| | The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't. I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term. By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the {{tl|Aussie}} template?). Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others. Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT) | | The likely problem with this sort of thing is in deciding what is vulgar and what isn't. I know that some things that Americans consider vulgar Australians wouldn't, and vice versa, and some things I consider vulgar other Australians wouldn't (Horace, I know what you are referring to, but personally I wouldn't use that term. By the way, I didn't realise that you were another skip; have you seen the {{tl|Aussie}} template?). Some terms there would be no question about, but other, more borderline ones, might genuinely be considered acceptable by some and not by others. Is there any way of having a Conservapedia standard on what's acceptable and what's not short of drawing up a list of unacceptable terms? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | : Guidelines would be fine, we do want to keep the rules and regulations to a minimum here, in contrast with Wikipedia. Sysops have discretion and authority, and we do ban obscenity. Generally unintellectual comments are disfavored. A comment like "Piss-poor" wouldn't be tolerated in a good university homework assignment, so why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT) |