Remove Vulgar Thread Titles

[Catholic_Lady]

I would support this if it were to become a rule. As I did when the click baity thread titles were briefly against the rules. It isnt because of being "offended" by vulgarity or anything like that, it would be more for improving the overall quality of the forum, as Chad said. Either way, it doesn't particularly bother me though.

[Banned]

As far as putting people down, I give as good as I get.

Edit: I'll ask again, what are some or our "far less desirable situations"?

You say that you give as good as you get, all you may need to do is quote me to show where it was warranted what you have said about me.
I don't have any record of personally attacking you.

[Whateverist]

I would support this if it were to become a rule. As I did when the click baity thread titles were briefly against the rules. It isnt because of being "offended" by vulgarity or anything like that, it would be more for improving the overall quality of the forum, as Chad said. Either way, it doesn't particularly bother me though.

Are there any settings where you can enjoy some vulgarity? In RL I don't say a lot of off color things but around here it seems like we just have a wider range of acceptable colorful expression available. It isn't as important to me as saying what I mean to say accurately. But where humor and sociability are concerned in this setting, I prefer the culture we have now.

[Catholic_Lady]

I would support this if it were to become a rule. As I did when the click baity thread titles were briefly against the rules. It isnt because of being "offended" by vulgarity or anything like that, it would be more for improving the overall quality of the forum, as Chad said. Either way, it doesn't particularly bother me though.

Are there any settings where you can enjoy some vulgarity? In RL I don't say a lot of off color things but around here it seems like we just have a wider range of acceptable colorful expression available. It isn't as important to me as saying what I mean to say accurately. But where humor and sociability are concerned in this setting, I prefer the culture we have now.

Lol, I guess it can be funny, depending on the type of vulgarity. There are certain vulgar words I don't like regardless of who I'm with though. Like the C word and and P word for example. I can talk about poop and fart and queef all day though, with anyone who wants to.

[J a c k]

Are there any settings where you can enjoy some vulgarity?  In RL I don't say a lot of off color things but around here it seems like we just have a wider range of acceptable colorful expression available.  It isn't as important to me as saying what I mean to say accurately.  But where humor and sociability are concerned in this setting, I prefer the culture we have now.

Lol, I guess it can be funny, depending on the type of vulgarity. There are certain vulgar words I don't like regardless of who I'm with though. Like the C word and and P word for example. I can talk about poop and fart and queef all day though, with anyone who wants to.

This. There are stuff that all of us will find unappealing regardless. I’m cool with f-bombs, but I don’t like poop talk. I tend to not participate in those threads, because it’s not my type of humor, but I don’t mind it when you do. I’m cool with that. It’s your thing. If we start making rules left and right to “improve the quality” of the forums, it will be like a school blackboard where you post your assignments and hope you get it right. I like things the way they are now.

[Fireball]

I think that the anonymity of the internet tends to allow people to act in a more uninhibited fashion. That said, the railing some xtians make against atheists is just as bad, and just as vulgar, but in another way. Standing there on some alleged "high ground" and calling out what they perceive to be bad behavior. Again, bluenose preaching. This has never been the place for it, and it will be mocked forevermore, anon. I personally love the internet's effect on all that "high and mighty" preaching shit that has intimidated so many for so long. Chad, jam your religious "righteousness" right where the sun doesn't shine. You too, "Banned". If you and your ilk didn't come into any atheist forum, and the rest of the world didn't have your sort out trying to regulate people's behavior, there wouldn't be any complaints about you. Get it? Naw, you have your gawd on your side, and you shits outnumber the unbelievers, so you think that you can just go anywhere and cow people into doing as you say. Those days are over, bub. Tell you what, Banned. Go to Maylasia and reform all those Muslims. Go on, you have your god on your side! Get 'er done!

[Amarok]

You say that you give as good as you get, all you may need to do is quote me to show where it was warranted what you have said about me.
I don't have any record of personally attacking you.

You have done this in this very thread . Of course even when quoted . you'll pretend it was not an attack and invent some bullshit excuse. To absolve yourself of the scorning you legitimely . Always playing the victim .

[Jackalope]

I think we have to recognize both the volunteer nature of the staff, and the enormous difficulty in applying such a rule judiciously. Regardless of any merit the idea may have, enforcement of this is going to meet the same unworkability issues as the clickbait rule.

I'd prefer the environment to be more civil as well, for what it's worth. I don't think it can or should be done via the rules, though.

[Amarok]

You say that you give as good as you get, all you may need to do is quote me to show where it was warranted what you have said about me.
I don't have any record of personally attacking you.

You have done this in this very thread . Of course even when quoted . you'll pretend it was not an attack and invent some bullshit excuse. To absolve yourself of the scorning you legitimely . Always playing the victim .

Oh and nice job dodging Brewers questions 

[Ravenshire]

As far as putting people down, I give as good as I get.

Edit: I'll ask again, what are some or our "far less desirable situations"?

You say that you give as good as you get, all you may need to do is quote me to show where it was warranted what you have said about me.
I don't have any record of personally attacking you.

(emphasis is mine)

You typically attack with a much broader brush. It's still an attack and some here will still take it personally.

---

I would support this if it were to become a rule. As I did when the click baity thread titles were briefly against the rules. It isnt because of being "offended" by vulgarity or anything like that, it would be more for improving the overall quality of the forum, as Chad said. Either way, it doesn't particularly bother me though.

The most vulgar things I've seen on this site had little or no "naughty" words. Shall we make it against the rules to make pro-bigotry or anti-semitic (or whatever else may be deemed vulgar) thread titles as well?