Suggestion: swear censors

[maccrash]

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.

I'm confused -- would you rather I use the precise number of people that have voiced their approval of the suggestion? what difference does it make?

y'know what you're right actually this is unimportant

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

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?

No by all means, defend your side! I'm always for a good discussion (:

We actually do have certain bans/consequences already in place. If swearing in a post becomes overly excessive and is deemed disrespectful towards other members of the community, than as staff we will infract the member for their activity as well as give them an explanation of why we did it and hopefully help them learn from their mistakes. If the activity and infractions continues to persist and build up from the member, than we'll ultimately end up banning the member for their detrimental behavior.

 

[The Serious Table]

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.


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.

No by all means, defend your side! I'm always for a good discussion (:

We actually do have certain bans/consequences already in place. If swearing in a post becomes overly excessive and is deemed disrespectful towards other members of the community, than as staff we will infract the member for their activity as well as give them an explanation of why we did it and hopefully help them learn from their mistakes. If the activity and infractions continues to persist and build up from the member, than we'll ultimately end up banning the member for their detrimental behavior.

That's good. Although it does help, we will still see it won't we? Seeing swear words censored or not still gives off the image that our site promotes use of profane language. Sorry, wrong word because swearing usually isn't promoted anywhere, but it would still seem like we're indifferent to the use of swearing. This might make people feel encouraged to do it more.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

That's good. Although it does help, we will still see it won't we? Seeing swear words censored or not still gives off the image that our site promotes use of profane language. Sorry, wrong word because swearing usually isn't promoted anywhere, but it would still seem like we're indifferent to the use of swearing. This might make people feel encouraged to do it more.

As of the current system in place, swear words will not come up for members to see. For instance, if I write the word ♥♥♥♥, you'll probably notice that it has been censored with hearts. That's the case with most derogatory words. The argument in question is to allow an option that will enable people to disable this censorship so you can see what they are actually writing, but allow other users to keep the current censorship in place.

It's impossible to completely eliminate profane language; likewise, it's impossible to 100% change the way people act. I don't want to say that PC promotes the use of profane language (as we all use it at one point or another in our daily lives) but rather we try to keep it in a positive manner here, which is why for instance we use hearts to censor it. It might seem a little silly, but it's actually putting it more in a better limelight than say, it written like $@*^#.

 

[The Serious Table]

As of the current system in place, swear words will not come up for members to see. For instance, if I write the word ♥♥♥♥, you'll probably notice that it has been censored with hearts. That's the case with most derogatory words. The argument in question is to allow an option that will enable people to disable this censorship so you can see what they are actually writing, but allow other users to keep the current censorship in place.

It's impossible to completely eliminate profane language; likewise, it's impossible to 100% change the way people act. I don't want to say that PC promotes the use of profane language (as we all use it at one point or another in our daily lives) but rather we try to keep it in a positive manner here, which is why for instance we use hearts to censor it. It might seem a little silly, but it's actually putting it more in a better limelight than say, it written like $@*^#.

So possibly this might reduce swearing because people could see what you actually wrote? But also, why give people the option to see swearing? How does it make this experience of this site any better?

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

So possibly this might reduce swearing because people could see what you actually wrote? But also, why give people the option to see swearing? How does it make this experience of this site any better?

I'm personally in the viewpoint that it will increase the tendency of swearing, but it's up for interpretation. Likewise with your latter question(s), that's what the intent of this thread is trying to do; we're discussing the +'s and -'s of such an addition to the site.

 

[maccrash]

when can I expect a definitive answer as to whether or not this is actually even possible or not? can I even expect an answer?

it's no rush or anything, I'm just curious.

 

[The Serious Table]

I'm personally in the viewpoint that it will increase the tendency of swearing, but it's up for interpretation. Likewise with your latter question(s), that's what the intent of this thread is trying to do; we're discussing the +'s and -'s of such an addition to the site.

Which is the purpose of most threads that present discussions. In my mind, it will increase swearing (as you pointed out) and make the rules towards swearing irrelevant. If it were to be implemented, what's the point of banning or infracting people for swearing if people could choose weather to see it or not?. If they're aren't relevant rules then people will abuse their swearing privileges. You could see paragraphs of " ♥♥♥♥ " for an entire post.

 

[maccrash]

Which is the purpose of most threads that present discussions. In my mind, it will increase swearing (as you pointed out) and make the rules towards swearing irrelevant. If it were to be implemented, what's the point of banning or infracting people for swearing if people could choose weather to see it or not?. If they're aren't relevant rules then people will abuse their swearing privileges. You could see paragraphs of " ♥♥♥♥ " for an entire post.

it doesn't make the rules towards swearing irrelevant. it is literally the exact same thing. mods will still see the exact same amount of curses as they would with censors on; therefore they can make the exact same judgment as to whether or not to infract someone for their post. there's an easy solution for your last couple sentences -- make some rules. you don't even have to make very specific rules, just use your better judgment -- if someone's posting ♥♥♥♥ every other word, delete the post, infract them, what have you. if anything the inclination would be to be more strict against swearing because now people are actually seeing the words.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

when can I expect a definitive answer as to whether or not this is actually even possible or not? can I even expect an answer?

You'd probably get the most accurate response from one of the site's Admins. I personally have no idea if it's possible or not to code, so you'd probably want to get in contact with one of them if none of them come across this thread.

 

[The Serious Table]

it doesn't make the rules towards swearing irrelevant. it is literally the exact same thing. mods will still see the exact same amount of curses as they would with censors on; therefore they can make the exact same judgment as to whether or not to infract someone for their post. there's an easy solution for your last couple sentences -- make some rules. you don't even have to make very specific rules, just use your better judgment -- if someone's posting ♥♥♥♥ every other word, delete the post, infract them, what have you. if anything the inclination would be to be more strict against swearing because now people are actually seeing the words.

