Dragon Ball Wiki talk:Rules

Lithoxene

In the first bullet under "General Rules," the text incorrectly features "who's," in place of "whose." Please correct Lithoxene 06:57, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, diligent reader! Make sure to make a topic whenever starting a talk page. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 07:24, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Videos

Why arn't we allowed to add videos to pages?

Blalafoon: Talk :Blogs

This is because adding videos on a page increases the time it takes to upload. If you already have a slow computer it will make uploading pages worse than it already is.NamekianFusion 03:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

There are also mobile devices that don't have the correct drivers and/or plugins capability to load the page at all if a video is present. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 03:35, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Moving gifs

Why are moving gifs not allowed? Same thing as with movies... bandwidth purposes? I do not understand it really... If max image size is 10 MB why gifs cant be 'animated'?

A little suggestion, maybe on the image upload page, in the line where all the pic extensions are allowed there should be a note that only sinlge frame gifs aka 'not moving' are ok?

Tyrael pl 19:17, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Possibly due to restrictions in terms of file size, but primarily because of loading time dilemmas. We are currently not incorporating these files on all the articles unless they are category or template files and used as such on single instances with limited capacity. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 00:45, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Chat Rules

As a response to users claiming that they are not breaking any rules by swearing/spamming on chat, it has been suggested that a subsection of rules specific to the new chat feature be placed here. I support this idea and open the topic to discussion. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:16, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would have to say no-swearing. I say this because there are certain users who will swear a lot (I shall not name names) and most of the newer (and sometimes younger) users are on chat frequently. I would say that for swearing, a three-warning system would do fine.

In terms of other language (sexual and inapproppriate slang) should also have a policy like my aforementioned swearing one, but not as severe. Just kinda like, "Hey, don't say that" but not "I am going to have to give you a warning." But, of course, if it gets out of hand, a kickban will be needed.

More on the ban period now. I think that if a user is kickbanned, they should stay banned from chat for twenty-four hours. I think that the period should apply for every time a user is kickbanned. And of course, there are exceptions to this as well, such as a user being banned once a day, there should be longer periods (three days, five days, week, etc.).

And I think insulting other users and spamming should be rather obvious.

There are my thoughts. -- User:Jimmykiller9/sig3

And also, I think there should a page for chat moderators, sort of like the Admin and Rollback pages. Other users have asked me what it's like and what I have to do, so I think a page should be added describing the role. And if this page is made, the current chat moderator link can link to that page. -- User:Jimmykiller9/sig3

As for the last comment, the user rights for all the groups can be found here. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:06, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Cool. And as for the first? User:Jimmykiller9/sig3

I agree with Jimmy on this. I also think there should be a no harrasing others rule.SupremegogetaFile:Gogeta photo.jpg 02:46, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

The first ones would be better off with a community consensus/voting criteria for selection than a quick yes/no from me... carry on : ) -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:52, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the chat rules should say that the length of a kickban is determined by the mod who banned them. It might cut down on some of the "how long am I banned for?" nonsense that pops up (can't hurt, at least).  • Freeza Burn • Contributions 05:32, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's usually the case, but it's more of a clerical thing than a rule really. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:52, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Rules 2.0

I have had an Idea of amending the first chat rule to "Profanity is not allowed in chat, even if it has been regardless of censorship." Also I would like to propose a forth chat rule "No Fighting with other users." User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 03:22, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The reason I think there sould be a change to the first rule is for clarification and to let users know that just because they use an asterix in a profane word does not mean that they can get away with using it. As for the new rule I proposed there was an instance when someone started an argument about whether or not Dragon Ball AF was canonical/real and it creates a very negative enviroment on chat when people are fighting with each other. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 22:20, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

No fighting seems to impede on people's freedom more than improve it. Whereas the chat experience can be totally ruined by the first 3 rules, fighting is just sort of a nuisance. It should of course be avoided though, and is still against the rules if any harassment or profanity results from it. The first change is good though, and pretty much what we've been enforcing up to this point. I'll take care of that. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:29, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Language use

I think there should be a chat policy requiring users to speak in English. This is an English-speaking wiki and I have noticed that a lot of users have taken to using foreign languages to discreetly harass or curse at other users, which is not acceptable. It is a hassle for chatmoderators to keep an eye on several users at once, balance out other tasks and have to use Google Translate for every sentence to be sure that users are not abusing the foreign language for more uncouth reasons. This rule works well on other wikis to keep them free of harassment and I think it would be an excellent addition to our rules set here. So what if you can see the darkest side of me? No one will ever change this animal I have become 03:05, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I just have a question. To what extent would you enforce this rule? As in how would you penalize people. Just wondering. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 03:22, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Warn them to stop using the language a few times, kick them, then ban if they continue. Smaller-length chat bans, large bans if the offense becomes very habitual and the user has already previously been banned for it. I think restricting them to PM would be no problem. They just don't belong in main chat. In PM if they use a foreign language to insult/harass other users, the said user can block their messages, while in Main chat they cannot, so they are forced to endure the harassment.

So what if you can see the darkest side of me? No one will ever change this animal I have become 03:28, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

The majority (if not all) of the users know how to speak in English, The use of foriegn languages can be quite disruptive to those that are not fluent in a foreign language being used, also it is unacceptable for harassment and profanity to be used discreetly in a foreign language, it would be much easier for chat moderators to moderate chat without the need to translate foreign language and restricting the use of foriegn language would provide a less disruptive chat environment and easier for chat moderators to do their job. As for enforcement I propose that a verbal warning should be used, if ignored a chat moderator shall proceed to kicking the repeat offender from chat, if the use of a foreign language persist after the verbal warning and a kick then the offender shall receive a short 2 hour ban. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 03:32, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea. You have my vote. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 03:49, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

This has my full support. Brolylssj Destroys (talk) 03:56, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

As I have said in chat:

"It's basically spam, because comments written in a foreign language have no use to the majority of people who don't understand them."

I support the addition of this new rule. User:Mr. Meow/sig 04:03, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Kotsu.Goku777TalkContrib 04:09, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree that another language should not be used to harrass or insult other users. And I guess they can always use PMs to communicate in another language if they feel like doing so. Ssj2gohan 06:33, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone who disagrees, and feels that foreign languages should be allowed? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:14, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just against using foreign languages to insult without being detected. Although i do see how it could be annoying for Users who do not understand that language. Ssj2gohan 01:56, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think that foreign languages should be allowed as long as a conversation is occuring with that language. Chef Chicken 01:33, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

i dont care if they want to use another language if they want to talk to somebody else in another language they should just do it on pm insted of main chat . as long as they dont flood the main chat then im cool with it Brolylssj Destroys (talk) 03:08, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

how do we make this official?? Brolylssj Destroys (talk) 00:16, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

We get a consensus first. Someone in favor of the new rule should try and address Redstardragonball's concerns. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:19, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

@ Redstardragonball. Generally if a conversation is going to happen on an English speaking chat I assume it will be between 2 different people most of the time, and the other users that do not understand that language will not know what you are saying, and will try using Google translate, which has its flaws. I find that it would be much easier to keep foreign languages in private messages. Please note that I am making the assumption that most conversations in foreign languages have less than 3 participants. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 21:01, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess if only 2 people are going to have a conversation, then it would be okay to keep that conversation in private messages. As long as people don't get kicked for saying one word in a foreign language. Chef Chicken 21:31, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

ok so now everybody agrees that we keep it to PM . what is the next step to make this a rule?

Brolylssj Destroys (talk) 21:51, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I added it. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:57, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to ban a person for saying one word or possibly even a small phrase as long as it isn't profanity. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 23:37, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Which makes sense. We should try and stick to enforcing the policy as written, so only conversations are covered. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:59, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Another chat rule

Should inappropriate links be expanded upon? People have been banned in the past because they posted a screamer or otherwise unacceptable link on chat, so it may help to include a rule regarding them. User:Mr. Meow/sig 20:04, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Not using inappropriate external links is a rule for the whole site, we don't need to repeat any of the universal rules. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:38, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wasn't looking anywhere other than the chat rules.User:Mr. Meow/sig 22:23, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

That falls under harassment too for things like screamers. The chat mods should be able to help out if anything is unclear in the rules but obvious in upsetting someone. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:07, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

Yet another chat rule

ive noticed recently that more people have gotten chat hacks. with that they obtain the

' away from keyboard (AFK)' button. the problem is that people think that it is funny to repeatedly click this button. this causes the problem off a little message "away" appearing beneth the username causing the userlist to expand and then contract when the button is hit again. when this is done repeatedly it makes it very hard to click on usernames and also seems to make chat lag a little.

i find it considerably annoying when the person at fault is a mod trying to entertain himself. once one person does it . everybody with hacks seems to have to do it as well . i find it annoying and something needs to be done about it -- Quackulon The Duck Tyrant (talk) 05:34, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

I think you will need to contact wikia staff about this glitch. We don't have control over the chat functions to that extent, but they do. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:22, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Chat rule proposal

I have been on this wiki's chat for some time and I have observed recurring behavior that has led me to propose a new chat rule: I think we should have a "no sexuality in main chat" rule. It tends to get out of hand at times and on an occasion, chat moderators kick users for similar reasons of this (such as "rape talk"), not clearly specified in the policy, but still seeming like an useful rule. This rule would most specifically include "no rape talk", "no sexual interaction or role play with/against other users or even in general in main chat", and sexual behavior towards or about another specific user, whom does not want them to do so, among other exceptions, primarily up to the specified chat moderator. Again, this is just an idea for the chat policy that I think would be needed and I propose we have this rule added to the chat policy. Thank you for your time.

闇の千鳥1|話|貢献08:11, November 26 2012

Thank you for your suggestion. Technically, not only is this already against global wikia policy, but it is illegal to sexually harass anyone on this site since the servers are in the US, where that is a law. It is actually much worse when said to minors too, which a lot of people here are. I'll add the rule here as a reminder. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:13, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, 10X. However, I am talking about sexuality in general, Such as behavior in general, including but not exclusive to sexual harassment. The standard behavior by some users tends to be sexual but also eventually becomes very inappropriate or out of hand.

But I guess that is basically what the rule specifies as you have added. Thank you.

闇の千鳥1|話|貢献09:11, November 26 2012

So, are you saying people can't flirt anymore? I dunno about you, but it would be too tasking to look for every bit considered "sexuality" and busting people for every little bit of innuendo, no matter how discreet. If anything, it'll just make our jobs a bit harder, and I don't think a majority of our users would like it. 

Dark Seeker Kotsu   23:46, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

If you're gonna flirt with someone, you might as well keep it in the PMs, there it is also easier to track. There is no real need to have it publicly viewed by others, as I doubt they'll really care what two different people they've never met are talking about flirt wise. The Odd Musketeer 23:54, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are proposing a pretty vague rule, it would be difficult to enforce a vague rule as people would be unsure of what the rule would mean. Someone could be making an honest comment and could accidentally be banned based on a moderator misunderstanding it as an innuendo or something. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 00:04, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to define, and we can work on the wording here in talk. For now, chat mods will have the task of determining what is "sexual". And no, you should not be flirting with minors on here. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:31, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think rape jokes, talk about rape, and role-playing rape should not be permitted. Also we can do without role-playing which displays sexual actions such as anything obsceen and activities like pretending to smack hindquarters in a suggestive manner, I think that goes under sexual harassment though. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 00:49, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

...*is a minor ;D* I agree with what Vegito said. I mean, I think it should only really count as a rule violation if it was really vulgar, you know? Definitely no rape talk though, I'm for that. As well as the barring sexual actions thing. -- Dark Seeker Kotsu   00:51, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to ad that as far as flirting goes it would be hard to determine if one were to be a minor as it is illegal, I think it is, for Adults to ask personal information of minors that including age, and I would like to point that a "*wink*" could be consider a form of flirtation. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 00:54, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

We have to use our judgement. The new rule isn't getting rid of anything that isn't already banned globally by wiki. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:10, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Blog rules

I think we should change the Blog rules to "Blog and Forum Rules" as they seem to serve a similar purpose. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 01:48, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Rules, and Rules in general

Hello Admins, I would like to ask you to change the Rules please? DBZ is an Anime that is for teenagers and young adults. Yet, the rules say that no profanity or sexual topics are allowed on chat despite DBZ containing heavy amounts of vulgarity/swearing itself. DBZ also has things such as Panties, Stripping, and nudity. It also contains mild amounts of blood, violence, and gore. So why is profanity not allowed? Is this because of DBZ Kai being aired on Nicktoons and 4Kids? If so, the rules are that you must be 13+ in order to join Wikia and come on chat anyway. And most users that age should already know about profanity and those things.  Also, if you agree with me and change the rules please uncensor "Damn" and the other curse words. Thanks. {{SUBST:User:Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4/sig2}} (talk) 20:43, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I massively agree with LSSJ4. DBZ is a 14+ Tv-Show and because of this we should be allowed to swear and stuff. Just not try to offense users with the swearing. *Cough* Dantekillers123 *Cough*What are you so afraid of Cell? 20:49, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for uncensoring "damn", but I can't say I wholeheartedly agree with getting rid of censorship other than that.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   20:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LSSJ4. This wiki is kind of treating us like kids. _★ Yuri ★ _★ Messages ★__★ Contribs ★

I agree with Kotsu and I kinda agree with LSSJ4 only thing is that people might take advantage of that to pick fights in the chat and all and also insult other users which will probably create a lot of chaos in chat. File:Inner Hollow Ichigo.png Goku777TalkContrib File:Ichigo.png 21:16, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ehh.-- I'llBe.Here^.Till_.Hell^.Freezes_.Over^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:52, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Count me in, we're not 5 year olds here. I think we should be able to say minor curse words (heck, I'm even fine with ALL curse words). ..Chi^.do_.^.ri_.^..What^._Is.^.A Heart?_.^. 22:15, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

While you yourself might not be a 5 year old, there many very young readers. Swearing is allowed in article quotes, and sexual content is allowed on the relevant articles. Swearing at others in chat and posting pornography does not add information about Dragon Ball so there is no reason you cannot just go do that on another site. There is a negative consequence without any added value, so I see no reason to change the rule. I have yet to hear anyone claim that profanity and sexual harassment on chat will be constructive to this encyclopedia. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:48, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

I never said anything about allowing pornography, nor about allowing sexual harrasment. All I'm saying is that use of more profanity should be allowed in general. For example, if someone says a cuss word in Chat that was said in the original Anime they can get kicked for it. It doesn't make sense IMO that we can't even use the words that were used in the series itself unless it is being used on an article. I'm not saying we should allow everything to be said because as Kotsu said previously, that can cause even more chaos on Chat for Chat Moderators and Admins. But profanity such as "Damn" and other minor cusses should be allowed. Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 14:29, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I await some reasoning for how swearing at other will this site more encyclopedic. I have already presented the argument against. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:11, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 10X. Cursing adds no value whatsoever to the website. I don't know where people are getting that DBZ contains swearing, because it doesn't. And while you have to be at least 13 to enter chat (because you need an account), you don't have to be 13 for anything else. DBZ also has a large younger fanbase. Also, swearing allows for even more drama than there already is on this wiki. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 02:49, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Because, everyone knows cussing is cool it allows us to say more. It is true that cursing adds no value to the site what so ever, so simply add it to the Wiki Chat then. And Shakuran, DBZ does have cussing in the original manga and in the Japanese Sub. Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 13:41, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

More is not the same as better. Swearing at others in chat has the same negatives as the rest of the site, and still no positives. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:21, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

@LSSJ4, all I hear you saying is that you're not articulate enough to express your feelings without swearing.

As for your statement that since cursing adds no value, it should be added - that simply doesn't make sense. Why would you ever make a decision in which the outcome is negative, and the pros outweigh the cons? That would be irresponsible and embarrassing for a wiki that is aiming to be the best source for Dragon Ball info.

Also, I own the manga, and the worst word I've seen used in Dragon Ball is "damn", which, in my opinion, isn't that bad. However, that doesn't mean that all swear words should be allowed just because those exposed to a specific (and not the most popular, I might add) source of Dragon Ball are familiar with the least offensive of the swear words.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 02:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

I can easily express my feelings without swearing. I would just prefer to do so that's all. Besides, what good comes of us having this silly rule in the first place? What value does not allowing the use of profanity do? I know a couple of users on chat who agree with me. Would it be more appropriate for me to make a petition and see how many users sign it? And then go from there? Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 23:21, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

The good is that no one feels harassed by getting sworn at, no children are exposed to profanity prematurely, and no one has to deal with sexual harassment. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:29, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

You have to be 13+ to get on Chat either way. So their should not be any "children" on chat at all. Besides, the mods can deal with harassment. Most users on chat are not offended by the use of profanity unless it is directed at them. Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 23:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

The chat mods are there only to enforce the rules, the role does not work if they are somehow stopping people from doing something that you want taken off the rules. Yes, you are supposed to be 13 to be on chat, but we have seen underage users many times. It is also not a universal feeling that everyone who is 13 is suddenly supposed to be exposed to pornography. In many countries that is a crime, including the United States where our servers are based. As for most users not being offended by profanity, i do not believe you without a source for that claim. We should stick to facts only and not general feelings on the topic. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:40, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Response by Shakuran13

"Besides, what good comes of us having this silly rule in the first place? What value does not allowing the use of profanity do [sic]?"

How is this even a question? Numerous times has the answer to this been reiterated. Basically, the main good of this rule is that it prevents harrassment and offense, and that, with it allowed on chat, it can easily leak to the rest of the website.

