View Full Version : Two questions.
Aemilius Paulus
04-04-2009, 10:02
First of all, I had noticed about a week ago that the waiting time between posts had increased dramatically to 120 second I belive, or something close to it. Am I right?
Second, as Rilder, said in one of our EB Tavern chats, since .Org forbids profanity and the mods spend so much time editing it out and dishing out warnings and infractions, then why not just implement a profanity filter? Sort of like the one that prevented us from typing "TWC". I thought it was a marvellous idea but I suppose you (admin) have discussed this before, is that not right? So why did you not employ it? I hope it is not because of attempting to appear less authoritarian. Or was it the technical constraints?
Have you got any warnings lately? I think that increases the time you have to wait inbetween posting.
Hello Aemilius Paulus,
The waiting time didn't change, but it's different for some membergroups.
That would be a huge profanity filter, that would require constant updating. Apart from that, it will be a constant source of frustration: either members will find new swear words to dodge the filter or the filter will catch (part) of words that shouldn't be edited.
Right now, mods already have discussions with members about swearing (despite the rules being pretty clear about not doing it) that will just change to discussions about the words not being on the filter yet. Discussions about good posts being filtered will be added to that and those posts will become hard to read for anyone.
Yes, it's been thought about before. It seems nice at first, but it has those drawbacks.
You said it right I think: appear less authoritarian. It isn't of course, because the blacklist would 100% ban the words being blacklisted. It's also failing authority from the start, because new words will be invented.
Aemilius Paulus
04-04-2009, 10:39
I see your point, but as long as the words are made up, they are mostly harmless, right? I know it will require some efforts, but if all the common English swearwords could be entered into the profanity filter database and then a stricter rule was imposed on purposely avoiding the filter, then I do believe less profanity will be thrown around. I am not sure if the .Org members are so hellbent (is that a swear word?) on shoving profanity in their posts, even through the filter. Or are they?
Have any other sites experimented with this? Any results?
pevergreen
04-04-2009, 13:55
Ichigo is a SM? When did that happen? :confused:
Or am I way behind the times here...
Pannonian
04-04-2009, 15:59
Hello Aemilius Paulus,
The waiting time didn't change, but it's different for some membergroups.
That would be a huge profanity filter, that would require constant updating. Apart from that, it will be a constant source of frustration: either members will find new swear words to dodge the filter or the filter will catch (part) of words that shouldn't be edited.
Right now, mods already have discussions with members about swearing (despite the rules being pretty clear about not doing it) that will just change to discussions about the words not being on the filter yet. Discussions about good posts being filtered will be added to that and those posts will become hard to read for anyone.
Yes, it's been thought about before. It seems nice at first, but it has those drawbacks.
You said it right I think: appear less authoritarian. It isn't of course, because the blacklist would 100% ban the words being blacklisted. It's also failing authority from the start, because new words will be invented.
Simetrical over at TWC has a blacklist that mostly avoids the Scunthorpe problem. It replaces blacklisted terms with a wub smiley, inspired by the Org daisy.
Ichigo is a SM? When did that happen? :confused:
Or am I way behind the times here...
He was in my batch IIRC.
Banquo's Ghost
04-04-2009, 16:33
Or, of course, members could just stop swearing.
:stupido2:
Why would we need a filter?
It's not that difficult to write a post that does not contain bad language.
Ser Clegane
04-04-2009, 19:53
Or, of course, members could just stop swearing.
:stupido2:
Come on, BG, now you're just talking crazy ~;)
GeneralHankerchief
04-10-2009, 15:35
I think there's also the issue that some mods each have their own standards of decency. In the RP forums such as the Mead Hall or Throne Room, I believe the standard for language has been slightly more lax (although not too much, don't even think about trying anything in the TR :smg:) than, say, the Frontroom. Imposing a blanket ban would take away some subforum autonomy.
It's not that difficult to write a post that does not contain bad language.
Well when your so used to forums that don't really care that much what you post....
Have any other sites experimented with this? Any results?
Many have. One of the most epic fails:
Christian Site's Ban on 'G' Word Sends Homosexual to Olympics (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/christian_sites_ban_on_g_word.html)
The American Family Association obviously didn't foresee the problems that might arise with its strict policy to always replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on the Web site of its Christian news outlet, OneNewsNow. The group's automated system for changing the forbidden word wound up publishing a story about a world-class sprinter named "Tyson Homosexual" who qualified this week for the Beijing Olympics.
The problem: Tyson's real last name is Gay. Therefore, OneNewsNow's reliable software changed the Associated Press story about Tyson Gay's amazing Olympic qualifying trial to read this way:
Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.
His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing.
"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 05:09
Can I ask, who thinks the word "gay" is even offensive? It means happy. Is happiness offensive to people? Let's all be carefree, happy, and gay. The gaiety of my gayness will gayify the ungay. Gay, gay, gay. Say it with glee! There's nothing wrong with happiness! I could always replace it with a :daisy: to represent happiness and beauty. You know, in some contexts, the word Christ is offensive, as is the word God or Jehovah. But do we really want to live in a world where people get down on their knees and pray to *bleep*? That's *bleeping* :daisy:
:clown: The above post was an example of satire. No offense was intended to happy or carefree people; but then again they wouldn't mind anyway.
ATPG, at a guess I'd say that's the exact reason that site was substituting "homosexual" for "gay." Since the group has the word "family" in their name, it's safe to assume that they are opposed to all things homosexual, and they probably feel that allowing a happy word like "gay" to represent them is a Bad Thing.
Anyway, let's not get too Backroomish about this. My point was that language filters have a long and amusing history of Epic Fail. Much better to have slaves volunteers who will keep an eye on the board and help patrons with any profanity problems.
Askthepizzaguy
04-11-2009, 18:36
I hope my feeble attempts at "humor" didn't go over teh line. I was :sweatdrop: before I hit the send button...
I hope my feeble attempts at "humor" didn't go over teh line. I was :sweatdrop: before I hit the send button...
I'll [bleep] you. [Bleep], because your [bleep] illustrates why a [bleep]filter [bleeps].
:operator:
Askthepizzaguy
04-12-2009, 20:37
I'll [bleep] you. [Bleep], because your [bleep] illustrates why a [bleep]filter [bleeps].
:operator:
!!!!
I have a haiku for you, just for that. :laugh4:
When TosaInu
tells a joke, a smile for
all in this forum.
When TosaInu
tells a joke, a smile for
all in this forum.[/I]
Even my poetry can reach meagre stands but this is a whole low level :clown:
Askthepizzaguy
04-13-2009, 00:51
Even my poetry can reach meagre stands but this is a whole low level :clown:
You're familiar with haiku?
pevergreen
04-13-2009, 02:07
I'm familiar with terrible poetry, as I'm a great writer of it.
Beefy187
04-13-2009, 02:30
I was never a fan of English Haiku.. No offence.
It just sounds better in Japanese
Askthepizzaguy
04-13-2009, 02:33
I was never a fan of English Haiku.. No offence.
It just sounds better in Japanese
Dang! I'm getting NO support today except from Tosa himself. I'll slide back into my shell and hide. :clown:
:bigcry:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.