Forum Rules Updated: Re Language

[JD]

Previously we discussed (both in the public forum and the staff forum) amending the forum rules regarding language.

The public thread can be viewed here:

For Discussion / Review: Forum Language Rules

This is the result of both discussions:


4. As a family-friendly forum, we ask that you keep your language clean, exactly as we hope you would when addressing respected elders. Creative workarounds (the use of special characters to replace some letters) on language are not allowed. Violators of this rule will be warned once; those repeatedly breaking this rule will have their accounts permanently revoked. NOTE: Links to off site material will be held to our family-friendly standard, as well. However, out in the real world, it's not so sanitary, when posting a video where it is intended to be used as a teaching tool, you have zero control over what other people say on the video. Whether it's a firearms instructor who may say a few bad words during the course of instruction, or whether you're posting a video surveillance tape of a violent crime being committed and there happens to audio which has people using foul language. The staff feels we shouldn't lose that valuable information because of the bad language rule. A conspicuous warning posted along with the video should be sufficient to satisfy those who have delicate ears. NSFW should be in the thread title and a text warning regarding the language should in included above the link to the video in a post. THIS ALLOWANCE IS ONLY FOR INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR FOCUS. It is not a pass to use profanity in posts or other usage of profanity on the forum.


To further clarify, videos etc. that have "considerable worth" such as illustrating a self defense scenario or training medium or other content that is directly related for our focus of concealed carry and defensive firearms usage may be posted to the forum provided that the appropriate measures mentioned above are taken.

Should those measures not be taken, and infraction may still be issued. Should the content itself be not directly related to our focus (Think the Chris Rock on "Bullet Control" bit) an infraction will be issued.


I'd like to thank Bark'n for coming up with most of the wording in the addition and those that took the time to discuss the matter.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[msgt/ret]

Sounds good and easy to comply.

[SayVandelay]

Do James Yeager videos count?

[kerberos]

Good call...

Thanx

[JD]

Do James Yeager videos count?

Yes, part of the reason for the change as a matter of fact.

[Cupcake]

So noted!

[DontTreadOnI]

I appreciate the willingness to adapt to rightly accommodate such that may benefit us all.

Keep up the good work mods!

[Cold Shot]

"whether you're posting a video surveillance tape of a violent crime being committed and there happens to audio which has people using foul language"

So, on the scale of offensive things, you're telling me that potential videos of people being murdered is less offensive than a random word?

Roger Tango

[ghost tracker]

Aye Aye! If Bark'n shoots as effectively as he makes his point, I want him on MY side of a gunfight!

[onacoma]

I guess from family friendly you mean Honey Bo-Bo is acceptable, but Chris Rock is not? And Duck Commander is acceptable (one of my favs) and Buckwild is a no-no?

With todays standard I'm corn-fused!

Good call on the warning label!

[1MoreGoodGuy]

However, out in the real world, it's not so sanitary, when posting a video where it is intended to be used as a teaching tool, you have zero control over what other people say on the video. Whether it's a firearms instructor who may say a few bad words during the course of instruction, or whether you're posting a video surveillance tape of a violent crime being committed and there happens to be audio which has people using foul language. The staff feels we shouldn't lose that valuable information because of the bad language rule. A conspicuous warning posted along with the video should be sufficient to satisfy those who have delicate ears. NSFW should be in the thread title and a text warning regarding the language should be in(delete the word "in") included above the link to the video in a post. THIS ALLOWANCE IS ONLY FOR INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO OUR FOCUS. It is not a pass to use profanity in posts or other usage of profanity on the forum.

Could you please define your acronym "NSFW" for those of us who suffer from accurate acronym identification syndrome.

[pfries]

Could you please define your acronym "NSFW" for those of us who suffer from accurate acronym identification syndrome.

Not Safe For Work
is the generaly accepted usage,
I have seen it used as
not safe for wife.

[JD]

"whether you're posting a video surveillance tape of a violent crime being committed and there happens to audio which has people using foul language"

So, on the scale of offensive things, you're telling me that potential videos of people being murdered is less offensive than a random word?

Roger Tango

It's a standard of conduct. If you don't like it feel free to not participate.

Sent via Tapatalk 2, and still using real words.

[archer51]

Thanks for the update JD.

[Bark'n]

"whether you're posting a video surveillance tape of a violent crime being committed and there happens to audio which has people using foul language"

So, on the scale of offensive things, you're telling me that potential videos of people being murdered is less offensive than a random word?

Roger Tango

Are you purposefully trying to be obtuse?

Or do you just come by it naturally?