On the flipside, you have been asked many times what good comes of not having this rule, and the best you could come up with is "it allows us to say more", and "I would just prefer to do so, that's all", which are incredibly weak arguments.

For the first, swearing has a tendency to make things very unclear. Some people overuse it to the point where there's no clarity in their sentences. Second of all, I hardly think sentences like "homework fucking sucks" or "my teacher is a bitch" or "I did shit on my exam" or "this is retarded" or something similar is any more eloquent than "homework sucks" or "my teacher is incredibly cruel/heartless/mean/ a monster/tyrant/Sagittarius" or "I did terribly/badly on my exam" or "this is moronic/stupid/asinine". In all honesty.

As for "I would just prefer to do so", that argument is obvious trash. I would prefer to run red lights when I'm running late for things, but that doesn't mean I should do it.

As for your other two main points, which are that they do it in one dub, and that chat is restricted to those over 13:

1. The first argument has already been deconstructed, chewed up, and spat out into an erupting volcano, but not everyone who will go on this site will have watched the entirety of Dragon Ball, or those parts or Dragon Ball, or that dub of Dragon Ball, so that's a useless argument. Also, if you've been watching Japanese subs of Dragon Ball, I'd like to point out that, unlike English, Japanese doesn't really have a list of unspeakable words. It's the English translators who add in the swearing.
2. Not every 13-year-old has been exposed to swearing, and it's not our place to introduce them to it. Also, swearing on chat can leak to blogs/forums. If most users are unaffected by swearing, then congratulations to them for not having the sensitivity of a bubble, but that still doesn't represent everyone. Also, I defy you to find one source of mainstream media geared to 13-year-olds that has swearing in it. Keeping in mind that the Japanese dub doesn't technically have swearing in it. Or even excluding the Japanese dub since this is the English wiki. Do your grade 7/8 teachers swear? Do Disney Channel and Nickelodeon swear? Do novels geared at 13-year-olds swear? If they do, they are the exception.

Also, 10X, I, like you, am against adding swearing, but just to be clear, they aren't asking for porn to be allowed in chat, they're just using the fact that Dragon Ball has nudity in it to strengthen the argument that Dragon Ball is meant for older people and thus should reflect the tastes of older people. And also, if a 12-year-old or younger is on chat, isn't that out of our hands? That's their fault. 

Anyways, that was kind of wordy, but this is my view. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 03:43, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who started a vote since they did not sign their comment, but votes are not the preferred way to handle decisions. We use the method of community consensus, which means a discussion about the pros and cons of the rule. I think that the vote was probably a last ditch effort since there have been no pros stated as constructive reasons for having profanity in chat. Despite the fact that no one has said anything good that can come of it, only bad results of such a change, there will always be people that prefer to have it that way. This is the reason that civilized discussion has much more value than a raw vote. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:10, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who started it. I just forgot to sign my comment, sorry about that. Anyway, about the whole "community consensus" thing, you and Shakuran seem be to the only 2 who truly oppose my suggestion and both of you rarely use the chat feature anyway. As I have said earlier, a lot of users do agree with me and would find chat more enjoyable if they didn't keep getting kicked over stupid things (Like cussing). Some of them just haven't made any comments on this topic for whatever reason they have. That's why I made a petition to see how many users would agree. But you removed it so how else can I prove to you that a lot of users do agree with me then? You don't trust screenshots do you? So what exactly do you suggest? Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 14:25, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I already stated that I do think there are users who want profanity. However, there are also users who have stated that they want to murder other users in real life. The similarity of interest is that I desire to do something alone does not make it a favorable decision. This is the same for people being mad about getting blocked. There are definitely users who are mad that they were blocked for sock puppets, but that does not make sock puppets okay simply because of anger over blocks. In the case of profanity, we are looking at a trade of everyone in chat being exposed to harassment and language that they may or may not be offended by for a few other users to might find chat more enjoyable (presumably bullies and/or older users). Unless there is something constructive about harassing people and using profanity, I still see no reason to add it. Please give a constructive reason for harassment/profanity if you wish to continue this discussion. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:54, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

One thing is that it impedes the freedom of some users. You will OBVIOUSLY swear at times right? Most often it is actually a reflex action, therefore granting one guy a ban because of it, then extending the ban for "doing so before" completely denies the user the right to chat. I mean, even when I merely REFERENCED the topic I discussed with you on your talk page, I was banned for apparently ABUSING that word, after which it was EXTENDED from 2 hours to 3 days. Where is the logic in this? In all honesty the only motif for banning insults in chat would be to drag people into flame baits just to get other users banned for a slip of the hand.

Thus, I believe, just as bad can come from disallowing profanity and insults, no good can come from it too, and it will still result in flame baiting(done by Kotsu himself in an attempt to enrage me with "Geti is dead"). So in all honesty this rule just drags people to insult others through undertones, which in my opinion is FAR more insulting than the use of profanity itself.Geti186 (talk) 09:51, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

People who break rules being blocked is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is not true that people will swear no matter what, as everyone makes the conscious decision to write it down and post it. I do not know what incident you are talking about on my talk page, since you have have never been blocked on the account you are currently posting on. My guess is that things are not exactly as you are saying them, but of course I do not know for sure either way. As with other things brought up on this site without evidence, we will all have to disregard that claim unless you provide proof that it happened. In conclusion, please state why profanity and harassment are constructive to this encyclopedic site, and if not then leave it alone. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:09, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

You know 10x although I don't agree with the whole allow cursing thing,I would like to point out that allowing some words like damn or shit isn't really that big of a deal. Also allowing cursing doesn't really mean allowing harassment, as long as the cursing isn't pointed at a user, it's not really harassment, for example DB fanon allowes cursing on chat, but not on users(so no harassment). Besides having words like damn censored seems very stupid to me, damn isn't really a word that can offend people that much, most people use it on chat anyway. I agree that we should keep the site for all ages, but having words like damn and shit censored is just childish, besides wikia users are meant to be 13 and older( even a 13 year old that knows very little about cursing can't really be offended by a word like damn) and even though some people lie about their age to join wikia and get on chat, it isn't really our problem if some younger users get on a chat and see cursing(it's their own problem for not following the rules while making an account).ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 18:41, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

My gut says stay out of this, but I just have to. The simple fact is that cursing does not add anything to chat or conversations in real life for that matter. The only reason people curse at all is because they think it makes them look cool. In reality it is illiterate and could easily be avoided and replaced in favor of, and I use this term sparingly, more powerful and stronger words. Besides the fact that you can use actual better words in the conversation and make youself sound better through that, you can still add curse substitutes in chat. IE: Frack, Shiz, Dang, etc. etc So why must you cuss?  It makes your arguments weaker, it forces you to sound illiterate, and you can even subtsitute in anything close to the actual word that comes to mind. All that I ask now is that the defending party give one good reason why cursing should be allowed. JanembaFreak97 19:53, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

More response

@LSSJ4, I don't see why you think I'm rarely on chat; I'm on chat nearly every day. Your main argument remains still that people (or you) would like chat more if swearing was allowed, which can hardly be considered a good argument. I still can't see a good argument for swearing, and Dark Seeker Kotsu also had posted something to oppose this proposed rule change as well, and he's extremely active.

@Geti186, one can swear by reflex in real life, because it's extremely easy to just blurt something out. It's harder, however, to unintentionally type a swear word. Typing is a very deliberate action.

If the people in charge of this wiki are abusing power and becoming ban-happy, that's a separate issue. Your argument that bad can come from disallowing swearing in the form of banning is as flimsy as the argument that since you go to jail if you steal, and jail is bad, stealing should be allowed. It makes no sense.

Disallowing cursing is not a direct cause of flame-baiting. If we allowed cursing we'd have both flame-baiting AND cursing. A double negative. This "Geti is dead" thing seems more like harmless teasing, but if someone is actually trying to enrage you, I'd suggest reporting them, rather than attacking back. I don't know what you mean by insulting through undertones, but I can't see how that's more insulting than me actually insulting you straight up. 

In general: the arguments are still extremely weak in favour of allowing swearing, and we seem to be rehashing the same old arguments. Will anyone ever actually give a proper reason to allow swearing, or at least one good pro that can outweigh any one of the many cons discussed earlier? Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 20:04, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

You? On chat? Are you serious or do you use socks?

Swearing is a "crime" that many users commit. Contrary to popular belief typing is not "deliberate" in itself, but in a chat, you just say what you want. Keeping your personality and actual "reactions" out of a CHAT LOCATION is about as dumbfounded as everyone can bet. Furthermore, considering I am BANNED for MENTIONING THE TOPIC I DISCUSSED WITH 10x Kamehameha, I find it utterly insulting for the banned reason being "Abusing the word he was warned against using", furthermore with it being extended from 2 hours to 3 days. You're referring to being banned as "jail", which it is, but the main difference is, the LAWS are not the same as one would follow in real life. If my opinion is that XXX user is stupid, and I say "I think XXX is stupid", it is my opinion, but whether it can be considered an insult or not is primarily due to another's reaction, and as a result, this rule can be abused.

Arguments are weak? Show me a more valid argument then. We're arguing on the premise that it benefits users as the rule is blatantly illogical. Your "no-insult" policy is similar to Communism. When someone indirectly insults a user by questioning their intelligence, flame-baiting, or being outright stubborn, it would most definitely get most users(especially new ones) to swear, then, they get kicked/banned just because of it. All I'm saying is that Everything is all well and good until someone else takes advantage of the "no-insults" rule by using undertones(which, I might add, are FAR MORE INSULTING. At least insults are blatant, unlike undertones designed to get under your skin).

Funny how you say that there are many cons considering that it disallows most forms of discussion and "free speech". Sure the place MAY become better, but it will definitely not be the most favourable, and people will always find ways around it.Geti186 (talk) 09:05, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

It is apparent that you do not know what communism is. I think that you are confusing it with tyrannical government. Communism just basically means shared resources. I just wanted to let you know because you have associated communism with not insulting people at least three times in the past few weeks, and it was bothering me that you had that rather mixed up. Anyway, "you just say what you want" is not how typing works. You think about it, you decide to tell others, then you type it, then you press enter. If you do that decision step poorly, it is no one's fault but your own. You knew the rules because you specifically asked me, and apparently you knowingly broke them, so you deserve the block. Coming here and talking about the rule and getting it changed would be the only way that you could insult people on chat. Further, what you said about it being impossible to insult someone, and it is their choice to be offended, is ridiculous. If you call someone stupid it is literally, definitely, and conclusively an insult. This topic is not here to debate whether community-created rules should be followed; they should be. It is also not here to debate whether or not insulted are the fault of the person saying them; they are. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Response to Geti186

Yes I'm serious. We're most likely on chat at different times; I've never seen you on chat either, in fact, I had never heard of you until now.

"Contrary to popular belief typing is not "deliberate" in itself, but in a chat, you just say what you want."

Your second statement does nothing to dispel your first. Speaking is a response and even a reflex that can be involuntary and conditioned; if you're used to swearing when you stub your toe, you most likely will out of reflex. Speaking is learned from a young age; you learn typing later. Speaking is a function that is literally in our brain. It's biological. Typing is something that was invented later. People can have things like Tourette's, where they have verbal tics, but no one has typing tics where they accidentally type a word and then make the conscious decision to press ENTER and make that statement public. In even simpler terms, there are two actions chatting: typing and submitting. That makes it deliberate. Talking requires you only to speak. You cannot accidentally swear in a chat.

Also, if you think someone is stupid, that's your opinion. If you say it out loud, it's an insult. Insults are not allowed. I don't see how this rule can be abused; we're not relying on reactions. 

"Arguments are weak? Show me a more valid argument then."

1. Whether or not our arguments are weak, YOU are the one trying to change the rule, YOU have to provide a strong argument.

2. I don't know how simply you want me to put this. The only argument that had been put forth in favour of changing the rule was because some users might like it better. That was the one, solitary point in favour of it. The negatives included two major things which included the fact that swearing by itself offensive and that it is much easier to insult someone with swear words, as well as the fact that swearing adds nothing to the site, that swearing makes one rather inarticulate, and that we don't want to prematurely introduce people to swear words. This is way more logical than "I'd rather swear". 

As for questioning someone's intelligence, that is not an indirect insult. It's an insult. This is not allowed. If you see someone being insulted, report it. As for being outright stubborn...that's up to how patient a user is. If they can't handle stubbornness, maybe they should rethink some things about themselves rather than the rules. And that's why we kick, then ban, especially for new users. The first is a harmless warning, and the second time indicates the person is unrepentant and thus should be banned. It's pretty logical. Again, you swearing is no one's fault but yours. You started on your undertones speech again, which doesn't make sense, and how will swearing prevent "undertones", whatever they are? Are you actually encouraging insults?

"Funny how you say that there are many cons considering that it disallows most forms of discussion and "free speech"."

How does not allowing swearing disallow any form of discussion, let alone MOST forms? How can there possibly be any discussion in which usage of a swear word is necessary? As for free speech, that's basically the same idea as why children aren't allowed into R rated movies. It's not a question of free speech, it's about appropriate censorship in a site for all ages.

"Sure the place MAY become better, but it will definitely not be the most favourable, and people will always find ways around it."

If the place becomes better by not swearing, then isn't this discussion done? As for definitely not being the most favourable, if the condition for the site becoming better (though not the most favourable) is not swearing, then swearing cannot, logically, make the site more favourable than not swearing. As for people finding wats around it...they literally can't. If they swear or insult someone, they're kicked/banned. It's as simple as that. There are no loopholes.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 22:38, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

ROFL, do you even know what undertones are?

Besides, I'm merely a supporter of LSSJ4 Broly. Also, what you're saying is the same as the death penalty. Nobody knows if the Death Penalty actually decreases murder rates, if at all.Geti186 (talk) 08:25, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

"As for people finding ways around it...they literally can't. If they swear or insult someone, they're kicked/banned. It's as simple as that. There are no loopholes." Incorrect. People have found ways around it numerous times, this is just a better example of how out of touch you are with Chat. Users make up their own fake cuss words to get around it. Even most of the Chat Mods agree with us because users rarely get kicked for saying words like "Damn" "Hell" and "Ass". Unless they're insulting someone, cuss words in general are rarely offensive unless they're being used to insult someone. Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 14:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

@Geti

"ROFL, do you even know what undertones are?"

I love how you're laughing at me because you think I'M the one who's not making sense. As I already said, I DON'T know what you mean by "undertones", because the way you used it does not fit into any of the definitions of the word "undertone". Stop throwing around jargon and say what you mean. 

Your death penalty analogy would make sense, except for the fact that death is permanent, whereas banning is not. Jail is the correct analogy, and it's painfully obvious that the threat of jail is enough to stop a lot of people from breaking the law. 

@LSSJ4

"People have found ways around it numerous times, this is just a better example of how out of touch you are with Chat."

This is just a better example of how you're unable to back up your statements. Only in this last message did you provide any examples as to how this is even remotely possible.

"Users make up their own fake cuss words to get around it. Even most of the Chat Mods agree with us because users rarely get kicked for saying words like "Damn" "Hell" and "Ass""

Is this seriously your argument? Fake cuss words are not cuss words and are hardly offensive. We can't kick or ban people for gibberish. Not breaking a rule isn't the same as getting around a rule.

If I say "Darn it, I just logged on now I have to pee", it isn't getting around the no-swear rule just because I'm not saying "Goddamn it, I just fucking logged on, and now I have to take a shit".

"Hell" and "ass" are not against the rules (if they were, they would be censored), and as for "damn", it IS against the rules, and if a chat mod isn't kicking for that, then they're not doing their job as a chat mod, and you could report them.

Also, if some chat mods have decided that someone shouldn't be kicked for "damn", then that's their own decision for allowing the least offensive of swear words. This still doesn't justify why we should be allowed use the f-word in chat. "Some chat mods don't kick people for using the least offensive swear word, so since they're going to allow one swear word, then we may as well allow all of them" is not a good argument.

Regardless, I already said that I don't mind "damn", and I'd actually prefer if it wasn't against the rules.

"Unless they're insulting someone, cuss words in general are rarely offensive unless they're being used to insult someone."

That's just your opinion. I know plenty of people who are even 16-year-olds (well above the age limit) who get offended by the use of the word "fuck" or "bitch". In fact, the word "bitch" is degrading to women, and where do we draw the line? Will we be able to routinely use the word "nigger"? Some people are fine with the word "shit" but are offended by just the use of the word "cunt". And even then, it is not our place to prematurely introduce 13-year-olds to swear words just because you aren't offended by swear words. 

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 03:21, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Geti, Geti. I was only saying you were dead because you kept "killing" people when they were peacefully roleplaying. And you kept "killing" and "obliterating" people and talking about how you couldn't die. It wasn't really fair for the others, especially because everyone was getting along so well. And you really are one to point out "fault" in others when you have been banned twice now for abusing the same term in chat, despite being warned that it was not allowed.

