OhMrsKittyKat
I personally don't care if someone takes offense to something that isn't a big deal, but you're almost saying your superior because you're not 10 years old, so that entitles you to be allowed to "hurt peoples' feelings." You almost state that as of you're allowed to go out of your way to be disrespectful towards younger players. Just because you have lived what, like, 5-7 years more than them doesn't grant you anything. Do you just simply not care about others in the slightest?

 

There's no way to monitor ages 100%. However, having an application to apply for the channel would eliminate random users from dive bombing it. The application could also have a disclaimer for those that would lie about their age to gain entry. Something along the lines of;

"This channel is for users who are at least 18 years of age. Lying about your age to gain entry is not permitted, and being caught lying about your age will result in an immediate ban from the channel. The chat in this channel may not be suitable for users under the age of 18, however if you are to lie about your age to gain access we will not be held accountable."

That could probably be phrased a lot better, but I think it will serve it's purpose as an example.

 

I've decided to enter into this debate as the opponents of the profane-language rule are doing a poor job at arguing for its abolition, but I commend them for their attempts. This debate is multifaceted encompassing various disciplines including psychology, ethics, and epistemology (the study of the nature of knowledge). The first thing which I must establish is one cannot assess this subject through the veil of experience, meaning that one cannot justify a position against profanity simply because it coincides with their cultural upbringing. You cannot, logically, disagree with profanity because of your family upbringing, because to do so would be culturally relativistic. An idea that I must refute is that culture, the values of a particular group of people, define the moral standard for its population-- this idea is the premise of cultural relativism.

Breakdown of Cultural Relativism:

1: Different societies have different moral codes.

2: There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.

3: The moral code of our own society is not special, but rather one of many.

4:There is not a universal moral truth in ethics.

5:The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society, so if an action coincides with the moral code, then that action is right, at least within that society.

6:It is mere arrogance to judge the culture of other peoples, we should instead adopt a policy of tolerance.

This idea seems plausible at first glance, but like all other works of philosophy it is subject to deconstruction and rational analysis. Such analysis shows that there is a certain form of argument at the center of cultural relativism that derives all cases of its implementation. Allow the following examples to demonstrate this point:

1. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
2. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is a mere matter if opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Clearly, this argument is a variation of one fundamental idea... it is a special case for a more fundamental argument. That fundamental argument is written below:

1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary between peoples.

We may call this the cultural differences argument. To many people this argument is very persuasive, but it it objectively logically sound? It is not logically sound. The aspect of cultural relativism that fails is that the conclusion does not follow the premise—that is even if the premise is true, the conclusion may still be false. The premise concerns what people believe in some societies and what people believe in other societies, whereas the conclusion concerns itself with what actually is the case. Lets go back to the Greeks and Callatians, the Greek believed it was wrong to eat the dead and the Callatians believed it was right, however, the mere fact that they disagreed does not prove that there is no universal ethical code, because the Callatians could have simply been mistaken. To make this refutation even clearer consider the following:

1. Some societies believe that the earth is flat, and some societies, like ours, believe that the earth is roughly spherical.
2. Therefore, there is no objective truth to geography.

The conclusion for that argument is stupidly absurd just like the cultural differences argument. Just because people disagree does not mean that there is no objective truth to geography!

Insofar, I've proven that one's culture, family upbringing, and opinions are not valid reasons for disagreement when concerning whether to abolish the profanity rules. I don't care if you adopt illogical opinion opposing profanity on the basis of culture, but you cannot use it to argue for your position as it is utterly nonsensical.

Now, I challenge my opponents to put forth a logically sound argument in favor of the profanity rule.

 

In a question: What do you gain for speaking our current society's profanities?

 

I gain the freedom to have my speech less restricted.

 

What is freedom? Is there really freedom of speech? Can we really say anything we want? It's really simply hard to tell. There are obvious opinions, and I tried to comprehend what mendi wrote, but all I got from it was that opinions cancel out. There will always people who want to have "freedom" but at the same time there will always be people who are offended by it. There really is no textbook theory to explain how you choose. It's just simply the server owner. Whatever the server owner's opinions are is the deciding factor on the rule. You can try to sway his opinion but in the end we know it will always be the strong cultural opinion over freedom. The controversy would be insane, and there will only be half and half.

