the obstacles to getting that through, that also wouldn't be a very feasible option. 16-18 makes the most sense to me.
please explain to me how swearing is 'barbaric'No, because things are fine the way they are. Why change something that works? Giving people the option to swear is barbaric and damages our reputation. Censoring swear words, still means that people have an option to swear and censor it which means it's easily idenentifiable. Just keep it the way it is because it works. Changing it might complicate things, and change it for the worse.
please explain to me how swearing is 'barbaric'
so keep censors on. no harm done, you don't see swears! (0:Well, on a website on which it is discouraged it is. Shouldn't this site be child friendly? Introducing the option to sensor swearing makes it easy to see and let's people know that this site contains profanity.
you may not consider it important personally, but there's clearly a good chunk of the memberbase that does. you may think it's unnecessary, but a lot of people are very much for it. of course, there are a few that are against it too, but that's the beauty of having the option to toggle it -- you don't have to see swears if you don't want to. honestly, the way I see it, this pretty much benefits everyone, except for the people that actually have to do the work to put it in. (;This seems to be another OPTION drive that we've seen more frequently. Whilst PC is known for it's many options and website skins, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Would you like the coders to work on the significant changes happening or code an unnecessary option?
I'm not particular for or against the option. I just don't consider it an important change.
you may not consider it important personally, but there's clearly a good chunk of the memberbase that does. you may think it's unnecessary, but a lot of people are very much for it. of course, there are a few that are against it too, but that's the beauty of having the option to toggle it -- you don't have to see swears if you don't want to. honestly, the way I see it, this pretty much benefits everyone, except for the people that actually have to do the work to put it in. (;
so keep censors on. no harm done, you don't see swears! (0:
True, but you see the idea of swearing. Anything that is implied, will be obviously interpreted to represent whatever you imply. Making sensors a thing means that the idea of swearing is on this site which promotes profanity.
There are already censors. I'm confused - what is it you want? Do you want it to stop you if you swear and tell you to rewrite your post, or...?
did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.No offense, but 9 people who choose to vote yes and 3 people who vote no don't quantify what the community thinks as a whole. Saying this on a neutral standpoint, you shouldn't try to make an argument for something when most of the information is inconclusive.
I'm not saying this just to you, but to any person in general when it comes to argumentative discussions. I'm guilty of doing it myself at times, but just thought I'd bring up this point.
The real poll should be, should we allow swearing, or not?
It's more just the fact that you're using general terms to describe a large member base that otherwise is being unrepresented. It's a ploy that a lot of people use to rally support for their argument and it was just a small point I picked up on. Nontheless, it's a mute point that's distracting from the question at hand here, so I'm not going to go into the semantics of it that otherwise would result in a petty outcome.did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.
did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.
and yes Serious Table, I saw your post the first time (0:
and what point would a poll asking if swearing should be allowed or not serve? almost EXACTLY the same point as this. as has been said before, everyone on this forum is 13+ unless they're lying, in which case it's their problem if they see things they don't want to see. considering this, I'm pretty sure that having the ability to see curse words ONLY IF YOU WANT, you don't even HAVE to, is perfectly logical.
That unfortunately is impossible to completely prevent. Even if that was possible I would be against doing that, considering that's almost like PC Staff would be acting like a "Big Brother" scenario where we are forcing people to change the way they are and conform to the way we want them to act. The censor ship acts as a middle ground for both sides to appease both parties in the end so to speak.