Addressing the cursing, I think damn should be uncensored, as it isn't really ever used in a negative way. I mean, I'm used to saying damn as either to express awe ("DAMN! That's a nice car!"). Other curse words, on the other hand, should remain banned. I can well do without them. Damn though, I have not often seen used in a bad way. Even when I address another user, say Goku777 ("Damn it, Goku!"), he knows I'm only experiencing slight exasperation and that I am in no way insulting him. But the other words I can see being abused and I really am all for them remaining banned. Dark Seeker Kotsu   03:39, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

@Shakuran13, 10x Kamehameha said that he doesn't consider "Hell" to be a curse word. I don't know were you heard that "Ass" is allowed either because "Damn" is against the rules but "Ass" isn't? That makes no sense.  Besides, I never said that we should allow every single cuss word.  That's why I made a petition a while back for that but it got taken down by 10x Kamehameha.  Legendary Super Saiya-Jin 4 (talk) 14:47, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

The "petition" was actually a vote to try and get around a consensus that was not in your favor. It was taken down because consensus is the way we make decisions. Votes are usually last ditch efforts for things that are either individuals' decisions anyway, not very important, or require very quick action with no time for discussion. "Ass" is not allowed, it's just prohibitively difficult to censor automatically. "Damn" is also not allowed, since it is going to upset people if a 13-yr-old says that out loud somewhere like, for instance, in front of a teacher at school. Not always the case, and clearly not as bad as probably every other word of the list, but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. There will always be one word that is the least troublesome, but if we uncensor it based on its spot on the list then there would be none left. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:11, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this is an interesting argument, looks like some people want to remove the rule against profanity, which I disagree with, but I think the Terms of Use covers profanity. I also see there is a dispute on what is considered profanity, and where a line in the sand should be drawn. Why don't we come to a consensus on what we as a community consider to be profanity, as the definition of profanity is pretty vague itself, from the definitions I have looked up. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 13:45, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I feel like anything that would get you detention in school is profanity. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:55, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable, this wiki is for all ages, chat is for 13 plus, which means there are school aged children here, makes since to follow a school style policy for profanity. I think it would be best to stick to the way we have things. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:26, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Profanity rules #2

Hang on wait a minute here. Did you know that in some schools people have sex in the Bathroom? Therefore by that logic it should be allowed. 10X also in my school I say Damn a bit and I have a video which had 'Bastard' in and guess what. Video didn't get taken down and neither did I get kicked out for putting it on and swearing isn't allowed in my form time or classrooms. So following school rules your argument is invalid.What are you so afraid of Cell? 17:45, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

So people not getting caught, makes an arugement invalid? No it does not. Breaking rules and laws is breaking rules and laws, I'm sure I do not have to clarify this. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 22:06, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't caught. I was actually allowed to watch videos with Bastard on and Damn. They didn't care at all. Look I think swearing should be allowed as long as we don't spam it all the time or use it for harassment. Well at least Damn,Hell,Bastard and Ass. Ass means Donkey,I don't use Damn to go "DAMN YOU" all the time. Also people are bastards here and they don't find it as insulting. So please allow us to say those words. The mods allow us to say those words and them being allowed is fine with them.What are you so afraid of Cell? 22:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Is murder okay if you don't get caught? No. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:30, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Ok look at the second part of my message and talk about that. Murder is not okay but the thing is I was allowed to have minor rude words on my video just not mega swear words such as the f word,s word,b word ect ect. Anyway at least let us use Ass as all that means is Donkey. You want this place to be for young kids but guess what it's for 13+. Don't give me that Underaged users thing because we barely have any. Okay we had MOG but he's fine with it,Omni I'm not sure about and besides most people claim they are 13+. Also here's the thing is that most underaged users are trolls anyway so it really doesn't matter.What are you so afraid of Cell? 11:18, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtzXsyiKxes enjoy your epic pwnage of the no swearing rule then. That video features every swear used in Dragonball Kai. SeaTerror (talk) 19:12, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Japanese DBZ Kai used the F word at least once. ^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 19:21, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

You know guys if you want to use the 13+, as an example that people are mature enough to swear here, then you should know that people, that are mature, don't need to swear, because a mature person should be able to make a conversation without having to curse, besides this is a wiki, why would you want to curse on a wiki? If you want to curse that bad, then go on youtube there dozens of people like you there.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 19:56, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Only an immature person thinks a person who swears is immature. SeaTerror (talk) 20:21, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

That's the most idiotic statement I have ever read in my life, people that need to bring cursing on a conversation, are people that have nothing more to say.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 20:27, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

"I'm pretty sure the Japanese DBZ Kai used the F word at least once."

We've gone over this. There is literally no such thing as a swear word in Japanese.

"Only an immature person thinks a person who swears is immature."

While swearing doesn't indicate maturity, only an immature person would use swearing to make themself seem more mature, or to indicate maturity. Well, either an immature person or someone who doesn't make sense.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 21:24, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

No it just means they have an holier-than-thou attitude meaning they are immature. SeaTerror (talk) 21:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with shak, although I probably didn't state what I meant currectly, plus a person that talks about someone being 12 and trying to offend someone on chat, is by no means mature and I'm not immature for stating my opinion on cursing.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 21:28, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

You're immature for saying people who swear are immature. SeaTerror (talk) 21:51, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Great argument, you won the Oscar for immature baby of the year and I'm dozen times more mature than a person like you will ever be.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 21:54, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Your butthurtness makes you cute. :3 SeaTerror (talk) 21:57, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Says the guy that argues with admins and users, without bringing any point.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 21:58, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

That's because you like to ignore any point anybody makes. I already showed that there is swearing in DBZ. SeaTerror (talk) 22:06, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

That's no point, we're db wiki, not the db series and the people here are users not Goku and Vegeta and you ignored any other point made on this forum, dbz containing cursing is no argument and I do not ignore anything, you seem to lack common sense--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 22:09, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

"we're db wiki, not the db series" I laughed. Hard. SeaTerror (talk) 22:13, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Not as much as I did while reading your comments in the whole talk page.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 22:15, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

This wikia is about the entire Dragonball series. To try to dismiss something because it happened in DBZ and not DB is incredibly asinine. You really don't know what a bad argument is. SeaTerror (talk) 22:17, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Dude you just lost me, what? When I say db I mean dbz and dbgt and db, I don't get you and I don't need to, you make all the fash for nothing.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 22:24, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

You just said what happened in DBZ didn't count. This wikia is about the entire series. You cannot dismiss something that happened in the series just because you're butthurt they used swearing. SeaTerror (talk) 22:33, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

It's rather hypocritical of you to bash others' flimsy arguments when you have one of the flimsiest arguments here.

"I already showed that there is swearing in DBZ."

Please read the discussion you are entering before making arguments that have already been crushed. I'll reiterate what I can remember of the counterargument to this.

First of all, referring to the Japanese dub is immediately an invalid argument because there is literally no such thing as a Japanese swear word. It's just the translators (often unofficial sources) who add swearing (which is done for scanlations of the manga as well). I don't know if you did mention Japanese, but I'm pointing this out right now.

Second of all, Dragon Ball does not regularly contain swearing. One or two instances of swearing in Dragon Ball doesn't justify allowing swearing on a Dragon Ball wiki; there is no way that you can confidently assert that everyone (or even a very large majority of people) who watches Dragon Ball/Z/GT, or reads the Dragon Ball manga, or plays the games, or is just interested enough to read the wiki, has been exposed to any type of swearing. Saying "this one character in one part of one chapter/saga/episode of the anime/manga/game said "damn", so we should allow swearing on the wiki" is not a good argument.

There are so many main sources of official material (DB/Z/GT/Kai/Movies/Games), different formats (manga/anime/chapter books/guides/games/DVDs/online videos) and God knows how many chapters and episodes of this expansive franchise. You can't say that a few instances of mild language justifies the use of swearing on an official encyclopedic wiki.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 22:35, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

"It's rather hypocritical of you to bash others' flimsy arguments when you have one of the flimsiest arguments here." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

Lol. Obviously you don't know what "kusu" means. It can be translated numerious ways and most often is translated as swears.

You claim that people who watch or play the games don't ever swear which is pretty asinine and quite false. Obviously not everybody swears but a lot of people do. Censorship is wrong no matter what the reason has been my entire point this entire time. SeaTerror (talk) 22:43, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

1. I watch anime, obviously I've heard the word "kuso". Unfortunately for your argument, while it is often translated as a swear, it isn't a swear word itself. Kind of like if I said "dang it" or "oh snap" and it was translated into another language as "Goddammit" or "Oh shit", or if I said "wimp" and it was translated into "pussy bitch". 

In English, to make sentences rude, we have a list of "unspeakable" words that can be thrown in just about anywhere in the sentence as an emphasizer. English is pretty flexible in that a word for a sexual act can become a rude emphasizer. Japanese doesn't really have that flexibility. The vulgarity of Japanese words depends on how it is said. And even if "kuso" is said in Dragon Ball as an actual swear word (and that really is one of the only swear words), this is the English wiki, not the Japanese one, and we can't expect everyone on this wiki to have watched the Japanese dub, specifically the parts with "kuso", and even so, you want English swear words allowed on the wiki, not "kuso", so your argument is still utter trash.

2. I don't know where you read that I said that people who watch or play the games don't ever swear, but your assumption is pretty asinine and quite false. In fact your sentence is so wrong I can't even say what I was actually saying, or identify what part you confused, because your assumption is just so incredibly incorrect that I don't see it. Read what I said again.

3. Your "censorship is wrong" point is clearly not what your entire point has been the whole time because this is the first time you brought it up. Censorship, as was already discussed, makes sense in many contexts; it is the general consensus of society that it is not acceptable for 7-year-old children to watch R-rated movies because they can be exposed to violence, vulgarity, and promiscuity at a young age. Clearly there is a reason that this is such a strong rule that people under the age of 17 literally are not allowed to get into some movies. Why do you think this is? Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 23:10, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I feel like we're going in circles. The arguments seem to be "Swearing is bad and offends people" vs. "I like to swear so don't judge me." I am all for giving users rights, but if it takes away from other user's than it's no good. Swearing hurts more than it helps, and the existence of the alternative to simply other words means it doesn't help at all. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:14, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

1) I said it CAN BE translated as a swear but not that it is always one. The fact that you claimed there is no swear words in Japanese is flat out wrong as I already pointed out.

2) No need to read it again since you're a liar and are trying to claim I misread it. I know exactlt what you said, Liar.

3) That only exists because a lot of people are prudes and think that anybody who is young can't handle any kind of violence or swearing.

As for 10x, you are either very old or very young if you think that swearing "hurts". SeaTerror (talk) 23:42, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means, can you elaborate? Are you implying that all people older and younger than whatever your age is are ignorant? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:27, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm implying people who think swearing hurts are foolish. SeaTerror (talk) 01:32, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Words hurt, not physically, but mentally I mean it hurts people when they are call fat and that isn't even a swear word and for you to say swearing doesn't hurt does an incredible diservice to all of those that are victems to harassment, and in fact thinking swearing doesn't hurt anybody is ignorant and incredibly shallow. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 01:38, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

It could only possibly hurt if aimed at somebody. If somebody is just saying something like "I really hate that damn game" it doesn't hurt anything. SeaTerror (talk) 01:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

People are offended by profanity eveb if it is not directed at them. Go say some racist things in front of the wrong people and you'll get into trouble just the same. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Jesus. You really fail at logical anaologies. Racism isn't the same as swearing. SeaTerror (talk) 02:35, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sadly you have missed the point. Let me simplify it to try and help you understand the truth. You said that saying things only hurt if they are aimed at somebody, and what I said is an example of a time that you are wrong. Profane, racist, homophobic content; these things are all hurtful and that is why you had to agree not to use them when you made your account. And why we chose to ban them here. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:46, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this, he insulted me with his profane use of the Lords name while he was aiming the comment at you. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:48, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

You compared something completely different. Sure there are some racist swear words but that doesn't mean all swear words are racist. Besides we all agreed to that but nobody agreed to a no swearing rule since it doesn't exist. (Under Wikia TOU) Nice sarcasm, Vegito. SeaTerror (talk) 02:50, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Now you insult me with calling that sarcasm? You insulted me and every Christian that reads that message! User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:53, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. You're only now saying that because the discussion is about people getting offended when something isn't aimed at them. I'm not stupid. I know EXACTLY what you are doing. SeaTerror (talk) 02:58, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Please stop harassing SSJ4 Vegito. I too am offended by your religious intolerance, which you agreed not to do when you registered an account. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:01, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That is definitely not religious intolerance nor harassment. You want to see what religious intolerance is? Go to NationStates General forums. The point was about swearing and aiming it at others or just saying it at nothing such as being frustrated with a game. SeaTerror (talk) 03:06, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That you are oblivious to the fact you are offending someone does not make you free of blame. This may contribute to you not quite understanding why profanity is in the terms of use. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:08, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Because swearing isn't. You're trying to think it is but you know you are wrong. Even Raging Gohan contacted staff about it and they said that swearing isn't banned under their TOU. SeaTerror (talk) 03:11, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

"I said it CAN BE translated as a swear but not that it is always one. The fact that you claimed there is no swear words in Japanese is flat out wrong as I already pointed out."

The fact that I claimed that there are no swear words in Japanese has nothing to do with the choices of people who translate it. As I said earlier, there are no words in Japanese that, if merely written or spoken, are considered unspeakable.

"No need to read it again since you're a liar and are trying to claim I misread it. I know exactlt what you said, Liar."

Then please give me a quote of what I said that indicates that I said that people who play the video games do not swear.

"That only exists because a lot of people are prudes and think that anybody who is young can't handle any kind of violence or swearing."

So you think there's literally no reason not to show kids adult content besides the discomfort of a few prudes? Are you serious?

In general, you're no ignoring the points that actually matter and are now trying to pick apart any point you can, which is basically all the irrelevant details of the argument. You still fail to make a logical argument in favour of allowing swearing. If you disagree, please just say what your logical argument is.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 03:15, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have any logic to do so, I can't believe a forum and a discussion page are being dragged by one person, that couldn't be more offensive and annoying, he just mockes everyones comments, just block him, what he's doing is a form of harassment, I myself I'm very annoyed by the two arguments, the one here and the other about that user that got blocked 2 years ago and who did create another account and didn't want to be unblocked, even though this, the discussion is being dragged by one person, this shouldn't be happening really, it's annoying that a user that has no valid arguments and mocks everyobodies opinion, just because he's angry about cursing or whatever. I really didn't like his respones to me about the people who need to curse being immature, if you pay attention, he mocks this post dozens of times on this talk page: Those are his statements, you can see them above:

• You're immature for saying people who swear are immature.
• "Only an immature person thinks a person who swears is immature."
• No. I'm implying people who think swearing hurts are foolish.

and he called me foolish for a 17 year old on chat(which Kotsu took care of it) but stiil, it's offensive and annoying to say that to someone and he mocked my opinion and other people's opinion on the forum and this talk page, if he continues he should be blocked. Also the staff never said they generally allow cursing, they said that they allow the community to decide what's considered to be profane, don't take what you want from what people say. Also this reply of him is again mocking and offensive:Your butthurtness makes you cute. :3 SeaTerror (talk) 21:57, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 12:01, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

I was already warned for those by 10x. Also you're ignoring what they actually said. They said they did not have a rule against swearing. That doesn't mean that wikias can't make up their own rules which is something I never implied. I said it was stupid to base those rules off of something that doesn't exist. SeaTerror (talk) 18:56, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, and our wiki's rule is that there is no swearing. Will that be all, then? Since the argument has veered off the actual original topic, and you seem to be unable to make an a good argument, or any argument at all to the last few points, I assume so. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 00:26, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Obviously since you don't like my arguments that automatically makes them bad. Nice logic. The original topic is if swearing should be allowed. Many people think so and many people disagree with it. So it either comes down to a consenus or a vote depending on how many people participate. SeaTerror (talk) 01:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I dislike your arguments because they are bad, but that's not what I said anyways. Any assumption that it's vice versa is presumption of your own, and thus can be chalked up to your own faulty logic.

Regardless, I have made several arguments recently, and you have not replied yo or refuted any of them, or at least not any of the main ones (and have focused on nitpicking irrelevant statements)

And, as was already discussed, on this wiki, we decide things by discussion first, rather than votes. Since you seem to be unable to comprehend what your arguments are, I'll summarize the whole discussion and break it down for you.

If you find a point made previously that I missed, then you can say so. Also, there have been false statements made that I haven't added such as that DB is for only teens and young adults, or that one can type and enter swear words by reflex, etc. that I did not add; as well as irrelevant statements such as personal quibbles, statements against censorship in general (which is a larger-scale issue than one wiki's rules), and discussions about what constitutes an insult.

