I call those words sentence enhancers.
3 Likes
in the in game code of conduct.
show me where stars are more than “oh crap” in the code of conduct
and i am agreeing about people who know they’re breaking a rule and get punished then act surprised, and talking about a plethora of other issues with the actual system as it exists, which you refuse to address and instead keep repeating your one liner over and over.
and you’re NOT being principled, if you want people to accept the consequences of breaking the rules intentionally gracefully, then people who flick a switch that allows them to see profanity should accept the consequences of that action gracefully as well. both knew what they were getting themselves into. all people are responsible for their own actions.
1 Like
Try using the phrase /reloadui next time. Like everyone knows what it means and chicks dig it. Also it’s not censored by ‘Da Man’.
…unless you tried that and still nada, if so you just bad then. To the bone even. Maybe even a bit eviler than the rest. Heh
1 Like
nice, you quoted a vague, subjective, and in my opinion: poorly written policy.
that verbiage is precisely what I’m saying is the issue with it.
and calling the ability to turn it off and see profanity an “extra layer of protection” is fallacious. an extra layer of protection would be to go the club penguin route and disallow it altogether if it is against the rules
1 Like
I would guess that the “colorful word” itself is the play on the word he wanted to use and no op you are not that cleaver.
See, the whole problem with your train of thought here is, it doesn’t matter if the filter is on or off, using profanity (openly or masked) is against the rules, thus it is illogical to assign any fault to anyone other than the one who violated the rule, regardless of the status of other players’ mature language filter.
2 Likes
why?
you still have the ability to be as profane as you want… as long as you’re not in public chat channels.
The policy is fine.
It is written the way it is for several reasons, not the least of which is flexibility to deal with changing meanings, and preventing “rules lawyering” arguments by edgelords that just have to see how far over the cliff edge they can stick their toes before they fall.
Sort of like your arguments here in this thread. 
You not liking it, does not make it fallacious.
2 Likes
no it is not. if i leave open bags full of money in my car in the back of a walmart in a sketchy neighborhood known for stealing at night, it is not illogical to blame me partially for when it gets stolen. legally, sure, the only person getting prosecuted is the thief (if they get caught), but a lot of the blame falls on me for knowingly helping create such a situation.
if i walk around downtown late at night and go around insulting people, if i get beat up, they truly are at fault, but i caused it.
i started a fight once a long time ago in school. i wasn’t the first one to get physical, but it was absolutely my fault and i will readily admit i was the instigator. had i not been a punk, the whole situation could have been avoided.
1 Like
(i think you meant to say… “clever”) 
and the same applies when you’re using blizzards servers.
don’t be a punk, and you’ll be fine.
1 Like
calling the ability to participate in something against the rules an “extra layer of protection” is absolutely fallacious. that is not protection whatsoever.
if we had a “allow cheating filter” that people could click to allow cheating programs to function, that is not “protection”, it’s the opposite. protection would be to not have the choice because it is already banned, and to disallow it across the board.
OOC. i said even people who don’t violate the rules are often partially to blame for what happens to them, just like the person who leaves stacks of cash in their car or the person who turns off their profanity filter.
not even a tiny bit similar.
that person may have a reason why they need to do that.
it doesn’t matter if a person turns off their profanity filter, when people shouldn’t be swearing regardless.
you are the one in control of your keyboard.
so was the guy who punched me, he was in charge of his fists. i didn’t break the rules. but i was the instigator.
knowingly putting yourself into a bad situation then crying when you’re the victim is often nearly as bad as being the offender, in non-violent circumstances. in fact, it’s almost no different than the person who breaks the rules then cries when punished.
Once again you take the argument to the extreme edge of rationality to not make any point at all.
Please explain to me how the presence of the mature language filter somehow allows people to break the rules about profanity?
Shall we use an extreme example like you do?
By following your argument to the extreme, the fact that police officers have bulletproof vests available allows you to shoot police officers, and it is the officers fault for getting hurt if they aren’t wearing one when they get shot.
2 Likes
i feel like it probably isn’t the first time someone has punched you.
you sound like one of those people who think women should wear blankets, or it’s their fault when they’re attacked by predators.
1 Like
yes. at the end of the day, you’re responsible for your own well being, and we all play the odds accordingly. if you go to the grocery store, that’s one thing. if you are dealing with criminals all the time, your odds are higher so perhaps more precautions could be taken. how much you are willing to look out for your own well being is up to you. but having a completely external locus of control while operating on the assumption everything is going to go according to plan, rules, and law, is ignorant and creates issues for no one but yourself.
we cant ban hurricanes so we build stronger houses. we banned killing people and theft, but it is still a good idea to have a home alarm system and a form of defense. if you don’t prepare for the realities of the world, or go out of your way to experience them and then dislike how they feel, that’s your fault. you can blame everybody else, and they may be to blame. but you’re to blame, too, because often, if you had been prudent and in some instances, like this, not gone out of your way to risk harm, you wouldn’t have been harmed in the first place.
to abstain the individual from any responsibility because they’re a victim is insane and impractical