Khyeara

Personally I believe that when I click that "I Agree" button it means I'm agreeing to keep it within the rules. I don't care for some of the crude language or jamming channels with topics that belong in OOC either. I don't think we need more channels; I do think we need to remember that we agreed to certain rules about language and topics of conversation when we log in. I'm all for punishing the offenders instead of creating an environment where people using the channel properly are forced to alter their game play because some don't feel the rules apply to them.

[quote name='Kumquat' timestamp='1304116188' post='39991'] Ahh but then there is Texas v Johnson which says Free Speech guards even offensive speech or actions. Again, the server does not qualify for protections under the constitution but I did not want you to go on thinking that all of those are really all restritions. It is very subjective but we tend to err on the side of freedom. [/quote] This is a debatable and good point. I was merely attempting to show that there are in fact restrictions under the law. People site freedom of speech and many have not read the amendments or laws surrounding that statement, they go by what they see and hear from others who do not understand the constitution or the law. There are cases than can be sited from both sides of this debate (one which is part of the quoted text), but lets not derail this thread. ;-)

[quote name='Riz' timestamp='1304033599' post='39946'] No to the filter if you ask me. The players community should be able to police itself in most instances, and if flagrant abuse occurs, the GM's can step in. [/quote] I agree also +10 I also agree with reporting them and perhaps use an escalating system of punishment; i.e... 1st offense short temp ban, 2nd longer ban, and so on for 5? 6? times then perma ban... give them a chance to clean up their acts. Personally I don't swear and prefer not to be around it, as one person this is my choice, while I respect each individuals choice whether to swear or not I respectfully ask they not do it in open channels, take it to private or voice comms where you can speak as you wish. I do understand slips of the tongue, however I don't want to be put in a position where I can not enjoy the game due to swearing or other vulgarities detracting from communications. Swearing is a habit and can be restrained. We need to keep in mind also that for those who are from other places words have different meanings and they have "slang" of their own, where would the coding for filters stop? Filters were not needed in live, because we had a concientious, compassionate, and mutually respectful community. In the years I have worked in the real world I have been in a position to have discussions with people who swear regularly and those who don't. Some do it because they picked it up from the people they associate with and use it to be accepted into the group as it were; others were raised with it, their parents created an environment where swearing was "normal"; others for the shock value; others because it gives them a sense of control; and yet others because they don't care about anyone but themselves; either way we all have the choice of choosing what we type. It is called self-discipline, self-restraint, and respect terms that seem to be losing ground to the lack of respect for others in pursuit of the self. Those I supervised unlearned the habit... they found they got bigger raises, better chances for promotion, and more respect from those around them, because swearing in the workplace is unprofessional. Some here have sited freedom of speech: if we read it as written and as defined by law we wouldn't be using it as a justification. I have quoted in part and sited my source below. [b]Restrictions on free speech[/b] Socialist politician Eugene V. Debs (left) ran for President of the United States in 1912 and was later incarcerated for speaking against the draft during World War I.Ever since the first formal consideration of the idea of freedom of speech, it has been recognized that this right is subject to restrictions and exceptions. Shortly after the first constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech were enacted in France and the United States, limitations on this liberty were quickly imposed. In France, those who spoke out against the Revolution were subject to intimidation, arrest, and even execution, while in the U.S., the Sedition Act of 1798 made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. [b]No nation grants absolute freedom of speech to its citizens, for to do so would leave citizens unprotected from slander and the nation incapable of protecting its vital secrets. Restrictions on speech are thus sometimes clearly necessary, while other times, appeals to public order, national security, and other values are used to justify repression of speech that goes beyond established international norms. Restrictions of both types include laws against:[/b] Defamation (slander and libel Uttering threats against persons Lying in court (perjury) and contempt of court Hate speech based on race, religion, or sexual preference Copyright infringement, trademark violation, and publicizing trade secrets Revealing state secrets or classified information Lying that causes a crowd to panic "Fighting words" that incite a breach of the peace Sedition, treasonous speech, and "encouragement of terrorism" Noise pollution Blasphemy, heresy, and attempts to convert a person from certain state religions Distributing religious tracts where this is not permitted [b]Obscenity, profanity, and pornography[/b] Speaking publicly in certain places without a permit Wearing religious clothing or visibly praying in certain public schools Racist statements, Holocaust denial, and criticism of homosexuality Publishing information on the Internet critical of one's nation Restrictions against obscenity and slander, though debated in terms of their definition, have virtually always remained in force as limitation on absolute freedom of speech. Another well known example of the need to restrict free speech is that of falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theater"—cited in Schenck v. United States, a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I. Source: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Freedom_of_speech