Points made in favour of a rule change:

• DB includes mature topics such as vulgarity/sexual topics/violence, so its wiki should include them.
• Most teens (and chat users) know swear words, so they cannot be offended by a swear word
• Swearing allows one to say more; disallowing it restricts free speech
• The Japanese Sub and Kai include swearing
• I would prefer to swear
• Users would find chat more enjoyable if they didn't get kicked for swearing all the time
• Lack of swearing forces people to resort to other things like flame-baiting, other insults, and "undertones", which are worse than swearing
• People can find ways around swearing, like subsitute words
• Swear words are not offensive unless used to insult people
• At some schools, swearing is allowed, and people get around rules
• Even if some users on the wiki lie and are underage, that's their responsibility
• Swearing is not against the TOU

Points made against:

• Profanity can cause arguments, offense, and harrassment
• Swearing adds nothing of value to discussion, and is not constructive to an encyclopedic site
• Not all forms of DB material includes swearing, and even the material that does has infrequent swearing, and is not the most popular form(at), so users may not have been exposed to swearing
• Saying more does not make it better
• Preferring to swear does not mean it is good
• The swear words in DB (and esp. Kai) are minor
• There are alternatives to swearing, so it is not necessary
• Swearing in fan subs are at the discretion of the translator; there are no actual words in Japanese considered "unspeakable".
• This is the English wiki, so Japanese is irrelevant
• Swearing on the wiki can expose younger users to profanity prematurely
• There are people offended by swearing
• Swearing causes lack of clarity in discussion
• Swearing on chat can leak to forums/blogs, which are accessible to readers of any age
• Most media aimed at 13-year-olds do not contain swearing (for a reason)
• Being kicked is annoying for a reason: to discourage bad behaviour
• The free speech argument is the same as why children cannot enter R-rated movies; it's age-appropriate censorship
• Finding ways around swearing doesn't make it good
• Substitute swear words like "dang" are not swear words, and thus not against the rules; rather they are a better alternative to swear words
• It is hard to draw a line for swear words; some people are fine with "damn" but not "cunt".
• Words like "nigger" and "bitch" are swear words that are actually insulting
• If a word would land one in detention at a school, it would warrant a kick/ban

Seeing as there are way more "against" arguments than "for", and many, if not all of the "against" arguments refute the "for" arguments (because, imo, the "for" arguments are very weak), I see no reason to continue this circular discussion. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 02:10, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Just for the people that are saying wikia allows cursing, check this:http://snag.gy/MzQQ1.jpg --ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 22:41, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is on that link. SeaTerror (talk) 02:28, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I saw it before it disappeared. It was a mod on community central blocking someone for using the word "bitch", and the comment to go along with the comment was something like "watch your language. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:13, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

And? Community central doesn't allow swearing. Its on their rules. This is about the TOU which doesn't actually ban swearing. SeaTerror (talk) 04:04, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

No, this is about the DB Wiki actually. We will stay on topic here. RG was probably using it as an example of another wiki that bans swearing or something, idk. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:41, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I just don't think we should allow swearing myself. I was raised in a home without it, and I'm used to using harmless and non-offending substitutes where one might swear. I really don't see what is the appeal with them. And besides, it means I would have to look at it and decide if it was offensive to someone or not whenever a user swears. I mean, clearly some words are better left unsaid, like racial slurs that are counted as swears, and if we allow swearing, how long until people start pushing that we use those words? I just don't think it right or strategically wise or correct for this wiki to allow swearing.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   06:24, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Easy solution is to ban the racist and sexist swears but allow the others. SeaTerror (talk) 22:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

He said not to allow swearing, so "allow the others" would not solve it. That would only solve part of it. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:31, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Ok some questions:

Do you think a person would like to join a wiki site, with people that curse?

Do you think it's wise to curse on an internet site, which is full of people that you don't know and you never actually know what kind of person is behind the pc(why he/she visits the site)?

Why would you curse on a wiki site, really why? Do you see wikipedia allowing people to curse? Blogs and chat are just features, that they shouldn't normally even be the main aspect of a wiki, so why would you remove a rule that just applies to two features? Or you want articles and forums to contain cursing aswell?

Do you think that people here are mature enough not to abuse cursing? I mean there already people cursing when the rule is inforced, what would happen if the rule was removed?.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 13:14, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

1) "Do you think a person would like to join a wiki site, with people that curse?"

Yes. They do it all the time.

2) If you're saying it's stupid to swear on the internet then that makes no sense. Swearing is just swearing.

3) Like anything "new" and "shiny" it could have some people potentially swearing a lot. Of course then it would die off and the typical things you would see are stuff like "I really hate that damn(whatever else) game". SeaTerror (talk) 01:18, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

I think it is settled that swearing upsets a lot of people and that we should continue not to allow it. A few people would enjoy swearing, but strictly as an an extra pleasure and certainly not a necessity. This discussion is going in circles around those statements and I can't see any merit in continuing at this time. I suggest a reevaluation in 6 months. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:13, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

So basically what you are saying is "I disagree with the other points made and that I don't want swearing on this wikia so I'll just say a discussion is closed when it isn't." There are plenty of things to discuss about this. This is far from being done. SeaTerror (talk) 02:23, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there are 3 people for total lift on profanity or as like Sea Terror likes to call it swearing, there are 6 people that want to keep the rule as is, and several users that want profanity (or swearing) line to be drawn to be a little less restrictive. It appears the consensus is closer to no change in policy rather than a complete lift of the profanity ban. Is there really any point of letting one person drag this out and insulting anyone that disagrees with him? User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 03:01, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Seaterror, I said what I said. Do not put words in my mouth to try and make me look like a bad guy for doing my job like you have tried to in the past. It is too bad that the community disagrees with you right now, but we will discuss it again in 6 months. There are no new points being presented and SSJ4 Vegito and I have summarized the discussion. There is no use in chatting back and forth with nothing new to say. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:33, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. The only reason you say this is because you don't like swearing and just don't want it. You know if there was an actual vote then people would want to allow swearing and its something (for some unknown reason) you extremely hate. That is the only reason why you don't try to debate and say "oh look these people don't want swearing so that means the discussion should just be closed." There are plenty of points to be made and plenty of arguments for or against swearing. You just do not want to listen to any arguments that are supporting the removal of the rule because you hate swearing. SeaTerror (talk) 06:42, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

"It's called trolling." — SeaTerror

I remember seeing that on a forum, and I since that forum sparked the later part of this argument I believe he is just doing this to troll as there is no meaninful discussion going on and a user is crying out for attention by disagreeing with the consensus. I find no reason to continue this discussion in the near future. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 13:40, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks SSJ4 Vegito, I was wondering why he was ignoring our comments and kind of making up things that were never said by others. That makes sense now that he admitted to trolling. Since he is the only person still on this topic, we can definitely consider the consensus (minus the one admitted troll) as done with. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 18:45, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Way to take that comment out of context for a SECOND time. I already explained I was talking about the random IP who we didn't know was Uknownada or not. You both fail to acknowledge any arguments and just have some extreme hatred for any kind of swearing for unknown reasons. I don't know if it has to do with how you were raised (like Kotsu's comment) or what but you both have shown to be extremely bias against people who do want to swear or do swear. Every single time an argument about this comes up you ignore it and say "swearing is bad" "oh look people don't want swearing even though others do, time to say a discussion is closed." Or other similar things. This is just pure ridiculousness at how there's so much bias coming from you both about swearing. SeaTerror (talk) 21:06, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Ok I agree lets allow cursing, on one condition, I get to curse at Sea Terror every day. Just kidding, the discussion is really getting nowhere, especially with Sea Terro's comments.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 21:25, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

SeaTerror stop trolling please. You are just saying mean things about people and not talking about the page topic at all. A consensus has been reached on this topic so it's time to move on. You can go swear at minors on some other website. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:30, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

SeaTerror please just stop it now. I've decided to give it up as I know the rules won't be changed. We all would like you to stop now. Just please drop it. Anyway I'm not caring about the rules anymore because I can get around the censor. What are you so afraid of Cell? 21:50, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

1) Learn what trolling is. I am definitely not trolling. 2) I have not said anything mean. I have said what this forum was about. There was no consensus reached at all. You are making that up. Also there's no such thing as "we all" since not every person has commented on this forum since. The rules will change if people like yourself wouldn't just give up for no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 21:59, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Chill out. It's not the end of the world that you are on the losing side of a consensus. Stirring up arguments without making any points or acknowledging facts is exactly what trolling is. Have you noticed that all of the recent posts here are just people complaining that you have not stopped posting here yet? The message is clear; the topic is closed. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:47, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to stir anything up but that was an out of context quote referring to someone other than himself, and usually, unless they suck at it, trolls don't put this level of effort or even thought into trolling. I think it's safe to assume that he's legitimately trying to make a change, however bad he might be at it.

As for SeaTerror, obviously if someone doesn't like swearing they will be against it, but that doesn't decrease the validity of the opinion.

69.158.162.223 02:38, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

Some trolls will go to great lengths to harass/annoy people (not saying SeaTerror is, just pointing out what I think). I've trolled SSJ4 Vegito for a long, long time.^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 02:54, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between trolling and being annoying or ignorant. Not saying you are, but just a general statement. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 04:08, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

Everybody calm down. Yes, there's been a good deal of comments past the point where they are called for. Let's leave it at that and move other to other tasks on the wiki before people start getting personal and getting offended by this topic. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:16, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

"SeaTerror it sounds almost like you have a personal vendetta against 10X, or you like trolling everyone, Uknownada means "You know nothing" which I see as offensive, just as 10X view it, also 10X discussed the issue with that person, and that person doesn't want to have the account unbanned. Although you totally disregard any of this claiming it is just a random IP. Honestly why would anyone have a reason to impersonate an anon? User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:01, February 22, 2013 (UTC) It's called trolling. It happens. Plus I really doubt you find it offensive and just want to suck up to 10x. The account should be unbanned regardless because many others found it as a stupid ban. SeaTerror (talk) 02:19, February 22, 2013 (UTC)" — Forum:Admin_powers_should_go#10x_stays

I am pretty sure this shows the full context. It shows his reply to my comment on a forum, you guys can judge it how you want, but to me it looks close to an admission. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 12:45, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, 10X, this'll be my last post (I hope!) @SSJ4 Vegito, SeaTerror merely answered your last question in that discussion. The reason someone would have to impersonate an anon is that they are trolling. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 00:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Screamers

Earlier at 6:00 a user started spamming screamers and too be honest I don't think screamers should be allowed. It's scaring people for laughs and giggles and making people mad for laughs and giggles. To be honest this is completely pointless and just not funny. It's stupid,pointless and there's literally no pros. It is one of the worst things on here that shouldn't be allowed beside from spam and vandalism. Heck you have to admit swearing is better then this. I'm not going to rant that we should allow swearing as I've given up about this but see what you guys think of this. Screamers are not right as 13 all the way to 16 on here could be freaked the hell out and it's basically trolling someone to click a link and they get scared as hell. Please get rid of this as it could be called harassment.What are you so afraid of Cell? 21:52, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it is harassment. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:43, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Is there not already a rule against screamers? If not, I agree, there should be a rule. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 02:38, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

It falls under the existing harassment rule. From experience, fewer rules makes each one more important, and makes it more reasonable for users to follow them. I once saw a wiki that expected users to follow like 6 pages worth of rules that weren't even linked on the main page, and that is sort of the extreme we want to avoid. Anyway, this discussion topic can serve as a reference if someone claims they weren't breaking the rule. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:03, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Emotes

I think the unnecessary posting of emotes on main chat again and again should be taken as spam.

—

User:Epsilon Master/sig23 06:51, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

I mean if someone is posting emotes instead of words, that's okay. If they are posting 10 in a row without anyone talking even after the mod says to stop, then it's a problem. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:15, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

'xactly.

—

User:Epsilon Master/sig23 09:54, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I believe moderators should warn emote spammers (if they haven't started doing so yet). PeterPeter5000 (talk) 11:23, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Or we should highlight that in chat rules.

—

User:Epsilon Master/sig23 11:48, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Spamming is spamming regardless of whether it is words, emoticons, links, or anything else. Same conditions apply. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:39, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Allowing Damn

I think we should allow Damn. It is not a curse,many wiki's with no swearing do not except it as a curse and it's a perfectly fine word to use. Honestly I think Damn should be allowed and uncensored. It's not swearing at all. It would be idiotic to count it as a swear and cuss and if a lot of people agree on this it would be allowed. This wiki is run by community consenus and if that's the case then people should allow what they think and if more people agree the word should be allowed. Should Damn be allowed everyone? Tell me what you think.What are you so afraid of Cell? 21:54, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

No this crap again... Miricle Talk

I agree, it seems silly to kick people or bust them for saying it, when usually it is not even used like "Damn you!" but rather like "Damn, that's a nice shirt." Where I live, I have never heard of it being considered an expletive, and my teachers never treat it like so while not allowing words like the f-bomb.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   22:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

It is an expletive in many English-speaking countries. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:13, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Blogs With No Topic

I think that blogs such as this, are unnecessary and should be deleted. They have no topic and all the comments are spam. The blog is only asking for comments to gain popularity. I say we make a rule on this, anybody else agree?  • Vegeta88 • Talk • Contribs

I have no opinion on this as of yet, but I just wanted to speak up and say that rules can be most decisively enforced when they are very specific. Rather than "no topic", which is arguably not the case here, you might suggest a rule against "blogs created with the sole intention of amassing posts." -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:12, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

New Rule

i think that we should make a rule against posting ads on forums and blogs and if someone did he will be blocked for 1 month  I am GokuBrolyVegeta. 12:22, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

We IP block those guys for infinity. They're usually just bots anyway. A rule is not needed since it is against the wikia terms of use to advertise here. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:23, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Kay then  I am GokuBrolyVegeta.

09:22, October 30, 2013 (UTC)

Insults

BRING BACK INSULTS, BRING BACK FREEDOM. FRRREEEEEEEDOOM!

I really hate that "rule" though.  18:56, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

HEELZ YEAH!!! srsly we need to change some rules guys    The         R-                              -Less      One                                             19:17, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no benefit to allowing insults. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:48, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 10X. 

Dark Seeker Kotsu   23:35, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

Except for pleasing over half the wiki. What if we need to tell a guy that he's being stupid and that nobody cares?  04:49, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

If you can't ignore him like some of us do, you are immature and probably shouldn't be here. We're supposed to be over 13 on this wiki and on the way to adulthood. Everyone should act like it. Suck it up and ignore him, because insulting him and fighting like little children is counter-productive.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   07:04, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

okay no insults but can we allow some swear words like the s-word or a censored f-word but we don't use them to insult people                                

   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             12:43, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my opinion on this:

Final Chidoru@

Except for pleasing over half the wiki.

Giving everyone on the wiki admin rights would also please over half of the wiki, but that doesn't mean that it should happen. The rules don't exist to please the community, but to keep the wiki organized and well, allowing insults, won't benefit the wiki or anyone. Asking for insults to be allowed is like asking to vandalize a page and not get blocked for it, it's not going to happen.

What if we need to tell a guy that he's being stupid and that nobody cares?

Well I can answer this question with another question, why should anyone be allowed to do what you just described? Telling someone that he/she's stupid and that nobody cares, is just harassment.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 16:13, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Define 'harassment' . I really think some people deserve to be insulted. Commander of the Insult Freedom Army speaking. Sceptile King Deserves a Mega Evo 16:57, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

I have defined it, if you want you can also google it to see the definition. It doesn't really matter if you think that some people deserve to be insulted, some people could say that you deserve to be insulted(I'm saying it as an example, not that you should be insulted), but that doesn't make insulting anyone ok, nor it's a reason to allow insulting.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 17:18, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Kotsu, if we're supposed to act grown up, then shouldn't we be able to handle some insults? I'd love to speak my mind freely.  21:37, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

If we're "grown-ups", we shouldn't have to insult people to begin with. This isn't the Dragon Ball Preschool, it's the Dragon Ball Wiki. You can't go around name-calling and insulting people. Like RG said, we can't allow something because it would please someone. Should the United States allow murder because a group of people enjoy killing others? Should meth be allowed because some people enjoy doing it? No. Just because people enjoy it, doesn't mean it's okay.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   22:52, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Well, ya know what? Im gonna male a wiki called the Dragon Ball Preschool and there is gonna be insults. Commander of the Insult Freedom Army speaking. Sceptile King Deserves a Mega Evo 22:21, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Good for you, good luck with that, still that's irrelevant to the whole discussion.--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 22:26, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Wel, guess what? I made it. Sceptile King Deserves a Mega Evo 22:28, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

That was a pretty good idea in my opinion. Now you have a space to insult each other like you want without harassing people that do not want to be insulted here. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:41, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

I SUPPORT CHIDOREH. FREEDOM FOR ALL! ^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 22:33, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Calling someone or something stupid is not an insult- It is a statement in regards to how poorly presented something is. In no way should that be an insult. Same goes for calling someone an a**hole or whatnot. People should be free to present their thoughts. Cursing is just a way to express the thoughts. Insulting only applies when someone goes out of their way to put down someone. This should all be common sense. Grow up kids...     ALowClassSaiyan (talk) 14:53, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

^ THIS IDIOT GETS THE IDEA!

sorry, 10X. plz no ban :) -- 01:13, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

BAN HIM. STRANGLE HIM WITH THE HAMMER. NEOW. ^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 01:32, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Rules discussions are a safe place, you would have to try very hard to get banned during one, and I would encourage other admins to take the same approach. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:38, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

So the one place where you're allowed to break the rules...is on the talk page for the rules? What the hell!? D:< ^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 01:43, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

If it is productive for the discussion. For instance, if you want to ask if an image is obscene, it is okay to post a link to an admin, since otherwise you might not be sure. As long as no one purposely abuses that lenience I think it can be quite helpful. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:58, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So saying 'idiot' to an innocent bystander...is productive...? >:( ^Buu _uuu ^uuu _uuu ^uuu!! 03:45, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Hey listen, either you feel insulted and like the rule, or you are not innocent but didn't mind the insult. I see what you did there... -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:20, January 23, 2014 (UTC)

Blog limits

a lot of users are supporting this idea of limiting blogs per weak. so what does the admins think.  here's the supprort

   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             22:24, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Why limit the amount of blogs? Even if someone creates 1000 blogs in a day, you will not be affected if you simply do not choose to read them. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:39, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the fact that simply saying "You can ingore them" has never really worked before. We always get users commenting on blogs that they do not like, and said person makes a whole buch more before getting blocked. During that time, we just get a lot of hate blogs and the like. By putting in a limit, it will reduce how many of this blogs are made, and there for less drama alround the wiki. And most blog topics can be said in chat. Chat is nice that way. Some ghost 23:50, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

First some of you guys go "Oh, there's too many stupid rules here, I hate the rules." and complain all the time. Then Gekkou (a user you find annoying) comes around and all of a sudden you're all gung-ho totally for more rules? I better not hear any complaining about how harsh the rules are if the same people are complaining to me that we need to be even more harsh and limit how many blogs someone can make. It sounds mighty contradicting of these people, and mighty hypocritical too. 

