Suggestion: swear censors

[maccrash]

I think (not speaking for Dipu here) he was talking about the influence of it actually being there. If someone swears in IRC a few people will see it, then it'll scroll into oblivion - it's a passing thing and doesn't really become noticeable if people do it rarely anyway. In a forum post, they stick around, more people see it and often people will reply to swearing with more swearing, in my experience.

I worry like places like General Chat/D&D would see a sharp incline of swearing, there are plenty of members who swear plenty with the filter. I don't think everyone will start swearing more ~just because~ but it might be a general trend. I really don't feel it's necessary ><. Fighting for swearing would be like fighting for a penis symbol or something - there are plenty of other words to get your feelings across with, so why not just leave the 'bad' ones be censored?

:)

it's nothing like fighting for a "penis symbol" because I can't think of any possible scenario in which putting a dick in your post would enhance it in any way. sometimes, swearing is the only way to get your point across; sometimes, it's necessary. like, something can be really good, or it can be really ♥♥♥♥ing good, and I feel like there is a difference and it's an embellishment that's sorely missed with these mandatory censors. of course, that's a bit of a silly example, but I do hope you see where I'm coming from.

people might start swearing a bit more because, well, duh, but I really, honestly, truly don't think it will be toxic to the community in the slightest. I've noticed that threads like these will normally go on for a little while and then nothing will actually happen, the idea won't even be declined, it just kinda lingers in the air for a couple days then peters out, but I sincerely hope that dosen't happen in this thread. if I'm beating a dead horse here, tell me right now so all my efforts aren't for naught.

 

[Nick]

I think this is a logical suggestion. Cursing is pretty much allowed here, as long as you aren't doing it to harm someone, and you don't bypass the censor when you do it. The censor is there to protect the people who find profanity to be offensive. There are people who don't need that barrier there because they don't find it offensive. They'll still curse. I see people cursing pretty regularly here. Having the option to remove that protection for those who don't need it there really isn't that big of a deal. It's not like we're removing the censor entirely. We're only allowing it to be removed by those who wish to remove it, and take the time to do so.

I don't think removing the censor is going to cause people to start sprouting curse words for no reason. People don't just go on here and start cursing for no apparent reason. They only really use it to better express excitement, frustration, and so forth. You can argue that they don't need to be using curse words in the first place, but that's really not the point because no matter how much you make that argument, people will continue to use them for those reasons. And I don't think removing the censor for those folk who don't need it is going to start causing problems between those folk. If so, they know the rules. And they know the consequences of breaking the rules.

We have infractions and disciplinary actions for a reason, you know.

This is a really nice community. We have our bad apples, and we all have our bad days, but for the most part, I think the memberbase as a whole can handle the option of choosing not to have curse words censored without losing our cool and acting a fool. Honestly, I think the staff should start publicly displaying some faith in the community. I know, I'm really one to talk, right? But for real. Put a little faith in your members to not act like animals when the overwhelming majority of the members don't really have a problem or history of doing so in the first place.

 

[Livewire]

We've talked about an age-related opt of of the censor, like, if you're an older member over the age of 17-18, then you could toggle the censor off. But anyone else below the age cutoff would still be bound to the censor and any swear words would still come up filtered on their end. I actually really like that idea and it would be great to have that implemented, although I'm not sure how feasible that would be - sounds more like a custom bit of code we'd have to whip up, more so than a VB plugin or something like that.

 

[maccrash]

We've talked about an age-related opt of of the censor, like, if you're an older member over the age of 17-18, then you could toggle the censor off. But anyone else below the age cutoff would still be bound to the censor and any swear words would still come up filtered on their end. I actually really like that idea and it would be great to have that implemented, although I'm not sure how feasible that would be - sounds more like a custom bit of code we'd have to whip up, more so than a VB plugin or something like that.

17-18? what? why not, like, 14-15? I'm 16 and swearing means absolutely nothing to me and hasn't since I was like 11; 17-18 seems incredibly excessive, and I know that I'm not the exception, but more or less the rule. I'd like that idea if the age was lowered a bit.

 

[Kanzler]

I personally don't like the idea of rules because it assumes that we aren't nice people without them and we only act the way we do because of them - it strips us of our humanity, in a way. It's not like offenders can't be disciplined if censors were removed. Excessive swearing is a no-no, censor or not, and I don't see how what's being advocated in this thread would change that in any way. I also don't see why an age limit has to be enforced on the off-switch. If you're literate enough to use the internet, then you're literate enough to know what such a toggle would do.

I could go on about how I oppose excessive rules in principle, how it breeds an attitude of dependence on them and unnecessary cynicism towards the community but meh that's just what I think.

And c h i n k really shouldn't be censored.

 

[Livewire]

17-18? what? why not, like, 14-15? I'm 16 and swearing means absolutely nothing to me and hasn't since I was like 11; 17-18 seems incredibly excessive, and I know that I'm not the exception, but more or less the rule. I'd like that idea if the age was lowered a bit.

Well yeah, but I think it's a far more realistic age (in terms of actually voting on it and getting it passed) benchmark than enabling it for kids a few years younger than that.

 

[Neil Peart]

Personally, I don't think anything should be censored at all, but since that will never happen, I'm all for making it optional.

For as long as I live, I will never understand the fuss about "bad words." People assume everyone under 18 lives in a profanity-free bubble.

 

[Nathan]

Well yeah, but I think it's a far more realistic age (in terms of actually voting on it and getting it passed) benchmark than enabling it for kids a few years younger than that.

Wouldn't 15-16 be a better option though? I know a lot of people this age who are easy with swearing.

 

[maccrash]

I've appended a poll to the OP. pls vote (0

 

[Oryx]

Well yeah, but I think it's a far more realistic age (in terms of actually voting on it and getting it passed) benchmark than enabling it for kids a few years younger than that.

Isn't it kind of sad when we have to think not of what's actually logical and what makes sense, but what we can convince other people to do? I think that's not a very good statement on the site if we have to ignore what makes sense for the purpose convincing people to pass it. :(

 

[Bellsprout]

Here's a thought everyone: Just try it out and see what happens. Make a final decision after seeing how the community handles it.

 

[Kanzler]

Isn't it kind of sad when we have to think not of what's actually logical and what makes sense, but what we can convince other people to do? I think that's not a very good statement on the site if we have to ignore what makes sense for the purpose convincing people to pass it. :(

Well, that's politics for you.

 

[acatfrommars]

Why not please both sides? We could implement a feature in the "Options" part of the CP which could filter swear words. Users could check it if they want the filter off, that way both sides get what they want.

 

[Oryx]

Why not please both sides? We could implement a feature in the "Options" part of the CP which could filter swear words. Users could check it if they want the filter off, that way both sides get what they want.

That's the initial idea actually. The people arguing against it here are arguing against that exact idea.

 

[machomuu]

And c h i n k really shouldn't be censored.

You don't think racial slurs and derogatory terms rarely used outside of their derogatory usage should be censored?

 

[Livewire]

Isn't it kind of sad when we have to think not of what's actually logical and what makes sense, but what we can convince other people to do? I think that's not a very good statement on the site if we have to ignore what makes sense for the purpose convincing people to pass it. :(

It's called being realistic; sometimes the "most logical" choice isn't a feasible option. Again, I could be wrong here, but knowing what I know about how things tend to operate here, 16, 17, 18, etc., is what the age would probably have to be set to for this to work.

 

[Kanzler]

You don't think racial slurs and derogatory terms rarely used outside of their derogatory usage should be censored?

Well, it's a minor detail, but if you really want my opinion on the word c h i n k, then yeah, it's a legitimate word. That's what I believe.

 

[Oryx]

You don't think racial slurs and derogatory terms rarely used outside of their derogatory usage should be censored?

I'm actually surprised that's censored. That's a common word that's used in its real meaning, as in a ♥♥♥♥♥ in a fence or a ♥♥♥♥♥ in armor.

 

[machomuu]

Well, it's a minor detail, but if you really want my opinion on the word c h i n k, then yeah, it's a legitimate word. That's what I believe.

I'm actually surprised that's censored. That's a common word that's used in its real meaning, as in a ♥♥♥♥♥ in a fence or a ♥♥♥♥♥ in armor.

Well that's kind of my point. I hear it sometimes, but you're more likely (especially in the modern age) to hear it as a derogatory term than by its original meaning. Except maybe in the RP or Writing forums, but I've yet to come across it.

I have nothing against giving it a test run, though, since it's not exactly the most often used word.

 

[maccrash]

It's called being realistic; sometimes the "most logical" choice isn't a feasible option. Again, I could be wrong here, but knowing what I know about how things tend to operate here, 16, 17, 18, etc., is what the age would probably have to be set to for this to work.

how is the "most logical" choice not always a "feasible" option? that's a bit contradictory, don't you think?