PDA

View Full Version : Question: What are the rules for censor bypass?


Stratos99
October 20th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Are we allowed to swear if we know how to get past the filters? I wouldn't mind figuring out how to bypass if we're allowed to, I saw a moderator doing it so I just thought I'd ask.

countryemo
October 20th, 2010, 03:36 PM
Ofcoarse not! Thats why its blocked, because your not suppossed to.

Stratos99
October 20th, 2010, 03:42 PM
Thank you for the insight, countryemo! Though your answer leaves me with one question yet to be answered!

Timbjerr
October 20th, 2010, 03:48 PM
The rule is simple. If it's on PC's word filter, let PC render it as ****. Trying to get around it by editing your post to say d**n or h3ll or something along those lines is against the rules.

As to the moderator you witnessed doing it, I'd have to ask him/her about it, and maybe go over their heads to the H-staff if it offended you or something. :/

Alli
October 20th, 2010, 07:00 PM
It also depends on the mod who sees it. For instance, if I see a **** in a post in the context that the f-bomb would be used it, I warn/infract for it. I consider that all as trying to bypass the censor, and when it's 4 *'s, one can only assume the worst of the swears.

About that staffer that used it, you could report them. :/ I don't know who did do it though, but yeah. You might wanna bring that into higher staff attention. It's not a major offense, but it's still weird to see moderators breaking the rules that they enforce.

FreakyLocz14
October 20th, 2010, 07:04 PM
I just got infracted for that not too long ago. So be careful that your posts are at least 4 words and 25 characters unless you are in an area that specifically exempts your from that rule. And as I learned the hard way, the words in links don't count towards the 4 word limit.

And it clearly says that "changing a part of a swear word so that the word isn't filtered but the original word is implied" is against the rules.

poopnoodle
October 20th, 2010, 07:10 PM
It's not a major offense, but it's still weird to see moderators breaking the rules that they enforce.

i agree. i was infracted by the moderator stratos is speaking of for censor bypassing on vms, and this same moderator is publishing the 's' word in a thread (which obviously gets more exposure than VMs in someone's profile). i don't have a problem with the 'offense' itself, but the hypocrisy seems a little unfair :I

Ursula
October 20th, 2010, 08:23 PM
It also depends on the mod who sees it. For instance, if I see a **** in a post in the context that the f-bomb would be used it, I warn/infract for it. I consider that all as trying to bypass the censor, and when it's 4 *'s, one can only assume the worst of the swears.

About that staffer that used it, you could report them. :/ I don't know who did do it though, but yeah. You might wanna bring that into higher staff attention. It's not a major offense, but it's still weird to see moderators breaking the rules that they enforce.
oO; I always assumed that if it was completely censored by the filter, then . . no bypass occurred. I mean, that's what we have it for. Why would you warn/infract for that? I mean, it seems kind of redundant. I mean, tsk tsk, they used the bad word, but it was filtered and therefore censored. It's not that big of a deal to where that would deserve a warning/infraction . . . albeit, it really depends on the context.

Alli
October 20th, 2010, 09:20 PM
oO; I always assumed that if it was completely censored by the filter, then . . no bypass occurred. I mean, that's what we have it for. Why would you warn/infract for that? I mean, it seems kind of redundant. I mean, tsk tsk, they used the bad word, but it was filtered and therefore censored. It's not that big of a deal to where that would deserve a warning/infraction . . . albeit, it really depends on the context.

Not every offense I see for it do I infract, and it's only when it's in the context of being one of the more naughty words, like F or S. And usually when I see it, people think they're being clever by having the first letter of the word followed by *'s.

Melody
October 20th, 2010, 09:25 PM
I'll have to agree with Erik there...it's too harsh to warn or infract if the user lets the censors do it's job and leave the word bleeped out fully as asterisks. If Steve really intended to hide the word being used, he would have used a fixed length censor for each word (such as <censored> or something similar) As such...if you do not circumvent the censor to make the original word obvious, then it is no issue unless your post is obviously laced with little 4&5 asterisk words with context that strongly suggests you're cussing someone out or using the words in a blatantly insulting manner.

