Announcing an Update to AppleVis' Policy on Profanity in User Content

I think this is a good decision. We have people have a lot of different ages that use this website so I like to keep it welcoming to everybody. I think this is a good decision. I think you guys are doing amazing. Keeping up with everything with this website. I’m really happy that we still have it.

But there are problems, such as, exactly what words fall within and outside your definitions, such as your definition of profanity? Or the ultimate conclusion concerning the speaker‘s intent. For example, the term “Doodoo head” could be a term of friendly endearment, or it could be a put down. On the other hand, “stupid Doodoo head“ move further towards an intent, which is not friendly or endearing.

And then there is context or circumstantial attenuation of circumstances or whatever you want to call it. For example, I might address Brian as a stupid Doodoo head, but my use of these words simply means that I like Brian. On the other hand, I could address X (whose name shall remain anonymous/unknown), and intend something entirely different. How is Apple is to judge such things?

I'd really appreciate more clarity on this. I think saying: "at the discretion of the editorial team", is quite wooly and unhelpful I'm afraid.
As an example, the word"bloody", in my part of the world, the UK, is quite a standard word. It's not profanity and it's quite mild and well used. However, I had a post I wrote recommended to change the word.
Another example is using "hell", to some that is not a problem at all, to others, it is. I therefore think we need more clear guidelines as to what we are and are not allowed to say.
We can obviously all agree that certain words should not be said, but how about the words like "bloody" and "hell", which are more in that grey area.
This is just my ramblings. I think the editorial and mod teams do an amazing job and I'm sure all of us would echo that sentiment. In this case though, more solid guidelines would be appreciated.

a case by Case evaluation is exactly that. every f…ing case will be evaluated individually. 😊
Can’t get more clear than that in my humble opinion. Just dip your tongue in your brain before speaking and all will be good.

Do people really need clarification on what is acceptable and what is not, when all that is required is a little tact.

With respect, this is exactly the issue being raised.

“Case by case” may be clear from a moderation perspective, but it isn’t clear from a user perspective — especially in an international community where everyday language differs.

Also, you’ve just used “f…ing” in a thread about acceptable language. If that’s fine, then the boundary clearly isn’t as obvious as you’re suggesting. "F...ing", is rather strong and it's not like we don't all know what you're saying. Surely this in itself goes against the guidelines?
It's almost like... We need more clear guidelines... So we don't have to keep guessing...

so this was said
While it would be difficult to make an exhaustive list of words that are and are not allowed, under our new policy, both of the words you gave as examples would be permitted so long as they are not directed at another person or group. This is in contrast to our previous policy, where no profanity whatsoever was allowed.
But then,
Stronger profanity, for example the F-bomb, is prohibited.
So, is it allowed or not.
It would depend if you ask me. Its one thing to say something like,
And to make it clear? These are examples.
I'm so fucking done with this bug.
That, the way I read it, is allowed, or if its not; it should be; again on a case by case basis, intent, etc.
Versus saying say, and again, example,
X user is a fucking... Whatever.
That second one isn't allowed. Am i reading that correctly? This is quite vague.

When you use volgarity to express yourself, you already lost the discussion or argument. Long live cats.

OK, same thing. Long live cats.

Not true. When profanity is used, it doesn’t mean one loses a discussion. Now. Using profanity against someone? Yes, you lose a discussion right there, but as is? No. Bad words how you put it, can also be used as say, shock, etc. I.e, saying something like say, hell if something shocks you wouldn't make one lose the discussion. Saying however, go to hell? Yeah that does make one lose the discussion, but there's a huge difference between both examples.

Holger,
While I understand the sentiment you're expressing here, your statement makes it sound as if there is something to be won. While debates may happen here from time to time, this is an online forum, not a debate club. We all want the same thing, we are not here to argue perspectives. I would point out though that there is a difference between being vulgar (writing tasteless content), and swearing for emphasis.
For those of you who are struggling to figure out what kind of language is acceptable in what circumstances, I would suggest asking yourself these questions, which I have touched on in previous posts about this topic.
1. Is what I'm saying directed at a specific person, or am I saying it in a way that's related to my own perceptions/experiences?
To add to the example that has already been presented. "I'm really frustrated with this damn voiceover bug," would be totally fine, as it relates to something you are experiencing. "You're not doing the right damn thing if you can't reproduce this bug yourself," is not, as this statement is directed at another individual and could be seen as an insult and an attack.
2. Would this be allowed on TV/radio?
If the word that comes to mind is not something that would be allowed to be broadcast commonly on TV/radio, then it probably isn't allowed here. As I suggested to the team before, a good approach might be to pick a TV/film rating which reflects the general level of language that the Applevis team is willing to allow here.
To the team themselves, I realize this topic has been, and probably will continue to be, a source of disagreement with some. But I think the fact that this policy has been put in place can have a positive impact in the long run, so long as people are responsible with their language. I am happy to help with this transition in any way I can, and will certainly flag any instances which go against the spirit of the supportive community we are trying to foster here. Thank you.

Gar, this is exactly that balance we are trying to strike. Well done on an articulate explanation that could only come from someone who has not been entrenched in trying to figure these things out on the regular for the past month.

As it relates to the TV rating example, we did discuss the idea of using PG-13 as a good baseline for what to recommend to people inquiring about what is appropriate and what is not. The problem we came up against is that PG-13 is a US-only thing, and thus not the best example for an international audience. I appreciate the suggestion and the thought behind it, though!

Hi Michael,
I appreciate the recognition, and the challenges the team faced in trying to come up with a standard. I would suggest that a lesser known standard might be better than leaving people in the dark though. If not adopting it, the team could at least use it as a reference point for establishing/enhancing a community code of conduct around acceptable language, then posting that to the website somewhere. I recognize this might take some time and effort to see through, and am once again happy to help where I can if needed.
I would also suggest that PG-13 might be better known than you think. United States media is hardly confined to the United States. It is hosted on platforms like YouTube (which granted doesn't operate the same way as cable television), streaming services, which do have to classify programming in some way, etc. I am happy to hear from other perspectives though, in case I'm wrong!
Thanks for all the work you do.

Sorry, but I genuinely don’t see why we can’t simply do without profanity altogether. I don’t understand why defining what counts as profanity has become such a major issue. Using clean, respectful language is not difficult. Honestly, I prefer the previous approach: AppleVis should return to the earlier policy where profanity wasn’t tolerated at all. Some people are turning a very simple matter into an unnecessary problem.