Dark Seeker Kotsu   00:15, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

How people have felt about rules in the past has no bearing on this argument. Please try to stay on topic.

Aside from what "Some ghost" said earlier, in that no one ever just "ignores" something they don't like (and they don't have to, but that's another discussion altogether), this rule would be to avoid people flooding the blogs with their own material and pushing out everyone else's. I don't know if this is just my computer or my browser, but using the "See more" option to view all blogs doesn't really work. I can see more blogs, yes, but they're usually from three weeks ago. At the moment, the first blog at the top of the page is this guy from January 31. Using recent activity works about as well, since all you see is the one guy's flood of blogs and everyone who comments on them (in addition to all the normal edits that happen everyday), meaning the only efficient way to find any other kind of blog is to know what you want to look for beforehand and finding the words in the title. More than anything, who can actually use more than five blogs in a week? Gekkou is dead and disgraced now, but there will always be more like him, since the subject matter of this wiki lends itself to immaturity. This rule will stop this problem before it can happen again. --BobLogical (talk) 15:52, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with pointless rules, but this rule does have a very valid point. If you can only make 3 blogs per week, you wouldn't make spam ones and waste the amount you can make in 5 minutes. 

I get kinda annoyed when somebod suggests that you could "ignore" the blogs. If I curse and call a person retarded while insulting their mother, then they could just "ignore" that too, can't they? Could we "ignore" the users that are underaged? Of course we can, but yet we've made rules against them.  Barely anyone makes over 3 blogs per week, so only the annoying 5% that spam out useless blogs will be affected. The only people I see voting against this are the admins, mostly everybody else agrees. And like Reapaer said, why not stop this problem before it happens again? There will always be another Gekkou to come over and make blogs that will be hated on, while pushing away the meaningful ones. 

- Final Chidori Talk 20:47, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, contradictory to what you might believe (BobLogical) it does have bearing. Because when a group of people oppose this rule at any given time that said rule is in effect, who's going to be complained to? Not you, that's for sure. They're going to complain to me, and they're going to complain to other admins. 

Guys, try to look at this from an admin perspective. We already have to have our eyes all over the wiki, scanning user and talk pages, articles, blogs, forums, and chat for rule violations and disputes to be settled. This is in addition to regular day-to-day maitenance that the admin group does. Who really wants to check every user's blogs list and make sure they aren't doing over x many blogs? This isn't just a once-a-year thing. That would mean in addition to the work we have to do on the wiki plus our personal lives, we'd also now have to check as many user blog lists as possible to make sure they aren't passing the limit. This is tedious.

I would be willing to agree to a compromise of limiting blogs from users who both post the same exact type of blog repetitively (with or without minor differences) and/or consistently have an antagonizing/bad attitude to others while doing it, but if someone is making five blogs a week that aren't even on remotely the same subject, why should this user be limited? I'm not a self-control counselor. If people can't act like grown-ups and instead decide to post insults and derisive remarks on a blog they supposedly don't even care about, it's their problem if they get blocked. I'm not here to babysit users that can't control themselves, I'm here to work on a wiki and make sure the rules are enforced.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   22:51, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I realize that I may have posted quite the opposite on the blog you linked above, but I oppose this rule. You're all better off ignoring blogs that you don't like than limiting other peoples' creative freedom for your own sake. User:ThatCruelAngel/sig5 23:22, February 6, 2014 (UTC) We’re discussing scent and pheromones and oh my god

It really doesn't. Your logic says that, because people complained about rules they didn't like in the past, they'll automatically complain about this rule. Well, yeah; that's how the world works. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything that happens, so trying to use that as a reason for not making a rule is ridiculous, hence why it has no place in this discussion. This is ignoring the fact that all but two people at this point in time do not support this rule. If literally two people possibly complaining about this rule is really that troublesome (compared to everyone else who complains about anything else, new users asking questions they could find in site documents, or the oh-so important "Hai Kotsu!11!!1" messages you get) then maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities as an administrator. I run a forum, so I'm not just blowing smoke: I know what it's like to run a site. Several, in fact.

The fact a rule exists means 90% of the community will follow it. As everyone has said already, it takes real effort to make five blogs of any substance in a week. Unless you genuinely don't care what you're putting out to the world and slap together a terrible "Goku vs X" blog every three hours, you're most likely going to be making a blog a month, if that. This doesn't require you to babysit the blog section (which wouldn't even be an issue if a user that willingly interacts with the community was set up in a position of power, if you really feel watching over us is that big of a responsibility). People tattle on each other all the time for the most arbitrary of reasons. I was blocked because I said the word "idiot". Do you really think it would be that hard to get people who'd be willing to tell on each other when the community actually supports this rule?

Even in your example, you're still agreeing with us. You chose to use five as an arbitrary number of blogs that a user could make. Well, there you go! The people who care about this issue have proposed either three or five as the weekly limit, and you don't seem to have a problem with that if you hold true to what you say in your example. What's the issue again? --BobLogical (talk) 23:30, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

@Chidori, ignoring a relevant blog and ignoring insults directed at you or underage users are very differently things. If I call someone an idiot, I am intentionally provoking them, making them feel less respected, telling others that I think the person is dumb, and also cyberbullying them. I would expect the insulted user to respond by telling an admin in some way, or less favorably by insulting me back. If an underage user is on the site, then they are creating a situation where someone who is more naive and easily influenced is exposed to anonymous behavior on the internet, which is detrimental to healthy mental development. To your point, if I make a blog about how many freckles Mr. Satan has, it does none of those things mentioned above. You are not being bullied, children are not exposed to pornography via some random troll in chat, and by ignoring the situation of posting a mean comment on a blog you don't care for you have made all parties happier. I would say that the synonymous situation is a guy on the street that wears the same dumb red hat every day. Maybe you don't like his unfashionable hat, and it is in the corner of your eye everyday, but the solution is to ignore him, not pick a fight with a stranger (what you are suggesting is somehow an inevitable action on your part), and not make a law saying people can't wear the same hat more than three times in a week. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:33, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

@BobLogical, I believe Kotsu said that people complained about there being too many rules, not that they complained about specific ones that they did not like. By definition, Kotsu's assertion that adding a rule will make the problem "there are too many rules" inherently a worse problem since the number rules will increase. Also, you were wrong when you said that all but two people support the rule. There are 3 in favor and 3 against. The people in the blog need to come here and contribute, providing a reason and not just a vote, as to why they feel a certain way about the rule. Keep in mind that we do not decide things on a Wiki by voting, but rather by reaching a consensus. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:36, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what 10X said. Honestly, why should it be MY problem that some users can't control themselves and NEED to post demeaning comments on someone else's blog? I say this rule will just cater to bullies that want to limit people they deem "annoying" from posting. Upon further reading this argument, I have changed my opinion. As it stands after rereading the forum, I am unwilling to make a compromise and strongly oppose this rule until my fellow admins support it. Again, how are someone's blogs hurting you? "Oh, they're annoying." So what? Life's annoying. Teachers can be annoying, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to walk out of a classroom without repercussions. Police officers can be annoying, but that doesn't mean you can punch one in the face and run and expect that to suffice as an excuse for why you shouldn't be arrested. I didn't have any problem with Gekkou's blogs myself to where I needed to make fun of him. I was able to continue on my life just fine without paying attention to him. I respect your opinion, but I think it would be counterproductive to add another rule when people complain every day about the rules we already have and about how we have too many. Dark Seeker Kotsu   23:48, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not counting you or Kotsu in that vote because you all weren't there for the initial creation of this idea. The red hat example is flawed on inception. Someone wearing a hat and someone walking up to you and saying, "Look at my hat! Isn't it great? Wouldn't you like a hat this great?" every day you go to a certain place are two different things. Like I said before, that kind of behavior detracts from anyone else being able to have a blog in the popular section or even shown on the main page (or being able to view anyone else's hats, to continue the hypothetical). Most people won't be able to get comments on their blog without acting like a beggar and going to talk pages with, "Please look at my blog because this one guy spammed mine off the map!"

Kotsu's talking nonsense and making incredible leaps in logic here, so I don't feel like I need to justify his cop-punching argument with a rebuttal. --BobLogical (talk) 23:59, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

People would have blogs in the popular blogs section if others could control themselves and NOT insult another user on their blog or make pointlessly rude comments on there. I respect your opinion, so you should respect mine at least out of courtesy that I'm not insulting you and calling you names and am trying to have a civil conversation. Maybe it sounds like nonsense to you, but you're not reading the point behind it, said point being that you can't just behave however you want because someone does something that annoys you or they are annoying themselves. I'm sorry that you don't know how to interpret semantics, but you don't need to sound so condescending about it. I'm just putting my two cents in here, same as anyone else.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   00:05, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

You are drawing a moral equivalent to someone punching a cop and posting on blogs. Regardless of whatever point you're trying to make, you weaken it by making such an outlandish comparison between two unrelated topics. You can tell people to get along and hold hands by the campfire all day long, but the fact of the matter is that it will not happen. Short of banning anyone who makes a negative comment on a blog (or, as in most cases, just disagreeing or explaining why something is pointless and asinine), there is always going to be posting on blogs that people don't like. --BobLogical (talk) 00:14, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm making a real-life comparison to drive home the point that these people can't react to something however they want and not expect punishment for it. If these blog postings aren't breaking any of the current rules and if the poster is behaving respectfully, then why should I cater to the group of users that are harassing them? Those people should deal with said blog because nothing in life is fair and I'm not going to punish or limit the freedoms of one person for the gratification of another.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   00:17, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

But that isn't a situation anyone encounters in real life. No one expects to pick a fight with a cop and just walk away. People do expect (and get away with on a regular basis) to tell people what they think of their blogs, positively or negatively. Whether you've intended to or not, you've demonized everyone in support of this rule by way of moral equivalents and hasty generalization. "Well, those people are just harassing bullies." "They just don't want to face the consequences of their actions." "Life isn't fair, so deal with it, bro."

Rules are made on the basis of fairness and order. You have said this situation is unfair to people who don't want to blog area monopolized by a single troll, and unfair to people who want to make blogs that can never get any sort of recognition when the main page is filled with troll blogs and the "See more" option updates as often as Linkara's upcoming episodes list. If we should just "deal with it", then what's the point of making rules at all? --BobLogical (talk) 00:33, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

And whose fault is it if certain blogs get more attention than others? Certainly not mine. I try to post on blogs when I can to help give other users a boost, but I can only do so much with my busy schedule. Users have told me we have limited freedoms enough and I agree. Why limit any more? Why remove someone's blog if it isn't hurting anyone? This person wants their ideas to be shared and has the same right to do so as everyone else. If they're having fun making blogs, why shoud I have to come along tell them how many blogs they are allowed to make? Obviously I have no problem with deleting blogs that don't follow the guidelines, but I have a problem with deleting and limiting blogs that aren't intentionally harming anyone.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   01:07, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

1. No one has accused you of making it so certain blogs can't get attention. That blame falls solely on users like Gekkou.

2. If you agree with users that say we have limited freedom, why aren't you doing anything to remove rules?

3. No one is talking about removing blogs. You're making things up.

4. If they're having fun but no one else is, why do they deserve special treatment over the majority?

5. Still not talking about deleting blogs.

--BobLogical (talk) 01:48, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

@BobLogical, the red hat example works fine, your addition to it is wrong. No one is going up to you and talking to you and telling you to read those blogs. If a user comes on your talk and tells you to read their blogs and read don't want them to do that, then grab an admin because they are harassing you. A blog on its own is just a man on the street minding his own business.

You stated that the blogs with more attention end up on the recent activity, and that annoying blogs get a lot of comments. Our suggestion was not to post on blogs you don't want to see, and then it will go away. Your rebuttal seems to be that it is inevitable that the annoying blogs will get posts because that is what people do. That last step is flawed, because the people posting on the annoying blogs are the same people that want limits on blogs. A small amount of self control in not telling the person, on their blog, that you are annoyed that their blog is getting comments will solve your problem completely.

To your numbered bullets, (1) The blame for those blogs getting attention is the people commenting on them, only the existence is owed to the poster, (2) Stop telling Kotsu that you are mad he won't create more rules and you are also mad that he is creating too many rules, you are clearly just trying to get him mad, (3) Removing the extra blogs is the only way we could enforce the rule, (4) Your fun is only diminished when you choose to promote something whose popularity annoys you, (5) Same as 3.

Finally, profanity is not allowed. I removed it from your post, and expect you to refrain from it in the future. Before you ask, it is only okay to break a rule in a rules discussion when it is necessary to express your opinion. The instance you used profanity in was excessive and unnecessary. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:13, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

To Kotsu: "Exactly what 10X said. Honestly, why should it be MY problem that some users can't control themselves and NEED to post demeaning comments on someone else's blog?"

Maybe, just maybe because you're an admin and it's your job? If you feel THAT lazy, just resign from your admin rights. Just saying.

To 10X: If that man with the ugly hat made hundreds of ugly hats every week and threw them around and blocked everybody else's nice looking hats, I WOULD pick a fight with him. But that's not the point. If we have a limit on the number of ugly hats that the guy can make per week, then it wouldn't reach the point where everybody starts beating him up (or "cyber bullying" as you call it). You want less hate don't you? As long as there is some person spamming out meaningless blogs, over 70% of the comments will be harsh and hateful. Check out any of Gekkou's blogs and you'll see what I mean. So what I'm saying is that less blogs = less hate.

Also, I have to say that if somebody insults me on the internet, I don't consider it "cyber bullying". I don't think anybody over the age of 13 does either. I think of it as some easily ignorable comment that somebody I don't even know said to me. I don't lose any sleep over it. I think that if we can all ignore a weirdo with tons of ugly hats, we should be able to ignore some small insults, right? Same thing vice-versa. Freaking out because somebody on the internet didn't say a nice word to you means that we shouldn't really ignore the tons of blogs people are making. Of course, I'm not really making sense right now, lol.

Anyway, I say we should just call for a community vote. Best way to do it.

--Final Chidori Talk 02:20, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Unless we want to bring a person who can clone themselves or a whole group of people wearing red hats into the mix, that is the best way to describe what happens. The point is that this one guy obscures your view of all the other hats in the area, whether it be by running up to you or somehow managing to be some sort of collective of people that form a barrier that makes you unable to look at anyone else. You can push your way through the crowd and see other people, but that's difficult and usually requires you to know which direction you're going so you don't fall on your face or end up in a vacant lot. Also, I don't think you actually know what "harassment" means. That's been bugging me for a while.

"Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim."

Just want us to be clear on that. Harassment is not, in fact, a person saying something you don't like or find annoying one time. It is repeated offensive behavior meant to disturb, upset, or otherwise harm a person, whether emotionally or physically.

I'm not the leader of these baddies. I can't control what other people do. If I decide right now that I will never comment on a blog again, it'll do absolutely nothing. If everyone supporting the limit decided to do that, it would amount to absolutely nothing. People will continue to comment on blogs. I can't stop it, you can't stop it, the President of the United States can't stop it. Pretending any amount of, "Play nice, kids," will fix anything is foolish and short-sighted.

1. When there are ten blogs in the span of three days by the same person, I'd have to say it's their fault for pushing the other blogs down and off the main page.

2. This is literally the first rules discussion I have ever been in. Please don't lie to try and make a point.

3. Yeah, if someone broke the rules and made more blogs than allowable, then they probably will be removed. At this moment in time, however, there is no "Great Blog Purge of 2014" in the works. If people were to follow this rule if it was implemented, there would be no removal of blogs.

4. I go back to my, "My individual actions will not make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things," to address this. The root of the problem is the other blogs not being visible. Comments help to keep them off the map, but the propensity of blogs by the same user is the problem.

5. See 3.

When did I use profanity? --BobLogical (talk) 03:12, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but not everyone's blogs are going to be shown in a four-blog placement list. It only allows for four blogs to be shown. Someone's going to be unhappy that their blog isn't commented on enough to be up there no matter what. Not everyone can come in first place for a race. That doesn't mean anyone should throw a fit because they came in tenth place. It's a fact of life that we need to get over and get adjusted to in order to become successful adults. Again, why should I have to add a rule limiting someone else's freedoms because one group of users can't keep themselves from insulting someone that yes, may have made a lot of blogs that weren't harmful in any way? I have deleted some of his blogs that were egging users on, but the rest of them don't seem to have much in the way of insulting, something the comments section provided in abundance.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   03:42, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to be up there at all times, but a few different people being presented is better than one person with four blogs being the only one to get attention.