Swearing as a means to express intense emotion is not uncommon, and should not be punished. The censor bypass rule is there to protect the censors and save Steve from having to play 20 questions by guessing every possible variant of a word that could be used to bypass the censor. Still, if the context of the word is not insulting, is it really necessary to go beyond an official or verbal warning?
(Obviously pardoning the repeat offender from this protection)

Alli
October 20th, 2010, 09:42 PM
I'll have to agree with Erik there...it's too harsh to warn or infract if the user lets the censors do it's job and leave the word bleeped out fully as asterisks. If Steve really intended to hide the word being used, he would have used a fixed length censor for each word (such as <censored> or something similar) As such...if you do not circumvent the censor to make the original word obvious, then it is no issue unless your post is obviously laced with little 4&5 asterisk words with context that strongly suggests you're cussing someone out or using the words in a blatantly insulting manner.

Go back and read my other post, dude. I don't infract as much as I do warn. A warning for swearing is not bad at all, especially since half the time, I'm just saying "hey man chill" without even using the infraction type warnings. And the swears I usually run into are in those "lol this generation sucks" thread and people are just constantly flaming. Granted, that thread was just closed because of the nonsense. But I digress!

Swearing as a means to express intense emotion is not uncommon, and should not be punished. The censor bypass rule is there to protect the censors and save Steve from having to play 20 questions by guessing every possible variant of a word that could be used to bypass the censor. Still, if the context of the word is not insulting, is it really necessary to go beyond an official or verbal warning?
(Obviously pardoning the repeat offender from this protection)

It's still something not everyone wants to read/see/etc. There aren't just a bunch of people that are 15+ years of age here. I have seen people running around sporting a nice 8 or 9 years as their age. Lying or not, it should still be considered. And we don't know what they hear at home either. Why should we be the first to drop all the swears on them? And then there's those that are offended by such words.

Sora's Nobody
October 21st, 2010, 02:35 AM
What about only infracting swears which are addressed at somebody? I mean anybody can want to let off some steam once in a while. And so long as it isnt meant to be mean to anybody. I mean i see some words which should be censored, But i mean a word like <censored 4-letter word> is as common and accepted in ALOT of country's as Door or Car.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 21st, 2010, 03:56 AM
Swearing as a means to express intense emotion is not uncommon, and should not be punished. The censor bypass rule is there to protect the censors and save Steve from having to play 20 questions by guessing every possible variant of a word that could be used to bypass the censor. Still, if the context of the word is not insulting, is it really necessary to go beyond an official or verbal warning?
(Obviously pardoning the repeat offender from this protection)
I agree. The actual rule itself... there's a gray line between what's okay and what isn't - one that I think should be filled, but it's entirely too difficult to do so.

The way people handle this one is entirely different than others. Whenever I see asterisks, I don't do anything unless it's aimed at someone in a degrading manner. If people use it, as you said, to express emotion, and aren't aiming it at anyone, to me it's not that big of a deal. I've always looked at that rule as... if someone actually attempts to bypass it and, like Sydian said, wants to be clever and put the first letter of the word in there - regardless of the context used, they bypassed the censor. That's what the infraction for, in my opinion. The censor's there for a reason. As long as it's censored and not used in an offensive manner, I don't care if people curse. I don't think people should be punished for doing so, either. Not unless it's offensive and disrespectful to a person.

Buuut, since different staff members handle it differently - some infract even with the censor - I'd be very careful... I mean, you can already see a difference in handling it already from just reading this thread.

Melody
October 21st, 2010, 04:37 AM
That's why I'm not particularly pleased with that. There really ought to be a uniform rule for staff to enforce...and I really think that infracting the user if they did not bypass the censors, an infraction is just draconian and abusive.
(obviously this doesn't apply to common-sense infractions because the post is just littered with 4&5 asterisk words or is otherwise flamebating...but for one word it is inappropriate to infract.)

Archer
October 21st, 2010, 04:50 AM
Buuut, since different staff members handle it differently - some infract even with the censor - I'd be very careful... I mean, you can already see a difference in handling it already from just reading this thread.
That's an issue that I think needs to be looked into. I'm not suggesting what should be done either way, but it needs to be consistent, nevertheless.

That said,I think it's important to get an idea of what the general community thinks for the staff to take into account, so: I don't like the idea of infractions when a word is starred out. Providing the user doesn't try to bypass the censor or swear excessively, I think the censor serves its purpose.

Going against the idea of consistency, it may actually depend more on the section than the staff member, purely due to the respective audience. I think that swearing in "younger" sections, such as B/W, is totally inappropriate. On the other hand, in Strategies and Movesets or the Computers and Technology, people can let fly without offending anyone, because the average user is a lot older. I'm not justifying it, by any means.

tl;dr version: I don't think starred out words should be infracted, assuming there is no bypassing.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 21st, 2010, 05:15 AM
Going against the idea of consistency, it may actually depend more on the section than the staff member, purely due to the respective audience. I think that swearing in "younger" sections, such as B/W, is totally inappropriate. On the other hand, in Strategies and Movesets or the Computers and Technology, people can let fly without offending anyone, because the average user is a lot older. I'm not justifying it, by any means.
I don't think sections should determine the level of severity swearing serves. Regulars may be an older age in more seemingly mature forums, but young users still browse those forums as well as young guests. That should be taken into account for the entire community.

But I do agree that some consistency within the actions taken by the staff against matters like that should be established.

poopnoodle
October 21st, 2010, 05:43 AM
I agree. The actual rule itself... there's a gray line between what's okay and what isn't - one that I think should be filled, but it's entirely too difficult to do so.

The way people handle this one is entirely different than others. Whenever I see asterisks, I don't do anything unless it's aimed at someone in a degrading manner. If people use it, as you said, to express emotion, and aren't aiming it at anyone, to me it's not that big of a deal. I've always looked at that rule as... if someone actually attempts to bypass it and, like Sydian said, wants to be clever and put the first letter of the word in there - regardless of the context used, they bypassed the censor. That's what the infraction for, in my opinion. The censor's there for a reason. As long as it's censored and not used in an offensive manner, I don't care if people curse. I don't think people should be punished for doing so, either. Not unless it's offensive and disrespectful to a person.

was this an accident or did you go out of your way to break the rules you enforce?

don't view spoiler below if you're sensitive to profanity.
http://i55.tinypic.com/27xl7i0.png

this particularly irks me because i was infracted by you for using a word some people may be sensitive to. if your judgment entirely depends on context, my infraction is unjustified.

i'm in full agreement with Pachy, i don't think this issue has that much grey area, there's either a cuss-word there or there's not and if someone's not literally bypassing censors, they're not breaking those rules...i see no reason grounds for dealing with cuss words can't be agreed on so it's handled fairly. being generally disrespectful, cuss words or not, is a different matter and i can see the subjectivity in handling that sort of thing.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 21st, 2010, 05:54 AM
this particularly irks me because i was infracted by you for using a word some people may be sensitive to. if your judgment entirely depends on context, my infraction is unjustified.
Infracting someone for calling someone else the c word isn't an unjustified infraction.

poopnoodle
October 21st, 2010, 05:58 AM
Infracting someone for calling someone else the c word isn't an unjustified infraction.

there was no context. i didn't call anyone anything, for all you know i was simply referring to the noun. it was in good fun, i meant no disrespect to the person i was talking to and they were not offended.

this is why


i'm in full agreement with Pachy, i don't think this issue has that much grey area, there's either a cuss-word there or there's not and if someone's not literally bypassing censors, they're not breaking those rules...i see no reason grounds for dealing with cuss words can't be agreed on so it's handled fairly. being generally disrespectful, cuss words or not, is a different matter and i can see the subjectivity in handling that sort of thing. and this should apply to staff as well. im not trying to justify my using profanity. in fact, i believe i deserved that infraction because i broke the rules- i'm just promoting fairness in handling the situation, and this is definitely not the first time i've seen staff censor-bypass on the forum.

