• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Suggestion: swear censors

Are you for or against the ability to toggle the swear censor?

  • For

    Votes: 79 78.2%

  • Against

    Votes: 22 21.8%
  • Total voters
    101
El Héroe Oscuro

El Héroe Oscuro

IG: elheroeoscuro
7,239
Posts
15
Years
maccrash said:
how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
Click to expand...

He's referring to it actually being coded into the system. The VB system might not be able to support such an option, which is why he said it might not be feasible to do, but that a unique coding of some sorts might be able to do the trick.
 
Livewire

Livewire

14,092
Posts
14
Years
maccrash said:
how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Think in a political subtext here.

As good of an idea as it is, thinking of an idea and physically implementing the idea are two different things. If coming up with a plug-in or bit of code to make this work is too complex or too time-consuming to do, or if there are other, more important projects being worked on at the moment, (which, there are) then this wouldn't be the most logical or most feasible thing to implement, now would it?

Also, different people are going to have different ideas about what an appropriate age would be, given PC's general PG-13 and kid-friendly atmosphere. I suggested 16 through 18 because that A, makes the most sense given those parameters, and B, it's the least controversial option, compared with 14. I mean, we could go vote in HQ with 14 as the cut-off, and at least try, but don't get your hopes up. Given the obstacles to getting that through, that also wouldn't be a very feasible option. 16-18 makes the most sense to me.
 
maccrash

maccrash

foggy notion
3,583
Posts
10
Years
Lance said:
Think in a political subtext here.

As good of an idea as it is, thinking of an idea and physically implementing the idea are two different things. If coming up with a plug-in or bit of code to make this work is too complex or too time-consuming to do, or if there are other, more important projects being worked on at the moment, (which, there are) then this wouldn't be the most logical or most feasible thing to implement, now would it?

Also, different people are going to have different ideas about what an appropriate age would be, given PC's general PG-13 and kid-friendly atmosphere. I suggested 16 through 18 because that A, makes the most sense given those parameters, and B, it's the least controversial option, compared with 14. I mean, we could go vote in HQ with 14 as the cut-off, and at least try, but don't get your hopes up. Given the obstacles to getting that through, that also wouldn't be a very feasible option. 16-18 makes the most sense to me.
Click to expand...
I've never actually been told that it would be a lot of work for this to be implemented; if so, then tell me straight out.

if it's so difficult to get the higher-ups' opinions on 14+, then go with a higher age! plus, as Mallory said above and as I've said a few other times as well, a trial run would absolutely not be detrimental to the community at all. the only hurdles to jump through with that are actually creating the damn thing. worst case scenario: you implement it, it's abused, you take it away. best case scenario: you implement it, everything goes swimmingly, everyone rallying for it is happy. this is a no-brainer, in my opinion.

seriously though, if it's THAT difficult, then tell me. but I do think this is something worth trying for.
 

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
No, because things are fine the way they are. Why change something that works? Giving people the option to swear is barbaric and damages our reputation. Censoring swear words, still means that people have an option to swear and censor it which means it's easily idenentifiable. Just keep it the way it is because it works. Changing it might complicate things, and change it for the worse.
 
maccrash

maccrash

foggy notion
3,583
Posts
10
Years
The Serious Table said:
No, because things are fine the way they are. Why change something that works? Giving people the option to swear is barbaric and damages our reputation. Censoring swear words, still means that people have an option to swear and censor it which means it's easily idenentifiable. Just keep it the way it is because it works. Changing it might complicate things, and change it for the worse.
Click to expand...
please explain to me how swearing is 'barbaric'
 

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
True, but you see the idea of swearing. Anything that is implied, will be obviously interpreted to represent whatever you imply. Making sensors a thing means that the idea of swearing is on this site which promotes profanity.
 
Mana1

Mana1

10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
This seems to be another OPTION drive that we've seen more frequently. Whilst PC is known for it's many options and website skins, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Would you like the coders to work on the significant changes happening or code an unnecessary option?

I'm not particular for or against the option. I just don't consider it an important change.
 
maccrash

maccrash

foggy notion
3,583
Posts
10
Years
Magic said:
This seems to be another OPTION drive that we've seen more frequently. Whilst PC is known for it's many options and website skins, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Would you like the coders to work on the significant changes happening or code an unnecessary option?

I'm not particular for or against the option. I just don't consider it an important change.
Click to expand...
you may not consider it important personally, but there's clearly a good chunk of the memberbase that does. you may think it's unnecessary, but a lot of people are very much for it. of course, there are a few that are against it too, but that's the beauty of having the option to toggle it -- you don't have to see swears if you don't want to. honestly, the way I see it, this pretty much benefits everyone, except for the people that actually have to do the work to put it in. (;
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
Couldn't we ask to have it in the significant changes? The significant changes are, when you break it down, going to be a whole bunch of "insignificant" changes in one big package. Maybe instead of wanting it while PC is still in 1.0 or whatever number we're calling this one, we can call this a request for 2.0.

Of course, that's assuming Audy doesn't want to make it for 1.0. People always seem to talk for him and his effort in making things in these kinds of threads.
 