The blog showing is like a pie with four slices. When someone makes a blog, they get a piece of the pie. There are only four pieces of the pie at a time, and when they run out, a new pie gets baked. GooGoo likes to post blogs. No one else likes his blogs, but he doesn't care. GooGoo also likes pie, so he wants to make as many blogs as possible to get as much pie as he can. Crut finished a nice blog that he thinks people will like and he posts it and he gets a piece of the pie. GooGoo comes along, however and posts three blogs to take the rest of the pie. People start to look at him and go, "Do you really need that much pie?" All he says in response is, "dnt liek dnt red lol," and makes another blog just to spite Crut (by pushing his blog off the page and into obscurity) and to grab the first piece of the fresh pie. GooGoo doesn't need all that pie, nor does he need to keep posting all these blogs before anyone even has a chance to comment on the first one he made. Meanwhile, Crut sits in frustration, because he really thought his blog could get some discussion going. He's also kind of hungry, since he's already had his slice of pie and all the new pie coming out is making him want some more. He could try posting his blog again or making another, but GooGoo just posted two more blogs in the time it took him to log back on. What's the point of him doing that if one guy is going to get all the pie and his blogs won't ever get seen?

I never really got an answer to this question before. I don't know if people thought it was rhetorical or what, but I want someone to tell me: Who, exactly, is actually being affected by this? Who is making more than five blogs a week? Because my side actually has an example of when the freedom to create as many blogs as people want has been abused (Tienshinhan09, Gekkou), but it seems like you guys are just propping up a strawman and hoping it'll scare us off. --BobLogical (talk) 03:58, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of limiting someone at all. Gekkou was doing just that, and at first none of his blogs had to be deleted. Then the harassment got worse and he started reacting to it. You can't say we're never going to get someone who posts blogs like Gekkou did. I made two or three blogs in my first week here, and two of them were on the top blog list. I wasn't trying to fill all the spots, I just wanted to get to know people and enter discussion with them. If someone comes around and posts a bunch of blogs in one week, I don't want to be the one saying "Sorry guy, you can only post x number of blogs a week.". Users from other wikis already think we have too many rules as is, but a blog limit? Yeah, that totally doesn't resemble the beginnings of totalitarianism. What should I limit next, how many comments a user can post? How many posts a user can make per chat session?  Dark Seeker Kotsu   04:12, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, I'm going to start listing the argument fallacies you make in your posts from this point on.

I am saying exactly that; there will ALWAYS be another Gekkou. No one WANTS another Gekkou. Another Gekkou would be BAD.

Your "two or three blogs" are not twenty in a week. Your examples still support my side of the argument.

Why do we care what other people think of the community? The main concern should be the content of the articles here. The Bleach wiki is much stricter and has a much worse reputation than ours. So what?

Totalitarianism and the subsequent blustering is just so incredibly ignorant that words fail me. We are an encyclopedia website. It is incredibly unlikely we will ever be to the point of throwing our hands up and worshiping our glorious leader King Zarbon. This is an example of both slippery slope mentality and scare tactics.

(Current tally: Strawman, Slippery Slope, Scare Tactics, Moral Equivalents, Red Herring.)

Well I'm glad you're having so much fun discussing this. Fact of the matter is that I will oppose this until the moment the other admins support it. I have my reasons just as you have your own reasons why we should add the rule. Fact of the matter is that my mind won't be changed until I see my comrades support the rule. I believe they know what's best. So go ahead and list all the things you want, but I oppose, and as a member of the community, my opinion counts just as much as anyone else's does, whether I was there when the said rule was proposed or not.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   04:27, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Oooookay...? That's all dandy, but it really has no relevancy here. If you don't want to argue with me anymore, you can concede and let other people handle this. --BobLogical (talk) 04:32, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

For being under a heading proposing the very rule I've been talking about, it actually does have relevancy. It is related to the rule being proposed and it is my stance on said rule. I will continue to contribute to this conversation when I feel necessary, though I must retire for the time being on the matter, as I have other duties to attend to.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   04:37, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I say again: OOOOOOOOOOOKAY...? We already know your stance. You've been making it for the last few hours. There's no reason to be all dramatic about it here at the end. --BobLogical (talk) 04:41, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say, Bob. :) Just clarifying that and my desire to continue with this later, when I don't have prospective colleges to research. This isn't the end either, trust me.   Dark Seeker Kotsu   04:44, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

@Chidori, I understand that you do not feel cyberbullied by insults, but you are a little out of touch with the current world we live in when you say that no one else feels cyberbullied by insults either. If you would like, I can post some links to children killing themselves over it. Your suggestion of submitting to a culture where this is the expected norm and we should limit innocent poster's rights to avoid the opportunity to bully them is unacceptable. The bullies will have their personal attacks and harassment limited, and the people making DBZ related blogs will continue to be able to make them. If you post on a blog then get mad that it is popular, that is on you. If you are mad that some other people posted on it just to spread hate, then leave them a message saying why it irritates you, or tell an admin and we will delete the posts and deal with the user. The aggressors are in the wrong, and the innocent posters will not receive the burden of not getting to make blogs. We already have a rule against leaving insulting comments, and it is redundant to make a rule limiting blogs of the only reason is to avoid insulting comments. As a final reminder, Wiki's do not create policies via votes, rather we make them as a result of community consensus. If 1,000 trolls show up tomorrow and vote that we erase every article, that is not something that we would do.

@BobLogical, I do not know where to start. You are harassing Kotsu and me, and your condescending attitude and threats make it difficult to justify you getting a say in policy discussions. "covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature (check). It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb (check) or upset(check), and it is characteristically repetitive(check)." When Kotsu said he had to take a break to look at colleges, and you told him that means all his points are suddenly invalid and he concedes, that is harassment. When I point out that you are complaining about Kotsu that he is making too many rules and not enough rules, and then you respond by calling me a liar with absolutely no justification, that is harassment. People should follow rules, but your argument is based on the fact that they do not. You have two conflicting assumptions that are making your points contradictory. It is unrealistic to expect that a policy like this would be followed 100% with no need for enforcement, and the only way to enforce it is to delete the blogs past whatever limit is proposed to be set. It is shortsighted to propose a new rule and also criticize the admins for pointing out that it requires enforcement. My tip to you is stick to saying why you believe blogs should have limits. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 07:20, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

This rule enforces itself in the majority of situations. There are laws against people stealing things in the real world. Not everyone follows them, so we should just get rid of all those laws, right? Of course not. The fact the laws exist keep most people from breaking them, and the ones that do are the extreme minority of the world. That is the situation here: If people break the rules, they will get some sort of punishment. It doesn't require you or anyone else to constantly watch over the blogs (if you did, you'd have to ban about 20 people right now), since this rule enforces itself. Either have people report to you when someone has gone over their limit to give them a warning or just browse the section at some point. That is all the enforcement this rule needs. --BobLogical (talk) 16:54, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Users break the other rules all the time, so clearly the rules don't enforce themselves very well. It's the admins that do. We remove and delete the instances from the public eye, so if you don't see users swearing or insulting each other on blogs (for example) that's more because we deleted the inappropriate responses and not because the users aren't breaking the rules. Judging by what I've seen as a chatmoderator for two years and an admin for a few months, every other rule is broken on a frequent basis. I have done my best removing the instances of rule violations. To say that this rule is special and will enforce itself isn't going to cut it. We're going to get people who will break the rule, so I have to be on the lookout for such violations in addition to scanning for other infractions. So actually, yes, it would be more work for us. I feel like introducing the rule is not worth the initiative it takes for the admins to enforce it.

It would be like if a school had a rule saying "No propeller hats on Tuesdays." Ordinarily in this day and age, it's already unusual to come across children wearing propeller hats on any given day of the week. To enforce a rule stating that children can only wear propeller hats on Tuesdays and to slap that in the handbook would be pointless. I could already guarantee you that not one child would wear a propeller hat on Tuesday to begin with, whether they knew the rule was there or not. To add and enforce such a rule would seem pointless to school staff and parents. It's an unnecessary limitation that doesn't need to be added to the set guidelines of the school.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   17:12, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I just want to throw my two cents here:

Before I explain why I think that this rule is unnecessary, I would like to point out why the whole idea of the rule is vague and helps in nothing at all.

I don't understand one things, is this rule for limiting the total amount of blogs, made by every user put together? In that case it will solve nothing and people would be annoyed that there are not able to make blogs, because other users managed to make their blogs first.

Or is this rule for limiting the total amount of blogs made by each user on his own? In that case it wouldn't make any difference at all, since we have so many users, even if we limited the amount, if each of them, or at least a good number of them decides to make 5 blogs within the week, the blogs would still be plenty and nothing will change.

Frankly it seems the people asking for this pointless rule, are the same people, that can't stop themselves from commenting on blogs that they dislike. The popular blogs list, is nothing important, it doesn't matter whose blogs are on the list, the whole list is made based on how many people comment on each blog and it changes very fast, if people dislike blogs like Gekkou this much, then they shouldn't comment on his blogs, but ignore them, that way his blogs wouldn't be on the popular list in the first place.

Also if I may add, the whole bad blogs being made thing, is really a matter of opinion, I don't particularly like Gekkou's blogs, but just because some people dislike his blogs, doesn't make it a fact that his blogs are bad, it's just a matter of opinion and doesn't seem logical to add a rule, because of the opinion that some users have. --ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderEdit Countcontribs 17:18, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Your analogy only works if the behavior had never actually happened before. It falls apart when you actually look at the fact that it has, and continues to happen to the point where we're coming off of a string of "propeller hat" days. That's entirely the point that I have said from the beginning. This affects no one but people who choose to break this rule. --BobLogical (talk) 17:31, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I was pointing out how unlikely it is that someone would even break such an infraction to begin with, and explaining why that makes the actual enforcing part of the rule pointless. Unlikely does not mean that the rule will indefinitely remain unbroken in the school's tenure for the rest of time, it means that while the probability of it happening is significantly low, it might still happen; this means the staff would still have to enforce this rule and make sure students don't have propeller hats, whether only one student in the history of the school breaks it or not. Same with this rule. Most people do not make a boatload of blogs within the limit proposed (five).

I would like to point out that just because so few people engage in posting blogs, that in no way makes the rule worth adding (just to get rid of those that do). It actually makes the rule less worth adding. Rules have been added in the past to deal with behaviours that occur excessively. Swearing and insulting, that's seen on a regular basis. Certain enforced rules that are not on the rule page are only not present because they are a given. Everyone should know that no matter where you are, posting pornography or threatening someone's life, for example, are not allowed and nor are they accepted behaviours. 

Blogs with obvious spam will already be deleted of course. I can't tell you how many times we've had someone advertising shavers or jerseys in blogs (I have already deleted many of these). However, I find it perfectly ridiculous to limit how many blogs a person can make within a set amount of time. Obviously if they're making a bunch of random blogs that seem to have no point and all fall within the span of an hour, that can then fall into spam as it is already fits the "repetitive and nonsensical" definition. But I think it would be pointless to enforce a rule that limits someone's blogs whether said blogs fit the definition of spam or not. Repetitive behaviour on its own (without it being someone repeating the exact same thing over and over again) isn't block-worthy. I can say you are repetitively trying to undermine my opinion, analogies, or overall "validity" with your rebuttals in this discussion, but that doesn't mean you are spamming. 

All in all, I'm clearly not the only admin who thinks the addition of this blog would be pointless and an utter waste of time. Keep in mind that we run the wiki and add rules based on what most of society would or would not find acceptable, children and all. We cannot change some of the less-than-appropriate references or occurrences in the source material, as our job as the Dragon Ball Wiki is to provide all information about the series indiscriminately. When it comes to our community however, we do have that power. I can already tell you that most people should be able to ignore someone's blog posts. And I can guarantee that most people that visit this site unless they are the sort of people who feel the need to endlessly bully someone because he makes a lot of blogs will disagree with the proposed rule.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   17:54, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

" I can guarantee that most people that visit this site unless they are the sort of people who feel the need to endlessly bully someone because he makes a lot of blogs will disagree with the proposed rule. "

I'm very confused by this. Where are you getting this guarantee from? Just because you have this opinion, you're assuming that most people will have the same?

What about the blog that was made in order to decide this rule? The proportion of people who agreed with the rule far outweighed the ones who disagreed, so this becomes even more unfounded. File:Gohan power up.jpgI can never forgive you for what you've done!File:510253-3411355-gohanSS2.JPG 18:10, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Discussions with other users on chat that don't care to post their opinions here. That is what I cite. Generally, most people don't like being limited in general, actually. If we did like being limited, I'd sure we'd all be under dictatorships and loving it by now. The blog doesn't decide the rule, and I think I already mentioned before that I'm wary of some of the biggest supporters of this rule, considering a great deal of them are the same people who were bullying Gekkou.  Dark Seeker Kotsu   18:15, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a big mistake to assume that anyone would follow the blog limitation rule without enforcement, which would of course mean deleting any blogs over the limit (not sure why Bob does not reach the same conclusion). The rule against personal attacks is not always followed, and requires enforcement. The solution to lowering the popularity of blogs that a given user does not find interesting, is to spread awareness that posting on a blog makes it more popular. If you choose to post on a blog to complain about it getting posts, you are making the problem worse and it is your fault, not the original poster's. The original poster does not control the number of posts that they get. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:35, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Typo

(you agreed to these if made an account). A ^{(t • c)}

Chat + Blog = Social?

Would anyone object to me combining the chat and blog rules into one category? The rules are essentially the same, and this makes it more concise. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 04:43, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would explicitly call it Chat and Blogs Rules, not social rules. Kotsu, do you concur? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:30, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

I concur. 

Dark Seeker Kotsu   06:43, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the chat... round 738

Ever since the rules of the chat were instated all those years ago, there's been pockets of dissent from the majority. However, its seemed to have come to a head tonight on chat, where the users made it blatantly clear to Kotsu and Shakuran how much they disagree with a few of the rules of the chat. For the most part, we're in agreement with these regulations — such as harassment, spam, inappropriate images not allowed being allowed — but a large part of the community has a problem with rules regarding the use of swearing.

Part of the chat feels it is unnecessary to censor the majority of the swear words encountered in the chat. These words include, but are not limited to, "damn," "shit," "ass," "bitch," and all their variations. Slurs, whether they be about race, sexuality, gender, so on and so forth, are to remain censored. This is a 13+ website, and almost all thirteen-year-olds have encountered these words multiple times in their relatively young lives. Also, in my experience, people are less likely to swear when they're not forced to censor themselves in fear of being reprimanded.

However, the chat separates at this issue. Another side of the chat don't care if the swearing is banned, but are against the fact that abbreviations such as, "wtf," "omfg," and "jfc," are ban-warranting. Since just about everyone on the chat has used these abbreviations in some form or another, we feel the banning of their use is a bit blown out of proportion. If this were to be lifted, a large part of the chat would be pacified... for the time being. I'm sure a petition for change will be brought forth again at some point.

Please use the next section to have a civil discussion about the issue before you cast your vote on the topic. I'd like the community to contribute to this, too, as it's very much a community issue. — N ^{(t • c)} 07:05, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just so you know, in community discussions, we typically don't do "voting" until the point is reached where discussion cannot achieve consensus. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 07:12, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the people in the chat couldn't come to consensus on what they wanted change, I threw the voting section up, 'cause I'm doubtful consensus will be achieved here, either. And the voting isn't to be done till the end of discussion, anyways. — N ^{(t • c)} 07:16, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly personally disagree with the overall rule against profanity. The Amazing World of Gumball Wiki, directed towards a television show for children of all ages, which contains users around the same age range as users who frequent this wiki's chat, allows profanity and the wiki is still stable, and there are very rarely complaints on profanity. Dragon Ball Z has a constant use of cursing in the original Japanese anime (and possibly manga). The wiki will not be harmed at all nor will it lose a certain level of social stability just because profanity is allowed on chat, including profane abbreviations, which I strongly disagree with. Those, as they are often implications (especially with abbreviations such as lmfao and omfg which could be implied as "Laughing my freaking ass off" and "oh my freaking god," as the idea was previously told to me by the Social Admin) typically wouldn't offend users, especially if they would take it as offensive (which honestly is uncommon on chat) because a lot of the time, they would take those alternative implications as far as abbreviations go. It is very rare that someone who comes to chat new disagrees with censors. In fact, many new users do not see the rules they are linked to and assume profanity is allowed. I am able to say that nearly all of the users who frequent chat are not in any way offended by the use of "inappropriate" language. In many cases, these words are harmless to anyone, and if other wikis that are aimed towards people of more of a wider range than this wiki can survive and not sustain any instability at all, this wiki can stand it. I mean, isn't it worth it to at least give lifting this rule a chance, only kicking for abusive of it being lifted, and just experiment to see how smoothly it goes? That's my take, and my opinion. --City♥Lights^[stars] 02:51, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything Arashi stated above. I think giving it a trial period can't really hurt anything, seeing as it can be quickly reverted if there's abuse. — N ^{(t • c)} 03:27, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a trial period would be good. See how it goes for a week or so, and if it isn't causing any problems, we can keep the system. File:Gohan power up.jpgI can never forgive you for what you've done!File:510253-3411355-gohanSS2.JPG 03:35, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

As one of the proponents of this... movement, I feel obliged to speak on it's behalf. The biggest issues I have with the swearing rules in general are already stated. The Japanese anime and manga both have a fairly large amount of profanity in them, frequent users, and even new users, don't seem to be offended by cursing and are avidly against the swearing rules. Also, the age limit on wikia is 13. You might say that someone could forge their age, which is true. However, they would be doing that at their own risk and if they happen to see curse words at a young age due to this wiki it is their own fault. Also, we all went to middle school, didn't we? At the age of 13 I had heard every word in the books, not to mention all manner of sexual action and phrases. I can deal with not being able to outright curse, but the biggest issue is the abbreviations. Not being able to even post the letter of a word is absurd at best. Let's put this in a bit of context. TV shows on large, family channels, sometimes let a few F bombs slip. When this happens the station bleeps it out. You know what they said and you can even hear the first letter, but no one is upset. So why is it that on a wiki chat, we need to be protected from the letter "f" because it might be a curse word if you make it into one. That's right, the user didn't write out the f-bomb, no, they simply put a letter down. Turning that letter into a curse word in your mind is your own doing. But hey, I'm just a user who's been around for right around 3 years, has over 2,000 social edits, and is on chat for a large portion of the day. JanembaFreak97 03:45, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yo Yami and SP Gohan, you should make a template page for your signatures so that they don't make the editing page default to source code.

I personally don't really have an opinion on the abbreviation matter (if anything I agree that omfg and lmfao should be allowed), but regarding swearing in general, I'm just gonna post some of the arguments I made last time:

• Profanity can and will make arguments/harrassment worse.
• Swearing doesn't actually add anything of value to an encyclopedic website. In fact, there really is no good reason/argument to have it. There are alternatives.
• The argument that "DB has swearing" is not a good one. There is hardly any swearing in Dragon Ball. Many versions of it have none at all, and the ones that do have it very infrequently. And even then, the swear words they include are tame. You're expecting all users that enter chat to have seen those versions, and those parts of those versions.
• Regarding Japanese: this is the English Wiki. Translators use their own discretion as there are no "unspeakable" words in Japanese.
• Of course swearing can easily offend young users as well as prematurely expose them to profanity.
• Swearing on chat can leak to blogs/forums, which is accessible to users of any age, because you only need to be 13 to have an account, but anyone can view blogs/forums.
• How much media aimed at thirteen-year-olds do you know that has swearing? I know very few, if any. Do schools allow swearing? The ones where I live don't. The things that get you in trouble at institutions for 13-year-olds and up also get you in trouble here.
• Some swear words are more severe than others. Some consider "cunt" to be worse than any other swear word. To others, it's not even that bad. Some people consider "bitch" and "cunt" misogynistic slurs. Others don't. Some people tolerate use of the word "nigga" if a black person says it, whereas others think it's bad all the time. Some people don't consider "faggot" a slur and use it to mean "loser" or something. The reason blanket bans work is that they avoid these quibbles.

Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 05:37, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

The rule against abbreviations, at least to me, seems draconian. You don’t actually see the swear word(s), and as other have pointed out, you can always interpret them slightly differently (i.e. take “f” as “freaking”). I’ve never seen anyone get offended by “wtf” or “omfg” or “lmfao”.

As for actual swearing, I don’t care one way or the other.

 • Freeza Burn • Contributions 05:52, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Concurring with Shak, there aren't really any good reasons to allow full swearing. The only word I disagree with being on the blocked words list is "damn", because most people I know do not view the word as a swear word. I don't know if it's just a regional thing either, but no one has ever been in trouble at school for saying "damn" over here. In fact, it's more often than not even used appreciatively/positively in some cases, like "Damn, that's a nice car!", where it is used to place emphasis and convey emotion on something.

Yes, I know that "fuck" is also used in that same manner in some cases. However, I would get in trouble for saying it at school, where I would not if I said "damn". Swearing in general? I agree with the current rules surrounding it and believe they should remain. I swear a lot irl, and I still find it easy to prevent myself from swearing on the wiki.

Per the argument that there is swearing in Dragon Ball, never could I recall hearing Goku say "Fuck you!" or hear Piccolo call someone a "bitch". The swearing is relatively minor and kept at "Damn it!" or "That bastard!", both of which are words I find rather mild to be considered as swear words. Just because "damn" and "bastard" are dropped in Dragon Ball, does not mean the entire plethora of swear words should be allowed. If anything, it is just a case for those particular words being allowed.

Yes, I may have encountered swear words early (at age eleven, I knew a good few). But just because we encounter swear words at an earlier age, does not mean we should endorse that they are okay to say by allowing all of them. Shak brings up a fair and extremely valid point, some people view certain swear words as highly offensive where others might not. If I may cite as an example (no offense to anyone while saying these, just an example), I know people who find "cunt" or "twat" (both terms for the vagina) as highly offensive, but they don't bat an eye at "dick" (which is a term synonymous with penis). How can we block just one of those and not the other, just because one is viewed as more offensive? They are both similar in that they are referring to the female and male genitals, respectively. How would we decide which ones to keep and ditch if certain people find words offensive that others don't?

The most logical choice would be to ban all of the words deemed as swear words, that way we aren't allowing a word that some might find offensive that others view as being inoffensive. Even if a lot of users want to swear, we have to think with the comfort of the general public in mind. I would rather have a people fussy about not being allowed to swear as opposed to people being offended by a word allowed on the wiki.

What makes this different for "damn" in my opinion? While I'm sure there's at least a few people in the world offended by the word "damn", it is a word largely accepted in most public schools without punishment and heard of on children's programming, even. "Damn" is not so much as a swear as it is just a rude word. "No swearing" was strictly enforced in my home growing up, but neither of my parents barred me from saying "damn" and I don't know many parents that do punish their children for saying it. The other words on the list are generally not acceptable in a professional environment. Another bonus to having swear words off is that this is a professional site and I feel the lack of swears gives a more professional atmosphere with it. After all, a future employer isn't going to hire the guy with the toilet for a mouth, he's going to hire the one who sounds polite and professional.

Many would like to chip in that there "aren't supposed to be younger users on the site". While that might be true, there is no way we can make it so every computer in the world can somehow tell how old the person who uses it is and bar them from sites they are too young to be on automatically. Why subject any young readers who may visit the site to swearing? I was a very young kid when I first knew of the Dragon Ball Wiki and I'd been googling things from Dragon Ball Z in the computer lab at school since I was at least seven years old (the wiki did not yet exist back then). Nowadays, I expect there will probably be even more children with access to computers. Also, with Dragon Ball Z Kai's airing on Nickelodeon and the upcoming release of Battle of Gods (which I'm sure at least a good few kids are going to see, and I will check the theatre I'll be in if I must), there will undoubtedly be children visiting the site for information. Whether they are "supposed to be here" or not does not matter, they will be here and there is nothing we can do to prevent that. So why expose those inevitable child readers to profane language? Better to block swear words and do a bit of damage control.

As for the abbreviations, I do think it's a bit much also. They could mean anything, really, and it's not like typing the words out. You are not visually seeing the swear words typed out and can interpret them in a different way. I agree with Jeff/JanembaFreak on the basis that it's like a word being bleeped out on television. Also, in some cases someone might be saying "oh my freaking god" as opposed to the swear word counterpart. For this, I think it should be okay to allow the abbreviations unless someone is using them to harass someone else, of course. --

Dark Seeker Kotsu   07:58, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yay, this fun debate again! If kids under 13 are making accounts here and going on chat, they lied about their age on the terms and conditions, therefore it's not our fault they get exposed to "big boy/girl" words. If they're just going on the wiki, they should be reading the articles, blogs are limited to users and so is chat. Unless they make an account, they shouldn't be "exposed" to any curses (other than the ones on the DB articles). Some people here are mistaking the difference between saying "Damn it, I hurt my finger" (a curse not insulting anyone) and "Fuck you, I will fucking beat the shit out of you and your mother, I hope you're fucking sorry you worthless piece of shit!!" (cursing thats threatening and insulting somebody). I think a trial run is a fantastic idea, if we do it and nobody gets offended over the curse, I think we should lift the rules a bit. I do think that we should still ban slurs though, as they are used to only insult.

 • Final Chidori • Talk • Contribs

I'm gonna direct a response to Shak, first.

• If profanity is used in the same respect at harassment, then it could be handled by a mod and dealt with is harassment. If it's used casually, which it generally is, then it wouldn't be offensive or taken as harassment.
• This wiki is encyclopedic, but with the direction the wiki and all of Wikia is going (which they have admittedly stated), the social side of Wikia has become a much more vital section to each individual wiki, to where these freedoms draw new users. There are likely many more users who are active on talk pages for social reasons, blogs, and the chatroom than the wiki's content itself. Wikia has said that the social part of a wiki on wikis with content as strong such as on this one is likely to be more important for a wiki's community's stability.
• The fact is that it contains those versions. People don't necessarily watch all of the versions, and that is a valid point, but people still watch English subtitled versions. It's still a show that initially contained profanity, but I guess I can't really argue that logic.
• The exposure of profanity to younger users is absolutely rubbish in my opinion. I hate to be so blatant, but I've stated in my argument that most people are exposed to this type of language at a very young age, as Kotsu said. Most kids nowadays have been on the internet on sites like Facebook seeing the language that used to be exclusive to older people. Nowadays, it's normal to see and hear inappropriate language by about the age of nine or so (which technically shouldn't be allowed on the wiki anyway). In fact, most of the users that frequent chat, almost all in which want profanity to be allowed and use profanity where it isn't restricted (such as Private Messages or other social websites) are under eighteen within restricted age range, being as young as thirteen. There is no exposure involved presently, and in my opinion, that is just a silly reason for why profanity should not be allowed.
• To be fair, chat rules and blogs rules can easily differentiate and still be enforced. This is a primary reason there are two Social Admins -- to enforce rules that are more commonly broken on social sides of the wiki, which as I said is becoming as vital as content. If it leaks, both of the Social Admins are watching blog posts and comments and can easily delete or censor it, as well as the fact that there are still some users that even report this kind of stuff to get it to them faster. It's still a rule on blogs and comments and will just be enforced a bit more if at all if profanity would be allowed on chat.
• Once again, Wikia is becoming more of a part encyclopedic, part social media site, and as far as I know, all social media sites across the internet that are most often used by teenagers (or even underaged) are allowed to use this type of language. Thirteen year olds may be restricted in real life, but aren't restricted by social media sites, and don't want to be restricted on chatrooms like this. Wikia and other websites shouldn't be compared to school. And as for general media aiming towards teens that contains profanity, I can name a handful that aren't necessarily Dragon Ball-related: (American cartoons) King of the Hill, which is aimed towards kids of all ages, American Dad, Family Guy, Simpsons, Futurama (anime) Bleach, Space Dandy, Naruto Shippuden, which is rated PG as well, One Piece, Blue Exorcist, Fullmetal Alchemist, and these anime are all uncensored, air on Adult Swim, contain a moderate use of profanity, and maintain a consistent rating towards teens, or as for Naruto, children of all ages under guardian guidance.
• Some words can be more offensive and argued over. And there still can be rules enforced for words like "nigga", which is regardless a slur that had initially meant "black", "faggot", which is often used in offense but was primarily used to identify a homosexual, and these can still be enforced by the mods, but most of the time, their definitions are intended and if it's used third party in lack of offense, there really shouldn't be much of a problem. Words like "shit" and "fuck" honestly are used in primarily their profane meaning, and do not offend a certain race of sexuality like other words.

Kotsu: I concur with you about the word "damn" being censored. It is not enforced, not in any way remotely offensive to anyone, is allowed in my school, and was allowed in my district since I was in sixth grade. And even that word is not censored on Wikia's list of bad words (be warned, this page contains some VERY offensive and creative uses of profanity) which is really saying something since the page contains such a variety.

Although preventing yourself from saying words like "fuck" is easy in the wiki, it is also much easier for new users. They often do not click the rules when linked in the message when they join chat, and some refuse to adhere to this rule even after being warned. Removing this rule would also greatly reduce the amount of kicks that occur on chat.

As for enforcing the words "clit", "cunt", "twat", "dick", etc. I honestly disagree with it given they are parts of the human body. In the very least if censors are to be kept, if they are used in mature (or at least proper) context, it should really be allowed. There is a difference between someone saying a fact about the human clitoris and saying "This person irl is such a cunt." I personally, as a human being, see no problem with either with how this generation has turned with the use of profanity, but in the least, if it's used in the context of its actual current-generation meaning, I see no problem with it. Very rarely do I find people to be offended for others making comments on the human genitals.

"The general public" consists of the thirteen to seventeen year olds that usually populate a majority of the frequent users on chat, where people rarely find profanity offensive. If adhering to Wikia's rules with COPPA, the only users on chat should be thirteen and older, so any readers of the wiki would not be seeing this profanity if this is only allowed on chat.

As for the abbreviations, I absolutely agree. They could mean anything, and frankly, nobody cares about this being said on chat especially. Kids when I was in middle school and even some people now that I know say things like "what the frick" as weird as it sounds. They could mean anything, and what it means to the person reading it is up to their imagination to how much they would be offended.

Overall, I feel profanity in general should be allowed on chat so long as it isn't in the terms of a racial slur (such as "nigga" and "faggot") or used in the sense of second person insulting, threatening, or harassment; and also that "damn" should not be censored. I definitely think that abbreviations such as "wtf", "omfg", "lmfao" should be allowed due to the fact it's definitely not offensive and can mean a variety of things.

And to the message about my signature, I don't see why I have to do so. I mean, I will if I must, but I've never had a problem with it. It's short enough to fit in the signature line in my preferences and barely requires any code to be posted. I just strike it as silly to be required to do so when it's such a short signature.

--City♥Lights^[stars] 17:48, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

Per the part about children being on the wiki, it doesn't matter if they are allowed or not. They will still be here and there is no way we can change that unless they all happen to conveniently reveal their ages. First of all, I will point out that the 13+ age rule is not because Wikia expects children to run into profanity. That rule exists for no purposes other than safety concerns, because most children under the age of thirteen are not responsible enough to manage themselves on such an extensive online site. We have seen a few notable exceptions in this rule, but we have also seen underage users who played that point straight. In Wikia's defense, such a rule exists because underage kids are not typically as internet-smart as kids over 13 are, and are therefore more likely to become victims of harassment or sexual predators. Again, the rule does not exist because children under thirteen might be exposed to profane content...in fact, if you've ever read the Terms of Use, you would know this because content considered to be profane should not be transmitted anyways. It is just a matter of security and liability, and Wikia does not want to be liable for it if a child under 13 encounters an internet predator and goes to meet them, for instance. Generally speaking, I'd prefer it if Wikia had some way of measuring a person's maturity rather than their age, but there is no real way to do that at the present time, so the age barrier is the best act of self-defense they can put up.

Furthermore, children do not have to have an account to view the rest of the wiki, but they do to edit/post or just be on chat. By that, they could be on the wiki without breaking any rules, technically. I would also like to add that just because Wikia's rules dictate that a user should be 13+ to have an account, does not mean the wiki itself should be targeted only towards people who are 13+. As I said, I've been on this site since I was little. The wiki itself is targeted towards Dragon Ball fans, not just people who are 13 years or older. Though a lot of our users are those who were around to watch the original runnings of Dragon Ball Z, a lot of our new audience will come from the release of Dragon Ball Z Kai on Nickelodeon, and Nickelodeon is not a 13+ channel, in case you haven't noticed.

Yes, I know you said that chat rules and wiki rules should differentiate. My concern is that this will cause confusion. New users who do not read the rules will not know that they are allowed to swear on chat, but not swear on the wiki itself. And then of course, how long before people start pushing the same change of rules on the wiki? I for one do not support swearing on the wiki itself in the very least, because I know we have child readers...I was one of them at one point. You cannot deny that we will get them or say that we will get very few, the fact of the matter is that Dragon Ball Z Kai's airing on Nickelodeon is going to pull in younger viewers like a net, because the majority of people who watch Nickelodeon are children. I know not all of them are kids, but the majority of them are. It is a channel with programming mostly directed towards children, though a few of its shows appeal to teenagers and adults as well. Let's face it, Dragon Ball is entering a new period of time where it is being reintroduced to children. I've picked up my younger brother and sister from school, only to have at least a dozen children point at my "It's Over 9000!" shirt when I wear it and say something along the lines of "Dragon Ball Z" or "Vegeta" (who is on the shirt). The connection DBZ has with the new generation of kids cannot be denied. My younger brother (7 years old) has been watching Dragon Ball Z Kai and talks about it with his friends at school. He even wants his next birthday party to be Dragon Ball Z themed (which is awesome for me, considering I actually know DBZ). If you don't believe me, I ask you to put on a Dragon Ball Z t-shirt, walk into the nearest elementary school, and start asking kids about what's on your shirt. Chances are, you will encounter at least a good few that know about the series.

For those of us that moderate the chat, we will obviously still need to keep swear words in the ping phrases bar so we can bust people who abuse the words. In addition though now, we might also have confusion over "friend insulting". How are we going to allow a friend to jokingly say "Fuck you." to someone they know and yet not allow another person to do it? That seems ridiculous. Also, understand that we will probably be pinged a lot for uses of swear words that aren't directed at people, so prepare for a load of false alarms.

Also, just because you find the terms "cunt" or "twat" inoffensive, doesn't mean everyone does. Likewise, just because you don't know anybody that is offended by the word, doesn't mean that such people do not exist. Some people find it incredibly demeaning and are quite offended by the use of it. I personally don't want anyone feeling offended by a word. You can say it's just slang for genitals all you want, but everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that includes people who find the word offensive being allowed to find it offensive. If we just brush that off and say their opinion doesn't matter, then what is the point of having the freedom of opinion? To some people, certain words on our blocked list will be marginally more offensive than others, while other people might not see anything wrong with some of them. Per that same argument, should we be allowed to say "faggot", just because it was a word that once defined a bundle of sticks? I find a bundle of sticks far more mild than discussing a vagina, personally. But we cannot. Know why? Because the definition of the word has morphed to become a derogatory phrase directed towards those who happen to be romantically attracted to the same gender. Likewise, hardly does anyone in a serious discussion refer to a vagina as a "twat". Did you ever hear of a scientist or a school teacher referring to it as such in front of others? No. That's because it morphed into becoming a swear word and no longer just an inoffensive term for a vagina.

I will cite the terms of use here, where it says that by making an account, we agree to not:

"Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct;"

Therefore, if the word "cunt" is considered offensive or profane to a few people on our site and we allow it, would that not be a breach of the Terms of Use on some degree, considering someone is transmitting content that is considered "profane" to the general public? In addition, we would not be disrespecting their right to not have to view such material, as the ToU excerpt states? You can say that they could just opt to not be on the site, but I can twist that argument and say that because you don't like obeying the swearing rule, perhaps you should not be on the site. Does such an argument accomplish anything? No.

Most adults bar their children from swearing on the grounds that such language is "profane" and "offensive", hence why most of them punish their children for swearing, especially in public places. One of the biggest arguments I can see in the case for swearing is that it gives the users more freedom. Should we allow everyone to post pornography as well, because that gives them more freedom? Should everyone be allowed to harass one another, because they should have the freedom to bully others if they so desire? No. You can say swearing is different all you want, but the fact of the matter is that many people do find swearing offensive and the point of that counter I made is to show how pointless the "freedoms" argument is in this case. We can argue "freedom" against every rule on the wiki, but that doesn't change how illogical it would be to allow those kinds of arguments to stand.

Also, note that I am not just responding to those engaged in the conversation prior, but I am also providing a counter for points brought up in the past or points that a user might make in the argument, and not necessarily just your views/rebuttals if you have already posted on here. -- Dark Seeker Kotsu   22:01, July 12, 2014 (UTC)

The wikia terms of use agreement explicitly forbids the use of profanity, and the wikia global mods have deleted both profane language and nudity from our site before, citing breach of terms of use. Unfortunately in this case, our community does not have the power to decide on this terms of use issue. We repeat the rule here only for convenience; blocked users tend to complain about a block for this issue if the local wiki does not echo the global wikia policy. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:48, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

pro·fane n. to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt

Profane is essentially another way of calling something abusive or offensive, which is not necessarily related to the use of cursing. This wiki likely had images removed for being profane because they were offensive (which honestly closer relates to harassment). Wikia allows each individually wiki to decide whether the use of cursing is allowed or not, such as many very Staff-involved wikis such as Call of Duty Wiki, which allows cursing to nearly any extent. This has been specified by Staff before, numerous times both third person and first hand. Whether cussing is allowed or not is up to each individual wiki's community (which is currently being run as an oligarchy); NOT by Wikia itself. --City♥Lights^[stars] 00:16, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

swear·word n. a profane or obscene oath or word

Semantics are not an excuse for ignoring the terms of use. Your suggestion that the wikia terms of use are not enforced, and the the individual wikis can ignore them, is incorrect. For instance, as a community we decided that nudity is acceptable, and that a mature content warning at the top of the page would suffice. Wikia staff came and deleted the image, with the comment "Violation of Wikia's Terms of Use", and a link to the terms of use agreement. It was a picture of Bulma topless, with nothing abusive, irreverent, or contempt as you claimed it would have to have been for them to delete it; she is just standing there, and she is only a cartoon. Regardless of our community decision, we were denied. Therefore, no decision on this page is sufficient to overrule the terms of use. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:49, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Nudity is under the category of "pornographic" (regardless of it being for the sake of knowledge) - not profanity. If you do not believe me, I will contact Staff myself in some hope of clearing this up (and I'll see if they can reply on here). --City♥Lights^[stars] 12:10, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

From our point of view, the "profanity" forbidden in the Terms of Use is not an absolute value. The type of language permitted on a wikia can vary somewhat according to the taste, makeup, and subject matter of the community as well as the overall context. There is some room for communities to set their own standards within the Terms of Use. Some wikias (typically those with more mature subject matter), have a higher tolerance for salty language than others. There are certain words that have varying shock value, depending on cultural and social norms, like "damn". Some other words (notably those that start with the letter "F" or the letter "C") tend to carry a negative value across the board. That being said, Wikia would typically only take action if this kind of language was being used to abuse or harass someone, or if it was being used in a wildly inappropriate context (F-bombs on a Dora the Explorer wikia would definitely set off alarm bells). This wikia could likely get away with the "lower tier" swear words, provided they weren't being used abusively. Note that racial and ethnic slurs, or homophobic insults are never OK. Hope this helps, --semanticdrifter (help forum | blog) 13:45, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as a member of the Staff has agreed that some "salty language" (I really enjoyed that phrase, not gonna lie), I suggest we circle back to the original suggestion of having a trial period to test the waters with removing the ban on cursing in the chat. The trial period could probably be, let's say, a week? That gives plenty of time for the community to decide if they're comfortable with the free speech. We could always cut it short if need be, as well. This is all pending the decision that Drifter's word is what we're going with, of course. — N ^{(t • c)} 15:25, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Before we even okay the trial period though, there still comes the debacle of debating which swear words are lower-tier. I for one don't consider "cunt" to lower-tier, considering some people feel offended by the use of the word, where with "fuck", they are less likely to do so. "Bitch" might also tend to offend people to some degree where "shit" may not. Also, I'm not going to want to enable swearing if people are going to swear all the time. For one, it makes a conversation unattractive to swear too much. For another, people will most definitely abuse it.

Also, finding it a bit strange how it just raises red flags on the Dora wiki (targeted towards kids, but has older users who may have seen it in their young age), while Dragon Ball Z Kai is airing on the same exact channel that Dora aired on and is likewise being marketed as such towards the younger audience right now (otherwise, it would not be on Nickelodeon). Like Dora, it also has a wide-reaching child audience right now. Hence like I said with the elementary school kids, if you ask many of them what Dragon Ball Z is, they can tell you because they watch Dragon Ball Z Kai. It is on one of their primary channels, after all. --

Dark Seeker Kotsu   21:33, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree we need to regulate which curses are "lower-tier." In my opinion, "cunt" should definitely be prohibited; however, I don't think "bitch" has quite the negative connotations as the former. As long as the members know it's being used in jest, we should be able to avoid any kind of complaint. "Fuck" and "shit" are kind of throwaway words, that are used casually in conversations all the time, so I don't think they need to be blacklisted. And, like I've said previously, in my experience, when people are given the freedom to swear with minimal consequences (as there will clearly be consequences for abuse and the like), they're not going to do so every other sentence.

As for the Dora-Nickelodeon-Kai debacle, I think the most significant reason for why it wouldn't raise red flags here is because Kai is an watered down version of the original anime, where they edit out all the blood and any other graphic imagery to fit in with shows like Dora. That is not the Dragon Ball Z. Yes, children see it, and they might seek out the wiki for more information, but they are such a small percentage of the traffic here (especially trafficers with accounts) that we shouldn't hinder the rest of the wiki for them. They'll likely come across things on the wiki they shouldn't be seeing anyways, such as manga artwork showing Bulma's breasts or Goku taking off her panties, but that doesn't mean we overhaul the wiki to accommodate that. — N ^{(t • c)} 22:11, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. I'm gonna keep this message short and sweet, and this is what I think is considered lower-tier -- so long as it is not used as harassment or offensive towards a group of sexuality, race, or belief -- out of the current bad words (Highlight to view):

• Shit, including most variants
• Damn
• Fuck
• Dick, in the context of male genitalia
• Pussy, in the context of female genitalia
• Cum
• Jizz
• Clit, or clitoris
• Maybe cock in proper context
• Fap
• Prick

This would leave: dick, pussy, and clit (in certain context), fag, nigger/nigga, twat, cunt, cock, bitch. Again, short and sweet, and my opinion. --City♥Lights^[stars] 22:21, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Has this suddenly also become a "we should allow sexual discussions" thing too? Because I don't remember that being anywhere, just swearing.

By the way Kou, there is no certain way of proving there is a small underage viewer/user base. Back when the Post Thy Pictures debacle was going on, numerous users were banned for being underage. I also admitted prior that I was very young when I first went on the site. The wiki's stats don't tell us the specifics of every person going on the site, so unless you have actual hard proof that only a small percent of the say, 200-300k views per day are kids, that point is moot. -- Dark Seeker Kotsu   23:02, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

First off, thanks for stopping by Semanticdrifter and clearing up the terms of use issue. Some profanity is allowed globally like damn, but other words are negative globally like fuck. Derogatory terms are also negative globally. Beyond that, we can set our own levels based on our content. If we take our wikia staffer's advice and aim for the profanity level found in Dragon Ball, I think we could safely use damn, shit (and all variations), and ass (and all variations), as long as they are not being used primary as a means of harassment. Dragon Ball is not at the sexually explicit level of jizz, clit, etc. Words like whore and bitch are derogatory. Prick, twat, etc. that are only used as insults are harassment.

Rather than flipping the on switch all at once, I am in favor of November Blue's suggestion of a trial period, although a week is a bit short in my opinion. I propose a month of letting everyone use damn, shit, and ass to our heart's content. If the chat mods feel that it was mostly for harassment, then we end it. If it's all good fun, then we let those words stay and we can evaluate others in the future. Anyone opposed? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:46, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

What about abbreviations?  • Freeza Burn • Contributions 02:36, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'm fine with a trial period although I'm still uneasy with letting users figure out for themselves which swear words are okay and which ones are not. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 04:14, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Same, because it sounds like a lot of users think about what swear words they personally are offended by without considering that some of the words are offensive to a lot of people. I mean, I wouldn't be comfortable letting users to decide the n-word is okay by majority if I knew it would offend some people. People always say swears and slurs are different, but they are not in essence. Both can hurt. -- Dark Seeker Kotsu   04:19, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviations still count as whatever word you are abbreviating. WTF is not okay, because fuck is not okay. Users will not be deciding what offends others based on what they find offensive themselves. Each word will have to be discussed here individually, if we get to that point. On August 15 we will look for a review of how the community handled the trial period from our chat mods. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:33, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

I made a special note about the trial period on the rules page. Please direct all users who are curious about this event to that link. Thanks. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:42, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering how this went, and hasn't checked the rules page recently, the words damn, shit, and ass are now OK to use in chat, forums, blogs, and user space. Harassment and insults are still not allowed. For example, "You're an asshole 10X!" is NOT OK, but "Oolong sure kicked the shit out of Frieza," is OK. Enjoy. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:59, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on "moving images"

When it says "moving images", I assume this means "animated" from the example used. As it reads now, this could mean either "No image that move that move around, such as a .gif" or (as you'd more commonly hear the word "move" usedon a wiki) "No moving an image during an edit, such as a .gif file". If its an issue with ambiguity between "images from an animated show" and "images which are animated", moving probably isn't the best replacement because its still ambiguous.

I think something like "No animated (moving) images" or "No moving (animated) images" would be better if it means what I think..

I say all this because I was considering moving an image and only just as I was leaving this page did I realize it was likely referring to animated images. There's galleries after the articles and I came to the help pages trying to find out if I can/should replace the Namekian frog image under Animal#Frog with one of the more general examples of frogs from that article's gallery (I'll probably leave a comment over there later). Sorry about the wall of text for such a simple request... I tend to get really antsy on wikis, especially when I'm so new to one and when I get antsy, I seem to over-explain a lot... Kerovika (talk) 03:11, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:38, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

User space rules

I wrote up some general user space rules. These are not intended to be new restrictions, but simply solidifying the current unwritten policies for reference when people ask. Take and look and please leave comments or note changes that you would like to see. Thanks. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:54, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Fan Networks?

Why is it that we aren't allowed to have pages about fan networks? I don't see a real reason that they should be dicluded, especially if the works are accurate to the originals, like TeamFourStar's regular DBZ Abridged series? Sure, it has some non-canon material, and it is somewhat mature, but the content matches the original runs in obsenity and violence. The only problem I would see is the changes to key story events of movies and specials, like in their Episode of Bardock parody, where Bardock becomes a Super Saiyan from the ridiculousness of him being in the past. The main series, however, is quite accurate. If need be, we could have no canonical information link to the parody. Irtehmrepic (talk) 20:49, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Their show is very funny, and worth noting on a wiki. Incidentally, one already exists: teamfourstar.wikia.com/wiki/Team_Four_Star_Wiki

The DB Wiki is meant as an encyclopedic database of official, licensed DB content only. We don't include fan content because it would be outside the scope of the site's purpose. It would also be redundant with the Team Four Star Wiki, the DB Fanon Wiki, and others that aim to combine licensed and unlicensed material. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:57, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical error in "Ways to detect bias"

It appears that there is a grammatical error in the "Ways to detect bias" section of this article. The second bullet point appears as follows: "Facts come from the source may be biased." I believe the author of this meant to say "Facts coming from the source may be biased." As I'm new to Wikia, I am unable to edit this, but I believe this should be fixed. Shanewolf38 (talk) 20:45, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll take a look. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:40, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Implement 

Can you implement these rules? We put it on discussions, but we would like it everywhere to protect people? This is the post: https://dragonball.fandom.com/f/p/31000000000000129 DragonBallZ050 06:05, February 29, 2020 (UTC)

Adding the Security Act to the Rules and Guidelines

It has come to my, and others', attention that Users have shared very personal information on another Wiki, however, one of them frequents this Wiki. I was wondering if we could implement this rule to the Dragon Ball Wiki so we can keep Users as safe as possible.

"Do not share personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, E-mail addresses, or non-anonymous social media accounts. Do not ask or give personal info. Do not share photos of yourself from in real life. Do not tell people your age, name, address and location, phone numbers, video game friend codes, etc. Anyone who requests this information should be reported, and may face a ban." —This unsigned comment was made by Legendary Super Saiyan Fennekin (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

I agree that a rule against the sharing of critical personal information is necessary. I'm not sure about every single restriction you've mentioned, however. Operating under the assumption that every user here is following the Wikia terms of use and is over 13 years of age (16 in California/the EEA), I think information such as first names, ages, e-mail addresses, video game friend codes, and general locations (such as a country or a state they live in) is fair game to share. Users should be able to give out a video game username or their email address without being blocked.

I agree with restricting actual home addresses, phone numbers (due to potential spam calls or doxxing), social security numbers, and full names from being shared. I also agree with banning anyone who's actively trying to solicit personal information out another user. — • Final Chidori • Talk 20:23, February 28, 2020 (UTC)

Email addresses should be a no. They may try and steal information that way Joe is here! ^{Have any questions? Talk here at User_talk:DragonBallZ050 | Enjoy your stay!]]} 09:53, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

People can potentially make friends here like a lot of forums so some things are alright to share, video game usernames, general locations, first names and ages for example.

Specific things like home addresses, phone numbers, full names and obviously social security numbers should never be shared. E-mail addresses is a bit more finicky because it's a useful way for people to communicate off site but sharing it publicly only invites potential trouble, that's something that should only be shared privately though I'm not sure if this has a private messaging system? Photos...I don't know, I've seen other forums where people have posted pictures of themselves so it's not exactly frowned upon in general like a house address and if they're of age and it's their choice...well we'll see. So it's not so black and white.

Of course anyone trying to get personal information out of people should receive a ban but within a certain context. If a regular active user were to ask someone they've got a long with for a while what their email address is that's fine. If some new user pops up and starts asking different users for their email address then that's suspicious so that isn't fine. Likewise anyone asking for anything like a social security number is dodgy and will never be fine under any circumstances. 10:37, March 1, 2020 (UTC)

I think this is covered by Fandom global policies. I’m not sure we need to add anything beyond that other than maybe a direct link to Fandom policies. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 12:51, March 2, 2020 (UTC)

Hey 10X! It's been a while. Do you have a link to the global policy that mentions that? Might be worth linking it in our guidelines, apparently this is an issue on our discussion boards.

I think email addresses are fine, like Bullza said as long as it's someone who's of age and it's their choice they should be able to give out stuff like that. I can't think of many ways to steal information with just someone's email address. — • Final Chidori • Talk 04:19, March 3, 2020 (UTC)

As I have siad, I am personally against it. Someone I know shared their email address and had threatening messages. I don't want that for anyone here. I am now a global moderator, and really, I should talk to Mira Laime as this could be implemented everywhere.  • DragonBallZ050 ドラゴンボール • Talk トークページ 13:06, March 4, 2020 (UTC)

It includes a privacy policy: https://www.fandom.com/terms-of-use -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 14:26, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

I looked over the privacy policy, and I didn't see anything about not sharing your name, location, etc. (Though I may have overlooked it.) 3-11-2020

       

If it doesn’t, I don’t see a need to add new privacy policies of our own. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:35, March 13, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a new Guideline for Discussions?

It recently came to my attention that some fan art has been posted, but the original artists (On other sites, such as Pixiv) do not want their art reposted. I don't think the Users knew about it, but we have been wondering if we should add a Guideline about it. The Users weren't claiming the art as their own or anything, it's just that the original artists do not want reposts.

       

Here's an attachment of the discussion that took place on our official Discord server regarding this topic. ~ Yon ~Visit my talk page! 19:30, July 10, 2020 (UTC)

Sure. If they don’t want their art to be used without their consent then there should be a rule for users to not use others artwork even if they are not intentionally claiming it as theirs.       21:07,7/10/2020 

A person's artwork shouldn't be distributed without their explicit consent anyway (I forgot the right word is expressed). I also believe that such a rule should be considered.--Jack Jackson DB Fanon/MUC Wiki admin [mod] 08:20, July 11, 2020 (UTC)