From 1d4chan

Is there a template for "What the fuck is that supposed to be? English? I don't think so, pal"? --Furore23 12:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There's the bad article template. Which I think fits this one perfectly.
Serious dog 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I get what OP is going for, but Ye Gods! Learn to syntax, son!

I suck at keeping things concise.
Serious dog 03:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I fix'd it :D

I would re-roll all misses in the first round of combat against you guys. 26/08/2013

Looook mr/ms vandal. I'm more or less with you regarding the contents of this article. Language effects thought, rape culture, ect. and so forth, but I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell anybody. If you actually want your changes to stick and not just get reverted make the effort to rewrite the article in a way that's funny and informative. "Crass idiocy" is, for better or for worse, a big part of /tg/'s stock and trade. This site is for holding a mirror up to that, not to advance a social agenda no matter how noble. --Petro (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Which greek gods were rapists by the standards of the ancient greeks?--Emerald Claw (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why was the Greco-Roman part removed?--Emerald Claw (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It was wrong. Rape in its archaic form meant to steal or to snatch, not the bizarre scenario presented.--The Forgefather
They're talking about rape as in non-consensual sex, or what could be considered non-consensual by society, meaning the scenario presented would be considered rape (and as such it doesn't deserve to get removed in an article talking about rape). -- Triacom (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking something, it's just wrong. That isn't what the word itself meant in Rome, that isn't how the act of rape was defined in Rome, and that isn't what happened in the Rape of the Sabines. I don't like it, but I don't like it because it isn't factual.--The Forge Father
Furthermore, even if what is written above isn't true, that section of text doesn't pertain to rape as rape pertains to traditional games. Heldrakes rape MEQs whether or not Greeks had parental consent. Elf slaves get raped without regard to what Theseus thought the act was.--The Forgefather

The wording is still awkward, and most readers can infer from context that the list given isn't sexual.--The Forgefather

How exactly is it awkward? If you want to make sure that you're talking about non-sexual rape, you need to state it or completely rewrite the definition above the list, simple as that. -- Triacom (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The syllabic accent pattern in "Non-Sexual" is one not ordinarily found within Low Gothic, which causes the phrase to sound jarring to speakers of that tongue. Additionally, adding the phrase protracts the length of the section title to an extent not consistent with the brevity of the rest of the article. There is no need to alter the definition at the top of the page, because it already explains that rape on the tabletop is different from rape behind a dumpster. Even if it didn't, we can safely assume that the average wiki browser is not so bereft of wit that he is unable to make the connection on his own.-- The Forgefather
Here's the problem, the article says this is the definition of non-sexual rape: Getting "raped" in the non-sexual sense, is being utterly dominated by the opposition with no hope of relief. Here;s the definition for rape: performing a sexual act on a person without their consent. Now the problem is that it does NOT explain rape on the tabletop is different to sexual rape in any way, shape or form, unless you add the "Non-sexual" modifier to the tabletop examples. Yes the average person would figure it out but all that means is the examples are for the wrong definition (as they are not rape in action), and really you're worried about people speaking the in-universe language? One more thing, to sign your posts, just hit the tilde key four times. -- Triacom (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
//Now the problem is that it does NOT explain rape on the tabletop is different to sexual rape in any way, shape or form...// Yes it does. It provides a definition for one scenario, and a definition for the other scenario. This is more than sufficient. This is more than sufficient because this is the same extent to which dictionaries go to distinguish between multiple definitions of the same word. You practically answered your own query here, this point is not under contention.
//and really you're worried about people speaking the in-universe language?// Low Gothic is for all intents and purposes English. In case you are not familiar with the term, what I created here is known as a "joke." Specifically, this "joke" is of a subtype known as a "pun" or "play on words."
So you realize that it provides the definitions for two scenarios, yet you keep on trying to use the sexual definition. If you don't say that it is "non-sexual" then it is sexual because the standard definition is sexual, which is why you have to say it is not sexual. I don't know why that's so hard for you to get, if you take away the non-sexual part then you are using a definition which is factually incorrect for the examples. Let's briefly look at something you said though: "It provides a definition for one scenario, and a definition for the other scenario." Nowhere on those definitions does it ever make a reference to tabletop gameplay. Not even in the edit I reverted, because you just referenced the 4chan board, not any tabletop game. I'll admit that I missed the Low Gothic joke, to be honest I confused it with High Gothic (Latin) and since I don't know Latin, I assumed you were making a different joke. -- Triacom (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Moralfagging, again[edit]

We're being targeted by the Good People again in Current Year, since they didn't succeed in 2013. Reckon this last vandal was doing da'wa: giving us poor infidels the chance to repent before the site gets #canceled.--Zimriel (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

At least it seems like this one wants to add more context. With some minor tweaks their paragraph could be a good addition. -- Triacom (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This page sucks ass and doesn't need to exist.

Tough titties sweetheart, you don’t get to decide what pages do and don’t exist. Plus that’s a shitty reason. CoolGuy99 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


Funnyyyyyyyyyyyy CoolGuy99 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh this is hilarious, you're getting great reactions

Can we ban this guy? Not only has he been vandalizing pages, he's been vandalizing people's user pages.--GloriousGidofter (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one defending the "Rape" page, don't do the apologizing if you don't like the title it gets you.

Nobody on the wiki is a rape apologist, you just can't read what's on the page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Real talk though, I'll happily make it a more well-written page on sexual assault hotlines, but the previous screed on why using "figurative rape" in tabletop gaming is alright was... I mean, that's some dogshit right there. Wasn't even funny edgelord shit, just... Badly written listicle bullshit. Defend it if you want, I got nothing better to do than keep wasting your time.

You seem to think this page is about sexual assault when it is not. -- Triacom (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • eyeroll*
Maybe you should learn to read with your eyes instead of rolling them. -- Triacom (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nahhhhhhhh. I'm having fun wasting your time. :) I'm just not gonna bother replying to a argument that's not made in good faith. You're not worth treating seriously.

Again, you clearly aren't reading what's written, and at this point I have to assume it's because you don't want to. -- Triacom (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read the page, I'm just refusing to engage you specifically. If you want to pretend that a page trying to justify the casual use of "Rape" in a modern linguistic context doesn't contribute to rape culture, you're not worth talking to in any serious fashion. But it's fun fucking with you. :)

The page doesn't justify the casual use of "rape" in a modern linguistic context. The page itself even has a disclaimer, and you've been spending more time than I have on this. -- Triacom (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean if you really want to debate, I'm down, but the basic thrust is anyone who uses "X model really raped me on the table" is a shithead, and a page that does nothing but list that doesn't contribute anything of worth. Your counterargument?

Nobody uses that, the page exists to be used as a link by descriptive statements, and that's how it's used across the wiki. For example, I could say "The game was going well until my opponent's helblasters got in range of my carnifex." By itself that's a boring statement, with the link to this page however it becomes more than that, and I get across what happened without using the word "rape" in my text. In other words, having the page here does the opposite of encouraging the casual use of "rape" in a modern linguistic context, since you don't need to say the word to get the context across. -- Triacom (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So let's see if I can summarize your argument correctly: This page is actually against rape culture because linking to it let's you just use the link instead of the word rape in the main linking article itself, is that right?

I mean, I'm happy to talk to people here. Again, "this page is not only useless but actively detrimental to the tabletop gaming community" is my thrust here.

Yes, if you didn't have the page here, then instead of seeing "The game was going well until my opponent's helblasters got in range of my carnifex." You'd instead be seeing "The game was going well until my opponent's helblasters raped my carnifex." Which would you rather see? One of these two gets across the idea of the "proverbial definition" without needing to say it, and somebody can even use it in this context while thinking that it's unacceptable to use the word "rape" in common parlance because this way they don't actually need to say the word at all to get what the "proverbial definition" on this page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Since he never replied, here's the actual gist. Shit like this actively drives people away from the hobby, and furthers rape culture. Let's not kid ourselves that "proverbial rape" doesn't have sexual assault connotations, regardless of dictionary definition hairsplitting. It's fucking 2021, and this page fucking sucked.

If you want to see a reply, you have to wait. You wrote and posted this while I was replying, so don't complain about how I "never replied". As far as shit like this goes, you realize this is a 4chan wiki right? "Let's not kid ourselves that "proverbial rape" doesn't have sexual assault connotations-" It doesn't, because the only kinds of "proverbial rape" on the page are all examples involving dice and are played out on the tabletop, where any player can tell the others they'd like to stop if they don't enjoy what's going on, and the others would listen to them. -- Triacom (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL "rape doesn't mean anything other than plunder if I ignore the context! All these examples are about stuff on the table, except the hentai schoolgirl one, and all of them by connotation! I'm repulsive!"

