Jacob wrote:gay wrote:axes wrote:no
Jacob wrote:gay wrote:axes wrote:no
Jacob wrote:gay wrote:axes wrote:no
Wookieinmashoo wrote:-snip-
Also I think it would be better to include people who want it changed should also explain why. Having the side of people not wanting it to change explain themselves while the others don't is kinda one sided.BlossomTail wrote:It's very interesting that nobody had a problem with this name when it was first implemented. It was never mentioned for more than a decade until just recently that this was an "issue." I understand folks take offense to things others don't, but this is such a miniscule nitpick. If we changed every "problematic" situation, we'd likely have no CS at all.
I don't think anyone is actually offended. It was brought up as something to be changed and people thought the reason for it to be changed is because it's offensive. Anyone who found it actually offensive wouldn't be on the site.
Alpha_Rose wrote:I'm not religious and am not particularly interested in whether the phrase would be considered religiously offensive, but I do find the OMG So Common and OMG So Rare labels do kind of rub me the wrong way. I was thinking about this with the new rarities system, I do kind of wish those labels would be changed.
I get that the staff is trying to use 'Common' and 'Rare' as their keywords and don't want to stray too far from that, but something like 'Abundant' or 'Mythical' sounds much cleaner and more coherent than using abbreviations/internet speak.
Users browsing this forum: huskyhiccups and 3 guests