Conquer Club

Is it possible to get negative feedback for cussing in a game where no one told u to stop or even complained in the game chat? Should you be able to use whatever language u want (Excluding racial ,sexciall, desciminatory. ect) in the game chat if u've been givin no grief over it? I don't know about the rest of u but sometimes when i lose 10 men in a battle where its 30-2 i just have to scream f*ck.

Sry all the game blitzed out. there should also be a NO option.

As it currently stands there are little kids on here. How do you know your not in a game with a bunch of eleven year old girls? Do you really want to be using this language?

Well i'd hope those eleven year old girls would tell me to plz stop, or at least not be stupid enough to repeat the language i'm using. But yes, I can see your point.

Kugelblitz22 wrote:As it currently stands there are little kids on here. How do you know your not in a game with a bunch of eleven year old girls? Do you really want to be using this language?

So? I’m sure that eleven year old kids know worse curser than we do anyway. These no-cursing arguments are just bullshit if you ask me. If you venture into the public space, you voluntarily subject yourself to language, views, opinions etc. that you may dislike or disagree with.

your options to choose from in your poll leave out some things to be desired.. e.g. no bad language at all...

alstergren wrote:I’m sure that eleven year old kids know worse curser than we do anyway. These no-cursing arguments are just bullshit if you ask me. If you venture into the public space, you voluntarily subject yourself to language, views, opinions etc. that you may dislike or disagree with.

Right on. I don't see how anyone can register negative feedback about language in game chat if they have voiced no objections. Obviously, swearing can be overdone, but this is public domain. As for whatever kids are on here, it's up to their PARENTS to worry about their language, not us.

Exactly. We seem to have some Joe McCarthy types like miss sebstar here who would like nothing better than to impose their prissy views on the rest of us. Thanks to the site managers who give us a more laid back site.

Wheres the option to say no in the poll?

SirSebstar wrote:your options to choose from in your poll leave out some things to be desired.. e.g. no bad language at all...

That's just a bullshit opinion. Few people would even consider such an alien approach to language.

alstergren wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:your options to choose from in your poll leave out some things to be desired.. e.g. no bad language at all...

That's just a bullshit opinion. Few people would even consider such an alien aproach to language.

i like that opinion

Hoho! Speaking about the devil... Just saw that I had gotten a recent bad language negative feedback. Jez...

alstergren wrote:Hoho! Speaking about the devil... Just saw that I had gotten a recent bad language negative feedback. Jez...

good for you

CBlake wrote:

alstergren wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:your options to choose from in your poll leave out some things to be desired.. e.g. no bad language at all...

That's just a bullshit opinion. Few people would even consider such an alien aproach to language.

i like that opinion

Well. Too bad. Languages are not frozen in time. They develop over the years, and you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language. If you don't approve of any use, walk away. It's really that simple.

alstergren wrote:

CBlake wrote:

alstergren wrote:

SirSebstar wrote:your options to choose from in your poll leave out some things to be desired.. e.g. no bad language at all...

That's just a bullshit opinion. Few people would even consider such an alien aproach to language.

i like that opinion

Well. Too bad. Languages are not frozen in time. They develop over the years, and you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language. If you don't approve of any use, walk away. It's really that simple.

Awesome

I don't actually see what the bad language adds to the game. It's not part of my typical expression so I guess I'm not really sacrificing anything by not using it in CC.

I can understand it being offensive to someone. I can understand it being offensive to someone and that person not wanting to challenge the person directly during the game in game chat, fearing that such a challenge would only exacerbate the problem (which I'm afraid in some cases it would) or result in retaliation during the game from the abusive player. I can even understand that the person who didn't challenge the bad language might feel upon reflection after the game that other players have a right to know how a certain player conducts himself in games and leave negative feedback for this player.

In the best of all possible worlds the bad language doesn't occur in the first place. In the real world the best we can hope for is that when it does happen and someone is offended, the offended player would ask the offender to stop and the offender would abide by the request. If he didn't abide by the request I see the negative feedback as entirely justified.

People are constantly confusing censorship with the right of people to object to something they disagree with. It's not censorship to leave negative feedback for someone who uses bad or abusive language. It's merely informing players through the feedback mechanism what sort of thing a particular player has done in the past. If you're interested you can always look at the referenced game and decide for yourself whether it is offensive to you. This does absolutely nothing to take the right of free speech away from anyone.

Some free speech advocates are all for free speech except if the speech in question is criticizing them, then it automatically becomes censorship. Free speech criticizing something someone else says is simply more free speech, and in no way resembles censorship.

If the operators of the site decided to ban someone for bad language, you could then make the argument that it was censorship since the operators of the site function as a form of government. That level of censorship may or may not be justified, it really depends on the specifics of the case. But to equate one player leaving negative feedback for another player with censorship is to fail to understand that distinction.

Finally, if you are able to recognize that distinction I really fail to see how that makes one a "Joe McCarthy" type. To try to cow someone into not exercising his rights to object to something he finds objectionable is hardly a characteristic to be emulated, is it?

I don't think anyone objecting to someone using bad language is "impos[ing] their prissy views on the rest of us," any more than someone using bad language is imposing their bad language on the rest of us. If it offends you, you should complain. If it continues, you have every right to leave negative feedback.

alstergren wrote:Well. Too bad. Languages are not frozen in time. They develop over the years, and you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language. If you don't approve of any use, walk away. It's really that simple.

If you really believe that, that "you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language," do you see the irony in you yourself telling other people how to use their language, that is, what they can say and cannot say?



And actually, once in a game you can't really walk away, can you? About all the choice you have is to make a request for it to stop in the game chat and if that request is unsuccessful then to leave negative feedback.

Colossus wrote: it's up to their PARENTS to worry about their language, not us.

I guess I'm more of a "takes a village" kind of guy. But to be clear I don't necessarily want to outlaw swearing on CC. I just kind of wondering who would want to use in the first place in front of kids.

Lets say you were at the mall and some big burly dude had his little kids with him. Would you start dropping the f-bomb real loud in front of his kids? I know I wouldn't. I think people tend to grow a pair when there in a consequence free environment like the internet.

tahitiwahini wrote:In the best of all possible worlds the bad language doesn't occur in the first place.

People are constantly confusing censorship with the right of people to object to something they disagree with.

I don't think anyone objecting to someone using bad language is "impos[ing] their prissy views on the rest of us," any more than someone using bad language is imposing their bad language on the rest of us. If it offends you, you should complain. If it continues, you have every right to leave negative feedback.

I think you’re off target here. A point is that the division between “bad” and good” language (as you yourself make without even reflecting on it) is a mirage. Who are you to say what constitutes “good” (i.e. acceptable) language and what constitutes “bad” (i.e. non-acceptable) language.

It has nothing to do with censorship. But, by making this distinction and by stating that that one’s subjective view of non-acceptable language shouldn’t be used to communicate, that is indeed an attempt to impose one owns views on others. And people who do that generally are uptight idiots who seemingly are incapable of dealing with a society that is increasingly characterized by language and its development. Though.

tahitiwahini wrote:

alstergren wrote:Well. Too bad. Languages are not frozen in time. They develop over the years, and you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language. If you don't approve of any use, walk away. It's really that simple.

If you really believe that, that "you're not in a position to tell other people how to use their language," do you see the irony in you yourself telling other people how to use their language, that is, what they can say and cannot say?

And actually, once in a game you can't really walk away, can you? About all the choice you have is to make a request for it to stop in the game chat and if that request is unsuccessful then to leave negative feedback.

I believe that you neither understood what I wrote, nor understands the meaning of irony.

Saying that people shouldn’t give shit about how I speak/write isn’t the same as saying that people can’t have an opinion about the matter. Feel free to have an opinion, but if it’s a bullshit opinion I will state so. Basically, you’re completely off the mark here.

In a game you can in fact “walk away.” What you do is placing a person on your ignore list, by doing that the person’s game chat entries are not visible to you.

Anything else?

Kugelblitz22 wrote:Lets say you were at the mall and some big burly dude had his little kids with him. Would you start dropping the f-bomb real loud in front of his kids? I know I wouldn't. I think people tend to grow a pair when there in a consequence free environment like the internet.

f-bomb?

Are you referring to the word “fuc k”? If so, it’s really much easier to understand your points if you actually used the actual word. Or are you in the habit of shouting out “f-bomb, f-bomb, f-bomb!!!” when slamming your fingers with a car door?

alstergren wrote:It has nothing to do with censorship. But, by making this distinction and by stating that that one’s subjective view of non-acceptable language shouldn’t be used to communicate, that is indeed an attempt to impose one owns views on others. And people who do that generally are uptight idiots who seemingly are incapable of dealing with a society that is increasingly characterized by language and its development. Though.

Well, I'll accept your characterization that I'm an "uptight idiot who seemingly is incapable of dealing with a society that is increasingly characterized by language and its development"....

but only because you're not attempting to impose your own views on others.

alstergren wrote:I believe that you neither understood what I wrote, nor understands the meaning of irony.

...

In a game you can in fact “walk away.” What you do is placing a person on your ignore list, by doing that the person’s game chat entries are not visible to you.

i·ro·ny Pronunciation (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies
1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.

I had the meaning in 2.a in mind.

Good point about the ignore-list though. I guess because I haven't used mine yet, I sort of forgot it was there.

alstergren wrote:

Kugelblitz22 wrote:Lets say you were at the mall and some big burly dude had his little kids with him. Would you start dropping the f-bomb real loud in front of his kids? I know I wouldn't. I think people tend to grow a pair when there in a consequence free environment like the internet.

f-bomb?

Are you referring to the word “fuc k”? If so, it’s really much easier to understand your points if you actually used the actual word. Or are you in the habit of shouting out “f-bomb, f-bomb, f-bomb!!!” when slamming your fingers with a car door?

Lol, your telling me you really had trouble trying to figure out what I was talking about? Your arguments are beginning to strain credulity.

Kugelblitz22 wrote:Lol, your telling me you really had trouble trying to figure out what I was talking about? Your arguments are beginning to strain credulity.

Jez... You wouldn't recognize a subtle point if it jumped up and bit you in the ass.

Nonetheless. Assuming that your initial notion was correct, what on earth has that got to do with anything? I've never made a point about having an extensive vocabulary.

Let me know if you actually have any more points to make.