Be Nice currently reads in point 3: "Don't be a jerk." Can we amend this to read "Don't be rude" along the lines of:
(a) describing actions, not people, and
(b) avoiding words "likely to offend or alienate," as was recently discussed.
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
2
-
16\$\begingroup\$ I'm pretty sure the Be Nice policy can only be amended by folks higher up than rpg.se. Recommending this get migrated to Meta Stack Exchange. \$\endgroup\$– BESWFeb 17, 2016 at 22:24
-
\$\begingroup\$ aah.... Thanks. \$\endgroup\$– nitsua60 ModFeb 17, 2016 at 22:35
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
As with many pieces of the text boiler plate that makes up the base system, the "be nice" policy is a global piece. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it would be a very difficult process that would require a good bit of effort for us to get it changed just here.
If you have a legitimate issue with the wording of the policy, it may be better to post about it on Meta.StackExchange.com as your concern may be shared by a wider audience who is also potentially offended by the term. I'd caution you to consider your argument and be prepared to defend it well if you want to make it there.
\$\begingroup\$
\$\endgroup\$
2
The current be nice policy is the result of much gathered feedback, as explained here:
The NEW new "Be Nice" Policy ("Code of Conduct") — Updated with your feedback
Don't be rude actually already is the first point of the policy!
"Finding a different word that doesn't raise eyebrows anywhere in the English-speaking world is an option. What I doubt is that there's one that carries a meaning that can work as an inoffensive drop-in replacement. If anyone can think of a good alternative, that would be useful to hear." -- From the link you posted.
It seems to me "jerk" is unlikely to offend, and works as a stand-in for worse terms. - I like the idea of describing actions rather than people, but the guidelines can't be a comprehensive list, and the connotation of the word jerk does much of the lifting in carrying the meaning.
If you know an even more universally unoffensive "bad" word with similar connotations, go ahead and bring the conversation to meta as suggested by wax eagle and BSWE
-
2\$\begingroup\$ I guess my thought is that "Don't be a ____" is a bad formulation--why even start with it? Why put ourselves in the unenviable position of choosing which unoffensive-yet-insulting word to employ in this ad hominem attack? Why are we saying "you are a ___" if you do these things? Is it really incumbent upon us to define who is a ___ and who isn't? Why not just call out the objectionable behavior--as is done in the three bullets that follow "don't be a ___" and leave the name-calling out? \$\endgroup\$– nitsua60 ModMar 1, 2016 at 4:07
-
1\$\begingroup\$ Because not everyone will read the bullets. The heading has to carry the meaning and the insult does that quite well. I do agree that it's a bit hypocritical, but the way I look at it, it works quite well nonetheless... \$\endgroup\$– JulixMar 1, 2016 at 9:10