Platinum Lucario
October 21st, 2010, 06:46 AM
Stratos99, unfortunately there is no way of getting past the filters, if any moderator caught you trying to bypass the censors, they would indeed warn or infract you. And if Moderators are able to do it... then it could be possible that the censoring doesn't apply to the usergroups that are staff, because they probably have to explain to the members.

Even though I assume alot of people at any age are either sensitive or used to swearing, so I've heard that some Moderators have been infracting people for just swearing when it's actually censored out, sounds pretty unfair, doesn't it eh?

Some of the younger aged kids that come on The PokéCommunity Forums really don't mind any of the swearing on the forum, however... from my experience... I've realized that it's only their parents that get offended by it, and in which the child also gets sensitive to the words as well.

So I'd have to say... as long as the words are censored... I'm sure it would be unnessisary for Moderators to infract users just for a "censor bypass" because it isn't breaking the rules at all.

I'm now beginning to think... what if we had a feature people could turn on in their User CP that would censor out words? Or even be able to display the censored words?
Wouldn't that be a good idea? Then I'm sure alot of people would be able to choose if they wish to hide the innopropiate words or not.

poopnoodle
October 21st, 2010, 07:05 AM
I'm now beginning to think... what if we had a feature people could turn on in their User CP that would censor out words? Or even be able to display the censored words?
Wouldn't that be a good idea? Then I'm sure alot of people would be able to choose if they wish to hide the innopropiate words or not.
urrrm this would be a reasonable idea since profanity isn't inherently derogatory so not everyone takes offense but there will always be people who do take offense despite the context. (but only if by default cuss words were censored, i can see guests and new members determining whether or not they want to join/stay, seeing profanity all over the place because they're unaware of the settings may repel them.) still complications would arise, people posting pictures bypassing the censors (which warranted my infraction teehee) and penalty would depend on personal judgment of whichever staff member sees it first, it'd be difficult to implement a solid/fair rule that caters to both people who don't mind profanity and people who take offense to it.

but expletives are not necessary to use to get your point across in discussion, so i say if you don't mind them then use them in private and not on a public forum.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 21st, 2010, 07:14 AM
I think that's the main problem. What's offensive to one person may not be offensive to the next, and I'm sure if cursing as a whole was banned completely that would likely cause a few problems here and there for the people who don't have any problem with cursing.

The idea to make the censorship of curse words user set seems logical at first, but thinking about all the side effects from it make it really difficult to really deal with. I think that's the main reason there isn't a real set way to deal with it because even with staff members things are dealt with in different ways because of that. Especially with the fact that how serious of a rule the staff member considers the rule to be determines how they act on it a great deal. I mean, there are a lot of forum-specific rules that are enforced that I don't really agree with being punishable (ex: in the RP forum, there's an infraction for a post being too short) so it's hard for me to just infract a user for doing something I don't myself consider to be serious.

Cassino
October 21st, 2010, 07:41 AM
I'm sure if cursing as a whole was banned completely that would likely cause a few problems here and there for the people who don't have any problem with cursing.
It already is; quoth the rules: It is not permitted to swear on the community
And it mentions no permissible context.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 21st, 2010, 07:45 AM
It already is; quoth the rules: It is not permitted to swear on the community
And it mentions no permissible context.
That brings about the typical "so and so isn't a curse word!" argument. I've read a few threads in the HQ, and even some higher higher staff members have a hard time deciding if a word should count as a swear or not. There are some words that are censored that make me o___O because I never considered them to be a swear word beforehand.

Platinum Lucario
October 21st, 2010, 07:50 AM
It already is; quoth the rules: It is not permitted to swear on the community
And it mentions no permissible context.