Last edited:
El Héroe Oscuro

El Héroe Oscuro

IG: elheroeoscuro
7,239
Posts
15
Years
maccrash said:
you may not consider it important personally, but there's clearly a good chunk of the memberbase that does. you may think it's unnecessary, but a lot of people are very much for it. of course, there are a few that are against it too, but that's the beauty of having the option to toggle it -- you don't have to see swears if you don't want to. honestly, the way I see it, this pretty much benefits everyone, except for the people that actually have to do the work to put it in. (;
Click to expand...

No offense, but 9 people who choose to vote yes and 3 people who vote no don't quantify what the community thinks as a whole. Saying this on a neutral standpoint, you shouldn't try to make an argument for something when most of the information is inconclusive.

I'm not saying this just to you, but to any person in general when it comes to argumentative discussions. I'm guilty of doing it myself at times, but just thought I'd bring up this point.
 

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
maccrash said:
so keep censors on. no harm done, you don't see swears! (0:
Click to expand...

True, but you see the idea of swearing. Anything that is implied, will be obviously interpreted to represent whatever you imply. Making sensors a thing means that the idea of swearing is on this site which promotes profanity.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
The Serious Table said:
True, but you see the idea of swearing. Anything that is implied, will be obviously interpreted to represent whatever you imply. Making sensors a thing means that the idea of swearing is on this site which promotes profanity.
Click to expand...

There are already censors. I'm confused - what is it you want? Do you want it to stop you if you swear and tell you to rewrite your post, or...?
 

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
Oryx said:
There are already censors. I'm confused - what is it you want? Do you want it to stop you if you swear and tell you to rewrite your post, or...?
Click to expand...

Well yes. I'd like the swearing to be completely gone. I'm not against swearing in an environment where everyone collectively accepts it, but this site doesn't seem to be that type of environment. The real poll should be, should we allow swearing, or not?
 
maccrash

maccrash

foggy notion
3,583
Posts
10
Years
elheroeoscuro said:
No offense, but 9 people who choose to vote yes and 3 people who vote no don't quantify what the community thinks as a whole. Saying this on a neutral standpoint, you shouldn't try to make an argument for something when most of the information is inconclusive.

I'm not saying this just to you, but to any person in general when it comes to argumentative discussions. I'm guilty of doing it myself at times, but just thought I'd bring up this point.
Click to expand...
did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.

and yes Serious Table, I saw your post the first time (0:

and what point would a poll asking if swearing should be allowed or not serve? almost EXACTLY the same point as this. as has been said before, everyone on this forum is 13+ unless they're lying, in which case it's their problem if they see things they don't want to see. considering this, I'm pretty sure that having the ability to see curse words ONLY IF YOU WANT, you don't even HAVE to, is perfectly logical.
 
El Héroe Oscuro

El Héroe Oscuro

IG: elheroeoscuro
7,239
Posts
15
Years
The Serious Table said:
The real poll should be, should we allow swearing, or not?
Click to expand...

That unfortunately is impossible to completely prevent. Even if that was possible I would be against doing that, considering that's almost like PC Staff would be acting like a "Big Brother" scenario where we are forcing people to change the way they are and conform to the way we want them to act. The censor ship acts as a middle ground for both sides to appease both parties in the end so to speak.

maccrash said:
did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.
Click to expand...
It's more just the fact that you're using general terms to describe a large member base that otherwise is being unrepresented. It's a ploy that a lot of people use to rally support for their argument and it was just a small point I picked up on. Nontheless, it's a mute point that's distracting from the question at hand here, so I'm not going to go into the semantics of it that otherwise would result in a petty outcome.
 
Last edited:

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
maccrash said:
did I ever try to say that everyone in the community thought that? I thought I actually made it pretty clear that I was only talking about a good part of the community rather than all of it. in fact, every single thing you bolded in my post is evidence that I'm not trying to speak on the entire forum's behalf. sorry if I'm sounding aggressive, it's not my intent, I promise.

and yes Serious Table, I saw your post the first time (0:

and what point would a poll asking if swearing should be allowed or not serve? almost EXACTLY the same point as this. as has been said before, everyone on this forum is 13+ unless they're lying, in which case it's their problem if they see things they don't want to see. considering this, I'm pretty sure that having the ability to see curse words ONLY IF YOU WANT, you don't even HAVE to, is perfectly logical.
Click to expand...


Yes but why do it in the first place?
 

The Serious Table

Can't touch this
139
Posts
9
Years
elheroeoscuro said:
That unfortunately is impossible to completely prevent. Even if that was possible I would be against doing that, considering that's almost like PC Staff would be acting like a "Big Brother" scenario where we are forcing people to change the way they are and conform to the way we want them to act. The censor ship acts as a middle ground for both sides to appease both parties in the end so to speak.
Click to expand...

Understood, but I'm just defending my side of the argument. Don't let me stop you because I'm just stating what I think is right. Granted it causes more work for mods and it's annoying to do, but why not add specific bans and consequences?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top