Dude, you're ignoring the context, and if you want something like that removed, there's easier ways to do it than vandalizing the page. You could've come here before and said you don't like that example, and while somebody might've made fun of you, you would've convinced others it wasn't that funny. -- Triacom (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention that he/she has been nothing but rude during this whole fiasco. Vandalizing and Blanking pages is one thing, but then having the gall to vandalize user pages as well is going way to far and just makes you look bad, rude and immature. --GloriousGidofter (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You could also... y'know. Move on? Not deal with the page? Not start up an edit war? Not waste people's times? --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Kidding aside, for anyone else, what do you think anyone passing by hears? " Oh man, that knight really raped me. " First off, come on homie," rape" as a verb doesn't mean plunder any more than "gay" means happy or "queer" means odd, by which I mean it used to, and still does in very limited, specific contexts.

Anyone passing by hears "I lost to that knight" aka "I lost to that knight." Pretty simple, by not using the word directly you do more to enforce the idea it shouldn't be used in common parlance. -- Triacom (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally know people who that kind of shit is awful for, and people casually joking about getting raped, or how that knight really fucked them up the ass, is the same fucking feeling someone gets when an asshole goes "ugh, that's fucking gay your mom won't let you come with us."

Language matters, homie, context matters. Consider how times have changed from when this language was used more commonly, as well. How often is this used as gamer slang overall anymore?

That's unfortunate, however you are aware that the more you try to suppress something the more people will try and do it? It's human nature, if you try and take away booze, more people will try to drink. Try to make drugs illegal and people will seek them out, this isn't rocket science, you need to deal with the matter in a way that gives the best results for the least effort, and at the moment, that is this page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You could all move on too, not sure why you're so invested in the page. :)

Pot, meet kettle. -- Triacom (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean... it's still common? At this point you're projecting your discomfort onto us more than anything, so. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And you're choosing a weird hill to protect. *shrug* "Rape" is shit slang, full stop, and fuck anyone who uses it. Is that more clear?

So your way of dealing with the issue is to... anonymously vandalize a wiki?

Yeah, sure, that's completely the thought process of a rational person. Clearly, this won't backfire and irritate people; and will actually make a change. Clearly this is a good usage of time and energy. You're making the world a better place. /s --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It definitely will not encourage a spat of threads where people insist on using the word, that definitely will not contribute to how often people use it casually, and it definitely won't lead to people mocking rape survivors. Nope, definitely won't happen... except that's exactly what happens every single time somebody does this. -- Triacom (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure is! Anywho, sarcasm loses good faith argumentation, begone!

I'd argue replacing the page with resources is a better use of the page, not vandalism.

Although I will quit it with the personal page shit. ;)

I used sarcasm because you never came in with good faith; you started guns blazing and expect people to side with you immediately. And when confronted and you had your changes reverted, you chose not only to start an edit war, but to vandalize people's user pages. This doesn't help your case; all it does is make people frustrated and indifferent toward you. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Except that's not what you're doing. You're painting a target on the organizations you're asking people to use since this wiki is frequented by people from 4chan, do you want them to think it's a good idea to fuck with the people on the other ends of the numbers you post? -- Triacom (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are fair points! Like... Here's the thing, Elf. Kidding aside, no shit, no joke. I'll legit try to have a reasonable debate with you on the talk page, if we agree to at least try to keep it A. Civil and B. Rational debate (as in we can argue our opponent's logic or reasoning is fallacious, call out shit like that).

I further offer we slap a "under construction" on the page while we chat, so that the status quo is balanced during the talks.

Sound fair?

If you were interested in doing that you wouldn't have avoided discussing the issue by going "LOL" and then ignoring what I wrote. You also wouldn't have vandalized user pages, or called people rape apologists. Furthermore you would not be trying to blank the page while making the "offer" that we blank the page while we talk. Despite what you say, you're trying to force other people into doing what you want against their will. -- Triacom (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm offering it now. The user pages was shit behavior, and yeah, the apologist thing is fallacious. Or we can keep undoing the edits all night til someone goes to sleep, then again in the morning. And the next day, etc.