Indeed there is, but we're actually talking about how they infract users even if the word is censored and the person didn't bypass it.

Which would indeed... feel unfair.

poopnoodle
October 21st, 2010, 08:07 AM
That brings about the typical "so and so isn't a curse word!" argument. I've read a few threads in the HQ, and even some higher higher staff members have a hard time deciding if a word should count as a swear or not. ass and dick and p0ll0ck, for instance? the thing about those is that it's entirely the context in which they're used that determines whether or not they're offensive, and it's easy to pick out whether someone means "ass" insultingly or "ass" as simply referring to the noun. "harsher" words are deemed profane no matter what the context is because they aren't widely agreed upon as synonyms for perfectly decent and commonly used terms, and you have to consider what's necessary for public use. i would be more concerned if it seemed a sizable abundance of people showed sensitivity to those words seen as "lighter," but if it's just a few people complaining i don't see why those words shouldn't be left alone and the users told to, quite bluntly, disregard. :I

as for ambiguous harsher words, i can see some of the uncertainty in penalizing users who used the word in entirely innocent context, and that's where staff intuition comes in. however, i don't see setting the parameters of what are and aren't cuss words to be a staff priority :X seeing as situations like this aren't commonplace.

Cassino
October 21st, 2010, 08:46 AM
That brings about the typical "so and so isn't a curse word!" argument. I've read a few threads in the HQ, and even some higher higher staff members have a hard time deciding if a word should count as a swear or not. There are some words that are censored that make me o___O because I never considered them to be a swear word beforehand.
Simple — I recall Rukario once said, if it's not censored anyway, it's not breaking the rules.
Words may be added to the list in response to word misuse but I don't suppose there should necessarily be any retroactive infractions. For the purposes of rule enforcement, only those on the list (and variants of the same word) need be swear words, and the rest not; no argument necessary.

A ruleset should ideally be consistent and extensive enough for no discord in judgement to occur, no? It is often said that the staff here act on their own discretion, but they shouldn't have to as much as they yet do.


p0ll0ck, for instance?.
Isn't that a mis-spelling of 'pillock'?

poopnoodle
October 21st, 2010, 08:58 AM
i think it's a racist term against Polish people. i heard it in a play once, idk, but i dont think it's commonly used xD

Kura
October 21st, 2010, 11:12 AM
@_@ I just find it weird that "P0ll0ck" is censored.. yet it is the name of a type of fish and the last name of quite a famous person. And.. when is the derogatory statement actually used to merit a censor.

Should Wap, Wasp, Nigro, and etc all be censored, too?

And why is it censored if the word "Dick" isn't?


Edit: :/ Oh snap, this was just commented on.. lol..

Ursula
October 21st, 2010, 11:32 AM
Personally, I think it all depends on the context it's used in. I mean, if it's used to emphasize something, and it's censored, then it's fine.

Example: Possibly offensive statement hidden~
Holy ****! This game is ****ing awesome!

However, if it's used negatively, then obviously it should be warned/et cetera. It's about using discretion.

Example: Possible offensive statement hidden~
What the **** are you doing?

I mean, it's just a matter of context of it being used. I mean, if it's being over used . . then it's just in bad taste. It's like - an expletive is used to add emphasis to a statement; when overused, it loses its emphasis and therefore just becomes a redundancy.

On the other hand of the issue, one can effectively say things without needing expletives.

Example:
Holy cow! This game is really awesome!
It basically gives the same message, and kind of makes the usage of the expletives lazy and unnecessary.
So, they could be avoided. Personally, I don't really like seeing a bunch of asterisks when reading a post; it simply looks tacky. Yet, the entire reason we have the filter system is so people who wish not to see the expletive do not have to.