 

Steven Pinker's book Language as a Window into Human Nature classifies profanity into five categories:

Dysphemistic swearing: this type of swearing focuses the listener to think about negative things.

Abusive swearing: for abuse or intimidation or for insulting others

Idiomatic swearing: Swearing without really referring to the thing, just using the words to arouse interest, or lead on the persona of being macho/cool.

Emphatic Swearing: To emphasize something with swearing

Cathartic swearing: Swearing that is done when something bad happens like coffee spilling. Evolutionary theory tells us this type of swearing was adapted to inform the audience that you're undergoing negative emotions.

I agree that we should not allow Dysphemistic and Abusive swearing, but I fail to understand why the other three categories are considered morally wrong. Swearing enriches the language of the community by allowing the speaker to convey emotion using words with strong connotations. I'm called many swear words by friends, but in a way that expresses endearment.

AgentHare

 

Also, I wrote saying not that opinions cancel out, but instead that opinions can be wrong and therefore cannot be used for the basis of an argument.

AgentHare

 

I 100% agree with this. I most definitely could not have phrased this any better.

 

One of the things I like about ECC is that it's a family friendly server and I can play on it with my younger siblings.
I wouldn't mind a hidden mature chat channel but I agree it would be too hard to keep younger users away from it. If you want to talk about mature things then I'm sure you can find another way.

 

Oh boy...
Back in early english, the poor people/farmers/peasants used words that are known as swear words today, like f***, p*** and s***.
On the other hand at the same time the higher class/kings/queens/knights/whatnot uses words like defecation, and really just words that sounded more complicated.

What I'm trying to say is that the low class used swear words, and in modern times we are raised to believe they are bad in hopes of being more civilized than everyone else. I guess.

 

It's not that I want to talk about mature things all the time, I would just like the ability to be able to speak in game if a mature topic is brought up.

 

Well there's some people, like t_bone199205 said, where speaking a little looser would be really nice. I mean, no one is perfect, and isn't going to cuss when they trip, fall, and hit the ground, and sprain something. Must this server be so uptight about the dumbest of things???

 

I live in America. My First Amendment Rights allow me to speak my mind in a peaceful manner. I think we're trying our best to be peaceful, ehh?

 

Dumbest of things? I know of players on this server who are seven years old, they do not know what swear words are. I'm positive that in a civilized society as ECC, we do not want younger ones to learn what these kind of things are. Children do not need to learn cussing. Thats why when you are talking to people aren't close to you, cussing is something that you don't want to do.

This would just be additional cost to Andrew that makes no sense at all, why would he add something to the server, that costs him money, to allow people to swear and cuss?

This suggestion makes no sense at all, at least in my opinion.

 

Let us consider the following:

Let us assume that the entirety of the server one day say "Cussing is fine, its stupid to restrict it." Alright so everyone is cussing, no one is getting warned for it. Everything is fine and dandy. Until one day. The parents start figuring out their kids are learning naughty things. Considering that at least 50% of the players are kids, this could be a problem. Regardless of whether or not we think its a big deal, the parents do. The parents will happily remove their kid from here and happily stop donating. There goes at least 50% of our possible donators.

Just because you don't think its something we should worry about, doesn't mean it isn't. Just because a simple curse word doesn't seem to be the end of the world in your eyes, doesn't mean that the parents of those kids aren't going to flip. Plus, lets be serious, if they want something to blame for their kids bad behavior and we allow cursing, we've made ourselves the perfect target.

This type of thing could result in lawsuits, parental complaints, the donations to stop flowing, and overall the end of the server.

Nty.

 

Im choosing to leave this alone. It's going to get me banned one way or another.

 

I would love a 18+ server and as far a being able to confirm age when I donated for VIp I had to send Andrew proof for him to have a counter vs scamkng him I don't see y something wouldn't work like that
And also everyone here is considering cursing the only mature thing this would all it would allow many other things that players could talk about or say like ( don't think I can list them due to fact there currently against rules)
Also some people are more sensitive then other so they wouldn't apply for this but the ones who are not may go through the trouble
I know I would I talk very little in chat due to fact it's so restrictive and I know I'll get in trouble
It's this reason I have my own voice chat that I allow everything on and it makes for some interesting conversations assuming everyone keep a semi open mind and if you did become offended you could leave at any time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk