Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: The action of enabling a gun to shoot is profanity.
  • Subject: The action of enabling a gun to shoot is profanity.
Subject: The action of enabling a gun to shoot is profanity.

Every member of the Covenant shall walk the path. None will be left behind when our Great Journey begins. That is the Prophets' age-old promise, and it shall be fulfilled!

This is very stupid.

Bungie, can you at least change that word?

There's a lot of gun nuts in this website.

  • 08.01.2012 10:35 PM PDT

Posted by: x Foman123 x
"If only, if only,"
The woodpecker sighs,
"The bark on the trees was as soft as the skies."
While the wolf waits below, hungry and lonely;
Crying to the moon,
"If only, if only."

It's a list that was given to them by Microsoft. Wait for the update. Then complain.

  • 08.01.2012 10:36 PM PDT

What the hell are you goin on about now?

  • 08.01.2012 10:36 PM PDT

Key

cocking?

cocked?

Oh well. Get over it. Even implying that it would be used more in the context of guns than in the context of an expletive or in relation to a -blam!- is an absurd and ignorant statement (one I get the impression that you're trying to make).

  • 08.01.2012 10:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

They asked what I wanted to be when I grew up;

I wrote down happy.

They told me I didn't understand the assignment;

I told them they don't understand life. - John Lennon


Posted by: Grimaldus
What the hell are you goin on about now?
I always see his post in groups and the forums; seriously, what's wrong now?

  • 08.01.2012 10:39 PM PDT

I don't understand. Are we not allowed to talk about guns?!

I love guns!

  • 08.01.2012 10:40 PM PDT

More professional word would be "charged".

  • 08.01.2012 10:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"We are Soffish. Soffish are we. We look like real fishies when we're placed into the sea."

Jun is Masterchef

Updating the Spartan when Reach came out.

"I cocked the pistol."

"That is a cocking mechanism."


[Edited on 08.01.2012 10:53 PM PDT]

  • 08.01.2012 10:49 PM PDT

Context matters. Just because it can be used correctly doesn't mean it is going to be.

  • 08.01.2012 10:52 PM PDT

He's right on top of us! I wonder if he is using the same wind we are using...

Ockeghem
Missa Prolationum

Dont make me -blam!- my pistol!

Yep thats filtered.
Posted by: LordMonkey
Context matters. Just because it can be used correctly doesn't mean it is going to be.

+ it's an old microsoft generated filter

[Edited on 08.02.2012 12:09 AM PDT]

  • 08.02.2012 12:08 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Rooster your gun.

  • 08.02.2012 12:11 AM PDT

"No, Hoobla. No."
~DeeJ


Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Rooster your gun.

Problem solved.

  • 08.02.2012 12:26 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Kalriq
  • user homepage:

Twitter.
WyIdfyre: 'lol, who the hell would even wear those?'
AuSam: 'lol, who the hell would even have sex with dogs?'

-K-

You know precisely why it's under the profanity filter, and have no idea why this validates a thread, other than the necessity of pushing the envelope.
The filter doesn't 'do' context, therefore the logical solution would be to -blam!- said word.

  • 08.02.2012 12:35 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: Kalriq
have no idea why this validates a thread, other than the necessity of pushing the envelope.
The envelope being of course correcting the filter for this clearly nonprofane phrase, which is obviously a concern of a user as it impedes their communication, warranting a thread.
The filter doesn't 'do' context, therefore the logical solution would be to -blam!- said word.The logical thing would be to modify the filter to accommodate for contextual discrimination, that way, both problems would be solved. Since the filter cannot be so easily outfitted for this task, the next best thing would be to either make the rules less hidebound and narrow, or to simply filter all instances of such a word being mentioned.

Ultimately, the two more easy choices cannot be decided between by logic but rather from ones point of view. Not everyone is offended by a 'profane' word, and often times insults are best carried out in the most formal of dialogue.

[Edited on 08.02.2012 1:11 AM PDT]

  • 08.02.2012 1:04 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Kalriq
  • user homepage:

Twitter.
WyIdfyre: 'lol, who the hell would even wear those?'
AuSam: 'lol, who the hell would even have sex with dogs?'