So, yeah. I think that context should be used in regards to it; if it's not in a negative view, then it's not that big of a deal. If it is, a nice warning would suffice. ^-^;

However, I don't think that we should have staff bypassing the filter. It looks bad on their part regardless of what it was used in. There's always an alternative way to convey a message. :D

JakeyBoy
October 21st, 2010, 11:49 AM
However, if it's used negatively, then obviously it should be warned/et cetera. It's about using discretion.

Example: Possible offensive statement hidden~
What the **** are you doing?


That one could be considered a different rule though - no flaming. It's using the words in a derogatory manner. Have I linked to this Tim Minchin but before? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fjaMd3Wl34#t=0m50s) I think I might have, might have been on the IRC. Has swears, obviously. Pretty much sums this up: If you are swearing for exaggeration or humour or something, it should be fine. But using it as an offensive term could probably be punishable.

But, on the other hand, it's pretty easy to offend someone without swears, and you could argue you'd only be using swears for emphasis.

Stratos99
October 21st, 2010, 02:35 PM
I don't see why you have them. You're not really protecting anybody under your "jurisdiction", according to coppa you have to be at least 13 years old to be posting on message boards. Anybody breaking this rule should have to put up with any profanity they come across, and anybody that is 13 years old would have to be really sheltered to have not already come across a swear word. It would take all of five minutes to implement an option whether or not to choose censorship though, for those people who find swearing distasteful for whatever reason.

Archer
October 21st, 2010, 02:59 PM
Pretty much sums this up: If you are swearing for exaggeration or humour or something, it should be fine. But using it as an offensive term could probably be punishable.

There's a simple way to look at that. Do not infract for swearing, but infract for flaming.

I don't see why you have them. You're not really protecting anybody under your "jurisdiction", according to coppa you have to be at least 13 years old to be posting on message boards. Anybody breaking this rule should have to put up with any profanity they come across, and anybody that is 13 years old would have to be really sheltered to have not already come across a swear word. It would take all of five minutes to implement an option whether or not to choose censorship though, for those people who find swearing distasteful for whatever reason.
The presence of the censor is not up for debate. It's an established value on PC and it discourages the use of profanity.

Stratos99
October 21st, 2010, 03:29 PM
The presence of the censor is not up for debate. Thanks Archer, I didn't know you and the staff were in cahoots when it came to staff related matters. Yeah you might share the same opinion but you should probably let them say it for themselves. Who knows if you do, though.

o0PinkSquid0o
October 21st, 2010, 03:55 PM
I kinda don't understand what the issue is. I don't see anything wrong with censoring out swears, I do see an issue if people get infracted for swearing when its not directed at someone.

I also see an issue with staff making rules that aren't even followed by the staff themselves.

I think just stick to the censor rules but the warning/infraction rule for swears that aren't aimed at people specifically should be re-looked at.

anyway just wanted to add my two cents :)

Archer
October 21st, 2010, 06:24 PM
The presence of the censor is not up for debate. It's an established value on PC and it discourages the use of profanity.

Thanks Archer, I didn't know you and the staff were in cahoots when it came to staff related matters. Yeah you might share the same opinion but you should probably let them say it for themselves. Who knows if you do, though.
There's nothing to stop them saying the same thing, it doesn't mean I have to wait for them to do so. I mentioned this for two reasons: firstly, it's how things have always been and I strongly support the censor, secondly, the thread is about the rules surrounding the censor. The minute you start challenging its existence, we'll lose what is an important discussion for most likely a rejection of the idea and a closed thread. I am fully aware that you started this thread, but a deviation will kill it.

Sorry to be so blunt, if I came across that way.

Ursula
October 21st, 2010, 09:28 PM
Thanks Archer, I didn't know you and the staff were in cahoots when it came to staff related matters. Yeah you might share the same opinion but you should probably let them say it for themselves. Who knows if you do, though.
Well, it's why we have the censor, so . . and, you can be above 13 and choose not to want to be around profanity. And, some people have crazy parents who like to think that their kids (over the age of 13) don't see any profanity . . at least, I know that was the case with my parents.

Plus, like I said, you don't HAVE to use an expletive; ergo, if you can't think of a better way to word a sentence, you clearly fail at grammar. ;)

Melody
October 22nd, 2010, 02:02 AM
I don't see why you have them. You're not really protecting anybody under your "jurisdiction", according to coppa you have to be at least 13 years old to be posting on message boards. Anybody breaking this rule should have to put up with any profanity they come across, and anybody that is 13 years old would have to be really sheltered to have not already come across a swear word. It would take all of five minutes to implement an option whether or not to choose censorship though, for those people who find swearing distasteful for whatever reason.

COPPA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It no longer applies.

Well, it's why we have the censor, so . . and, you can be above 13 and choose not to want to be around profanity. And, some people have crazy parents who like to think that their kids (over the age of 13) don't see any profanity . . at least, I know that was the case with my parents.

Plus, like I said, you don't HAVE to use an expletive; ergo, if you can't think of a better way to word a sentence, you clearly fail at grammar. ;)

I agree, you can avoid usage of profanity relatively easily if you just let your vocabulary grow. I find innovative ways to avoid swearing all the time.

Still, people do let these words slip, and these little slips should be left unpunished as long as they are not bypassing the censor...because that's what the censor is for...to block out the little slips and discourage swearing in the first place.

Massacre.
October 22nd, 2010, 04:42 PM
If some words considered "swear words" are uncensored (such as damn or hell) then they should be censored as well. But the awful ones are usually censored, but why are some of the less offensive ones NOT censored? Seriously though, there should not be exceptions. Either keep it this way, or censor everything, or uncensor everything. This really confuses me.

Archer
October 25th, 2010, 01:52 AM
If some words considered "swear words" are uncensored (such as damn or hell) then they should be censored as well. But the awful ones are usually censored, but why are some of the less offensive ones NOT censored? Seriously though, there should not be exceptions. Either keep it this way, or censor everything, or uncensor everything. This really confuses me.
Because neither of those examples are expletives. "Damn" is a incredibly light-hearted and Hell is a mythical place. Those sort of words aren't going to push things out of a kid's rating on TV. Even words such as "bloody" are subjective between certain countries - in Australia, it's perfectly acceptable.

I don't see what the issue is. The current censor does the job, the only possible issue is the way it is handled - which doesn't really concern me.

abnegation
October 25th, 2010, 02:03 AM
It goes down to this; if the word you're trying to use is censored, don't use it or try to make the word look like the one you're trying to spell. Such as replacing s's with $'s etc.

Mainly the censor is there to prevent people from being vulgar and insulting towards others, if a member could confront another and bluntly insult them, this wouldn't be much of a community would it?

There are many other ways you can express yourself as opposed to using curse words; just don't, there isn't a need. Find a thesaurus or something, the censor is what it is for the benefit of all members, to stray away from harsh insults and vulgarity. The words we use in every day life aren't always correct, curse words being an example, and there's some less minor than others. We all know the effect outwardly insulting someone with the use of curse words can do, it's a silly question as to why you would ask they are disabled. Maybe if we were all a little more mature, and used them in context, then it would be fine, but that is most certainly wishful thinking.

Personally I see no reason for debate, there is no need to risk possible quarrels or insults by giving a member more words in which they can make their sentence more negative (not in a good way), just refrain from using them in general, if you must, just reword to something that is allowed, all you need is a little rephrasing.

The rule on censor bypass is; if you try to use a banned word, then attempt to use that same word by other means, then it is called censor bypass.

Fox♠
October 25th, 2010, 03:29 AM
I don't see why they're censored in the first place. We live in a society where these words are common volcab. and to be honest I think it's time PC got with the times and trusted it's members to swear sparingly.

Avey
October 25th, 2010, 03:53 AM
I don't see why they're censored in the first place. We live in a society where these words are common volcab. and to be honest I think it's time PC got with the times and trusted it's members to swear sparingly.

The majority of PC's memberbase are too immature to handle that. You'd see posts with no substance but vulgarity.