Great, so what placeholder would you recommend while we chat?

I'm offering a ceasefire, in effect, including an apology for my previous transgressions, and asking for the concession of "put something up other than the shitty offensive crap page while we debate the need for said page to exist".

We don't use a placeholder. If we think you have a point, we'll change it. As of yet you haven't made a point, I've posted a number of points you've yet to respond to, and until you do that I don't believe you're interested in a discussion. Furthermore your behaviour has been shitty, as even you point out, you're in no position to ask for any concession after you spend a night vandalizing people's user pages. -- Triacom (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to keep re-editing then, but I'll chat here. *shrug* So the thing is, context of language matters. Do you genuinely think that in modern common discourse, "Rape" is usable as a verb without connotations of sexual assault?

Using it in a hyperlink while hiding the word directly is not modern common discourse, so that's irrelevant. In that context, yes it's possible to use the verb without connotations of sexual assault, since nobody is going to think the dice rolled into your ass. You still haven't responded to the points I made above, or addressed the addition to the main page. Also for somebody who's so against the use of the term, you sure are happy trying to force other people into doing what you want against their will. -- Triacom (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The "nobody will think your dice rolled into your ass", that's not the point, that's a straw argument. My argument is that you're harming your local environment and the gaming community as a whole with the use of "Rape" as a descriptive verb. I'll expound shortly.

It's the context that you're ignoring, not a strawman. The context is that you're playing a tabletop game. As I've said, the use as a link prevents it from being used in common parlance, whereas attempting to remove it will make sure it absolutely is used -- Triacom (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You had mentioned the escalation argument-by editing the page, I'll incite people who use "Rape" as a verb/synonym for "destroy" to act out. Any escalation, morally, is on them. I don't see the status quo of "using rape as a verb etc etc", which this page irrefutably furthers, as acceptable. Anywho, my turn to re-edit, talk to you in a sec.

You're annoying people, not inciting them. You're also making things worse as the community of trolls that likes to visit this wiki is going to see the numbers for help centers you post, and what do you think they're going to do with that knowledge? -- Triacom (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I'm editing the page and asserting my will that way, but that's the process there for you. I could just as easily argue you're forcing your will by refusing my edits, it's a subjective argument.

No, it's not the process, the process if a page is contested is to go to the talk page and convince people that your edit is the right one. It's what's always happened in the past, and it's how we also got pedophilic content kicked off the wiki, to the point that shit's no longer tolerated. Also you still haven't addressed any points made against you, or the addition to the main page. One more thing, the fact that you continue to edit the page and refuse to make any sort of discussion proves you don't actually want to talk. If you did you would've done so by now. -- Triacom (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Comparing adding new things to a page or reverting changes to blanking a page without warning is a false equivalency. It's honestly surprising that you haven't noticed or considered that fact. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

So this keeps getting cut off by successive edits, but you made a fair point, shitty behavior could have been saved til after trying to process, and I was a prick about it. But I'm good with the update, plus a link to the resources (not the whole page text thing)

I legit apologize for A. Not trying the system first, B, the personal page shit/personal attacks, and C, the blanking rather than rewriting. I was a prick about it, and unnecessarily.

Fine. If you want to put a link to the resources, do not post the number. I'm dead serious about that, and I hope by this point you get why, those centers do not need trolls from 4chan calling them because somebody wasn't listening when they were told over and over again that would happen. If you want the number here, then post a link to the phone number, so the number can be found by going to this page, but isn't shown directly on the page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just posted the link. And deleted the elf slave picture.

I saw him posting about how he was going to vandalize the page on Facebook Plenty of people told him to try and talk to the people here Some people won’t learn Some people don’t want to learn

I’m sure he is off to go and piss off more people, he was literally posting about how he was trolling... I would suggest blocking his IP from editing.

I mean I wasn't, I meant what I said both when I said this page is/was unneccesary, and that yeah, I acted like a prick for no reason, especially without, yknow, trying the reasonable approach *first*. Don't blame you for not believing me, but hey, I haven't fucked with the editing any further yet (besides keeping the RAINN exit link and removing the edit war tag), and I have no current plans to. Again, my bad.