-K-

Our OP here has already made a thread advocating the complete removal of the filter.
It is a well established fact that the profanity filter is dated and cumbersome, with plenty of room for improvement, but the fact is, this is little more than a cheap shot, regarding one of many words which find themselves 'blammed' due to their nature in various contexts.

  • 08.02.2012 1:27 AM PDT

First in social ranked firefight campaign competitive and ODST goose splatters.
My other account is UrbanTwisticle
20,000+ total matchmade goose splatters

Check out my YouTube Channel


Posted by: LordMonkey
Context matters. Just because it can be used correctly doesn't mean it is going to be.
True but I can talk about my 5th grade teacher Dick F. all I want here. Well except for his last name because that one is pretty bad (no joke).

  • 08.02.2012 1:29 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: Kalriq
Our OP here has already made a thread advocating the complete removal of the filter.
Would you rather he bump the previous thread on the issue? Talking on an issue multiple times does not invalidate a point, and this thread does contribute a new point of argument.
It is a well established fact that the profanity filter is dated and cumbersome, with plenty of room for improvement, but the fact is, this is little more than a cheap shot, regarding one of many words which find themselves 'blammed' due to their nature in various contexts.While I love negativity and hopelessness, they do not provide adequate argument for the issue at hand. You can belittle this thread all you desire, but please do not post your opinion under the ruse of "logic" or "facts".

  • 08.02.2012 1:37 AM PDT

Condition-1 your weapon.

  • 08.02.2012 2:30 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Kalriq
  • user homepage:

Twitter.
WyIdfyre: 'lol, who the hell would even wear those?'
AuSam: 'lol, who the hell would even have sex with dogs?'

-K-

His other thread is a four days old.
Here.
He didn't make the last post, and if you can justify this being a new angle on the debate, then it's not an unnecessary bump.
Of course, that is if you can justify this being a new angle.

The general idea of both threads is 'Some words can have other meanings, they limit X discussion'

Is there even an issue at hand? This is primarily a video games forum, with the exception of The Flood, which will forever be a secondary and minor function of this site. How often is it required to insert the cocking of a gun into a conversation? And even if it does by chance slip in, if one form of the verb in this case is blammed, it's pretty easy to get around by rewritting your sentance.
As for his argument in the other thread, the discussion of anatomy? Refer to my other point. This is a video games forum, bar the Flood, and how often is that topic going to come up? Again, there are plenty of other terms to avoid to filter, without advocating the bypass of course.

Maybe I am belittling this thread, but only because what has been presented is senseless enough that even I can see simple solutions to all the problems our OP has highlighted.
If the filter actively inhibited the majority of the discussion on this site, and someone could prove that, by all means - present your case, but until that happens, and the fact that a few cases, affecting the minority of discussion, while preventing the use of cruder language and insults on the boards stands, I will not be swayed.

  • 08.02.2012 3:49 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: Kalriq
His other thread is a four days old.
Here.
He didn't make the last post, and if you can justify this being a new angle on the debate, then it's not an unnecessary bump.
Of course, that is if you can justify this being a new angle.
It certainly isn't an old angle. I've yet to hear the argument for the point of firearms until now.

The general idea of both threads is 'Some words can have other meanings, they limit X discussion'Generalizing is cute but everyone knows you can generalize a thread to the point at which the thread is indistinguishable from all other threads and the generalization is untrue. It would be better to deal with the argument at hand.

Is there even an issue at hand?Just because you don't value an issue does not mean it is nonexistent. You should know this! So silly!
This is primarily a video games forum, with the exception of The Flood, which will forever be a secondary and minor function of this site. How often is it required to insert the cocking of a gun into a conversation?The majority of games Bungie has made are shooters. Guns are the sole mechanism of gameplay. Are you really this unaware?
And even if it does by chance slip in, if one form of the verb in this case is blammed, it's pretty easy to get around by rewritting your sentance.It still requires an unnecessary expenditure of effort.
As for his argument in the other thread, the discussion of anatomy? Refer to my other point. This is a video games forum, bar the Flood, and how often is that topic going to come up?That is not part of this discussion. One instance of anatomy does not invalidate an issue requiring gun mechanics.
Again, there are plenty of other terms to avoid to filter, without advocating the bypass of course.All of which should not be necessary.