Given the usual troll tactic (if they don't double down) is to try and weasel out of consequences...I doubt I'm the only one who doesn't believe this crappy 'apology'. -- 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, we shouldn't be appeasing a troll by letting him add his crappy links. Even wikipedia, of all websites, has a policy against advertising/being a helpline. And in this case no one is going to 1d4chan for rape helplines. -- 05:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If it stops them from vandalizing the main page again I'll settle for that. I've also warned them many times about why they shouldn't put up the helpline. -- Triacom (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I feel like this is a really bad idea. What stops trolls from vandalising first and then 'compromising' with what they really wanted, then? -- 05:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that this isn't really a compromise. The page is still left as it was, with one inclusion from a different user, and then a link from the anon. There wasn't a compromise asking for the page to stay up if the number was included, and if we look at this as a compromise, then every page being edited by multiple users would be a compromise instead of a page growing organically. -- Triacom (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
True, I was probably over reacting a bit. I do still think the anon needs a warning ban for defaulting to vandalism, but that would require Root to give a shit. -- 05:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

He is talking about doing it again on facebook, he has already labelled a few articles as being next on his chopping block... you can't trust him.

Thankfully, I have all day today. Let him come. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
One, please sign your posts, anon. Two, please provide sauce, so we know which articles to watch for his bollocks. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah Anon maybe give us a screenshot of it. With his account blurred though, we don’t want him getting doxxed, no matter how much of a twat he is. CoolGuy99 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I add back the "In recent years..." and "So keep in mind.." paragraphs as they act as a fairly good disclaimer IMO and in the right place--Because (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

We already have enough disclaiming. As we are not actively telling people to go out and Rape, the article is largely fine. We just need to ignore the trolls. The page is fine as is.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I feel the older wording does a better job of succinctly summarising the current view on it all than the "tepid defence element" (not that I have any issues with the inclusion of that too). This isn't about feeding the trolls I think it's worth keeping the page for all the reasons listed above and don't agree with the stupidity on the recent idiot's edit war, but I do strongly agree with the sentiment of those two paragraphs and would like to see them kept.--Because (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Because, the "in recent years" bit was a good addition without being preachy. -- Triacom (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree that the "recent view" bits should be re-instated for the reasons listed above. The link, on the other hand, I don't really care for including. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What Ow, My Sanity said. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above support I'm going to add the paragraphs back in thanks all.--Because (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like including the two paragraphs as they were before would be better than what we currently have. -- Triacom (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Obviously enough I agree with you, but Nubnuber had other ideas. Still it's obviously a skubby issue and Nubnuber's change goes someway to showing that. I'd be happy to put them back again, but wasn't sure if it was worth letting it lie, at least until the originial idiot has been banned as it makes it harder for people to know what to restore.--Because (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much stock in what Nubnuber thinks is "holier-than-though preachiness", seeing as how they thought it was wrong to remove art of kids being fucked from the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
How about you actually put up an argument against what I wrote instead of ad hominem attacks against me personally?--Nubnuber (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Couldn't respond to this for the longest time because the wiki was down, but there are no arguments for or against what's on this page beyond personal feelings Nubnuber. -- Triacom (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see we've now moved on to projection. If you truly don't have an argument to present and have only come here to pester me, please fuck off and go edit some tactics page.--Nubnuber (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Nubnuber, that's not projection. Pointing out that the only arguments that can be made for or against stuff on the page are emotional ones is nowhere near any definition of projection. -- Triacom (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Reworded it to be more neutral and less preachy. Because what we had before was baity as hell. Also, if you seriously believe no one on /tg/ says this anymore, you must not have been on /tg/ in a while. I guarantee you this will stop the poltards.--Nubnuber (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Really, Nub-fucker? I can get the 'people still use it on tg' part due to this being 4chan, but everything else you wrote there is baity as all hell. Also 'it'll stop the /pol/tards?' Come the fuck off it. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate? Why would it not stop the poltards, and how is it any more baity than what we had up there before? It's either this or get rid of this paragraph all together--Nubnuber (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
To start with, your edit implicitly brushes off anyone who has issues with this slang as a SJW (as opposed to simply not wanting the controversy that comes with the word) and is generally a good deal more partisan than the (formerly) relatively neutral summary (see: labelling anyone's issues with this 'butthurt' and the SJW thing, vs. the 'past is the past' attitude of the previous); while I can agree that the previous is a little preachy, that preachiness isn't bait as much as it is a reflection of current attitudes outside 4chan and something that helps keep the trolls away. Your revision is bait for Tumblrtards and trolls like the asshole from a few weeks back. Second, consider that /pol/tards will probably see this as validating/encouraging their BS views about how people who disagree with using this word/showing common fucking courtesy are all SJWs, snowflakes, and the like. Third: nice 'it's my way or the high way' there, casually ignoring that the reason we put the paragraphs there was to deal with this kind of controversy. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
This paragraph is specifically inviting the type of controversy you claim to want to avoid. Also, the word is clearly Not a relic of the past if people are still using it on 4chan. And this is a 4chan wiki. It is implying that anyone who uses the word rape is a morally objectionable person, which is language policing and is very fucking baity and preachy as hell. It's not "common courtesy" its puritianical censorship and shaming. Using "naughty words" is not a pol-position, being a fucking racist nazi is a pol-position.--Nubnuber (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I was not trying to imply that using 'naughty words' is enough to make you a /pol/tard. There's a difference between language policing and not being an arsehole, and if you think that showing basic decency by not using this term in general, non-/tg/ company is 'puritanical censorship', then I must truly wonder how thin your skin is. Considering that this discussion seems to be going nowhere, I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with you and leave what may come up to the community. Also, sign your post. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
You just proved what I said. The paragraph is saying that anyone who uses the word rape is automatically an asshole and an indecent human being.--Nubnuber (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
While I appreciate your invite to add my two cents and your open disposition, Nubnuber, I want you to know that you're not going to like what I have to say. I care not about all this drama, and I give even less of a fuck about this goddamned edit war over a page about sexual assault in a wiki about tabletop games from the perspective of the users of a canadian linen sewing forum. But I will say something, and that is that most editors on this wiki have lost the perspective of the average anon at /tg/, completely disconnected from the board that gave birth to this site; you've spent so much time here huffing up your own farts that you're completely lost on a power trip from which there is no escape. You don't give a fuck about the use the average anon might make of the word "rape", you only care about the page showing YOUR opinions, and it is telling that you're all looking for approval in this fucking hugbox you've been building throughout the years and once you have it you call it "consensus". And now you're using the situation provoked by a troll (who could very well be a sock puppet used by someone around here) to "compromise" and "adapt" this article without further argument other than its past state was offensive and that it gave tabletop gamers a bad image. That is bullshit and you know it. But you don't care, and neither do I, so I will stop writing in this damned page, and you'll do whatever the fuck you want just as you've always done. PS: Fuck you Saarlacfunkel, you piece of shit, it's fucking rich seeing a wikipedo calling others incels. --Javatix (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about the average anon at /tg/, then let's talk about them. I was on /tg/ quite a bit when the wiki was down, mostly on the Horus Heresy threads, and funnily enough I recall seeing the word 'rape' perhaps twice in several weeks. Most anons don't seem to care for it. -- Triacom (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
So you came in here and proved Javatix right in an attempt to prove him wrong? Wow, you are really bad at arguing.--Nubnuber (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Having thought a good bit more on this while the wiki was down, I admit I seriously overreacted the first time around and am sorry about that shitshow. I feel the page is okay as it is currently, with the moralfagging on both sides relegated to the 'tepid criticism' section as opposed to half the initial summary banging on about how it's a shitty term and shouldn't be used. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure you know what Javatix was arguing about Nubnuber, because they weren't arguing we spend too much time on /tg/ and generally know how conversations there go. -- Triacom (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear about my "Tepid defense"[edit]

It's intended as a way to diffuse some of the moralfagging. If there's something wrong with the section as written, I'm willing to take that on board, but the point is more to explain the reasons why it's such a tempting metaphor for such situations. I'll admit, "TRLP" is probably not the best name for the phenomena in question, but it was the best I could come up with, while not using the word "Rape" directly, and I'm probably missing a few temptations. Any other problems, or suggestions for fixing the current problems? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Rape is in big bold letters at the top of the page. You aren't sparing anyone a triggering by censoring it at the bottom of the page.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)