Maybe I am belittling this thread, but only because what has been presented is senseless enough that even I can see simple solutions to all the problems our OP has highlighted.They are alternative workarounds that do not actually resolve the phrase in question.
If the filter actively inhibited the majority of the discussion on this site, and someone could prove that, by all means - present your case, but until that happens, and the fact that a few cases, affecting the minority of discussion, while preventing the use of cruder language and insults on the boards stands, I will not be swayed.I believe the filter should not impede discussion at all. The fundamental purpose of the rules and the filter is for the betterment and facilitation of discussion on this site. When the rules or the filter begin to impede normative discussion, it is fundamentally contradicting its very purpose.

Requiring the majority of discussion to be impeded is absurd, as truly any degree is problematic. Requiring a high degree of impediment just means you're ignorant to the issue at hand, and would rather resolve it when stops you in your tracks.
Your posts call to question if this issue is even an issue at all, calling it senseless and deeming it as indifferent from previous threads and nothing more than the agenda of the original poster. Since there is a legitimate impediment, your statements are as insulting as they are incorrect.

  • 08.02.2012 4:29 AM PDT

Posted by: T1B3R7uMB0YXVI
Chief vs the scarab? I find that hard to believe to roundhouse boot the scarab's figurative emotion out of the gaming zone.

Does anyone honestly believe that if a word such as this were to be unfiltered, it would be used correctly more often than not?

  • 08.02.2012 5:05 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: GrinnialVex
Does anyone honestly believe that if a word such as this were to be unfiltered, it would be used correctly more often than not?
There is only one way to know.

  • 08.02.2012 5:08 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Posted by: GrinnialVex
Does anyone honestly believe that if a word such as this were to be unfiltered, it would be used correctly more often than not?
There is only one way to know.
Yet there's so little reason to find out.

  • 08.02.2012 5:11 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: Kalriq
  • user homepage:

Twitter.
WyIdfyre: 'lol, who the hell would even wear those?'
AuSam: 'lol, who the hell would even have sex with dogs?'

-K-

Right, have we decided whether this really warranted a new thread, considering this is essentially the same as a topic he created four days ago?

You might be right, maybe you can generalise something enough until its indistinguishable! But here's one for you, I'm not.
The only real difference is that in one OP he's advocating the total removal of the filter, while in this one he's trying to justify one word being removed from the filter. The difference is relatively negligible.

What, Bungie made some shooting games? What's Halo?
How often does the cocking of a gun come into discussion even then? Really? In the ammount of time I've spent on this site, between the Halo 3, ODST and Reach forums, I can safetly say, I have never seen a thread, related to Bungie's games, regarding the cocking of a firearm.

An unnecessary expenditure of effort? Come on, it's next to nothing.

My point about anatomy was regarding his other thread, that was part of his evidence for removing the filter, of which I felt it necessary to cover, simply to show that the filter is barely a hindrance in the majority of circumstance people claim it to be akin to the apocalypse.

Again, I agree with you that the filter and the rules are in place to improve the quality of discussion on this site while protecting the community and Bungie from the less desirable potential effects tied to an Internet forum.
But quite frankly, when the filter is as easy to bypass when sense and manners in mind, it is doing its intended job.

The filter, as we all know is dated and was produced from a Microsoft list of buzz words a while back, and could be deserving of a polish. But the fact is, it's barely justifiable that it has such an impediment on discussion, which in my eyes is why nothing has been done about it, over years of complaint about it.

  • 08.02.2012 5:19 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Posted by: L00
Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Posted by: GrinnialVex
Does anyone honestly believe that if a word such as this were to be unfiltered, it would be used correctly more often than not?
There is only one way to know.
Yet there's so little reason to find out.
But yet there is reason.

Frankly, such an experiment would provide a nice bit of insight as to the validity of certain statements users make, and it would be fun to rub in the faces of users who like to make up statistics when arguing (FOMANNN).

In all honesty, I don't think whether the term in question is used in a more or less profane sense really matters to me. The fact that it's the same word should heed hint as to how absurd it is to be offended by it. It's not the word at all that is offensive, it's the context.

[Edited on 08.02.2012 5:22 AM PDT]

  • 08.02.2012 5:21 AM PDT