But why spend time picking and choosing which posts to get rid of or not? Why not just block the words and make them impossible for anyone to see? Maybe enable it for mods only, because it's non of our business to tell the mods what they should do.

 

[maccrash]

But why spend time picking and choosing which posts to get rid of or not? Why not just block the words and make them impossible for anyone to see? Maybe enable it for mods only, because it's non of our business to tell the mods what they should do.

this is the kind of thinking that makes me want to fling my computer screen through a window.

MODS ARE PEOPLE TOO​

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make anymore. enabling it for just mods is absolutely preposterous and if THAT happens I'm going to be infuriated.

why would we block the words and make them impossible for anyone to see? there are clearly at least SOME people that want to be able to see the words and feel as if it's not such a ♥♥♥♥ing travesty to be able to see the words (myself included as I'm sure you've picked up on already). MY SUGGESTION LITERALLY ALLOWS PEOPLE TO NOT SEE THE WORDS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. I'm so confused on how anyone could POSSIBLY not at least partially approve of this idea. you don't have to swear, you don't have to see the swears, the forum doesn't change AT ALL for you if you don't want to.

 

[The Serious Table]

this is the kind of thinking that makes me want to fling my computer screen through a window.

MODS ARE PEOPLE TOO​

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make anymore. enabling it for just mods is absolutely preposterous and if THAT happens I'm going to be infuriated.

why would we block the words and make them impossible for anyone to see? there are clearly at least SOME people that want to be able to see the words and feel as if it's not such a ♥♥♥♥ing travesty to be able to see the words (myself included as I'm sure you've picked up on already). MY SUGGESTION LITERALLY ALLOWS PEOPLE TO NOT SEE THE WORDS IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. I'm so confused on how anyone could POSSIBLY not at least partially approve of this idea. you don't have to swear, you don't have to see the swears, the forum doesn't change AT ALL for you if you don't want to.

I'm just defending my side of an argument. I could see how people would approve, but personally I don't think it's a good idea.

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

But why spend time picking and choosing which posts to get rid of or not? Why not just block the words and make them impossible for anyone to see? Maybe enable it for mods only, because it's non of our business to tell the mods what they should do.

That's just the role of a Moderator, there isn't really too much hassle with it. And it's not like we're working alone; there's a Report System in place where any member can report a post for numerous reasons in which we as Moderators can review and take action against if it's needed.

Staff should definitely not be allowed that privilege, nor any specific body of people in that matter. Unless there was given reason to take away such a privilege, every member will have the right of freedom of expression. It's what you do with that freedom that questions whether or not staff will have to take action against it if it's viewed in a bad light by the community. Like maccrash stated, we're just people no different than you or I, and we're not going to give ourselves privileges like the one stated just because our names are bolded.

 

[The Serious Table]

That's just the role of a Moderator, there isn't really too much hassle with it. And it's not like we're working alone; there's a Report System in place where any member can report a post for numerous reasons in which we as Moderators can review and take action against if it's needed.

Staff should definitely not be allowed that privilege, nor any specific body of people in that matter. Unless there was given reason to take away such a privilege, every member will have the right of freedom of expression. It's what you do with that freedom that questions whether or not staff will have to take action. Like maccrash stated, we're just people no different than you or I.

I'm aware of that. I'm just stating that maybe mods would know what's best because they have more responsibility and experience with issues? Not denouncing mods or regular users in any way, just stating.

By the way to anyone here, I'm not trying to attack the person behind this idea. Just stating my side of the argument

 

[£]

check your privilege

Adding relevant stances to the relevant discussion:

I'm against the idea of just going with a swear censors for staff exclusively:
-The low-moderate amount of time required to implement the change will only be experienced by a handful of people
-Elitism is already a huge issue for this forum and idk offering a clear silver spoon to staff with a perk like that which some members would like to have is only going to result in more resentment and more people wanting to be moderators with the impression that there's perks rather than it being treated like the tedious but "noble" job it should be.

I'm okay with the idea of going with a censor toggle for members aged 16 and up. I mean, my liberal minded thoughts on censorship aren't completely happy with it, but it's a compromise solution that I'd agree to if giving 13-15 year olds the option to see words they've probably heard hundreds of times before is an issue.

 

[Euphoric]

I'd like to mention that about a week ago, I'd been looking for a toggle to remove the censors. Obviously, I couldn't find one. I chalked that up to me not being able to find it, not considering that there might not even be one. After all, I reasoned, I didn't have much experience with PC.

I wholeheartedly support the creation of a toggle. I've noticed that the vast majority of users I've encountered have been at least 15, with most around 17-19. I'm not saying age is a perfect and accurate measure of maturity but generally once you reach that around those ages, you've encountered swear words and they're not as impressive as they once were. Even for the younger members, if you're on the Internet, you're going to lose your "vulgarity virginity" soon enough. Take Briboy, for example.

Members should also be able to choose whether or not they'd like censors to be active, too. Even if some people are opposed, everyone should have the right to choose. Concerns have been raised about the amount of swearing increasing once censors would be removed, but I don't find that a pressing concern, to be honest. There might be a small increase in swearing immediately, but when the novelty effect wears off, it will go back down. I think PC's members as a whole are adult enough to not abuse a new feature.

About the toggle being mod-only - I disagree. Features like the different colored usernames are fine for mods because they help distinguish then from regular users. What I'm trying to get at here is that merely aesthetic changes are definitely fine but profile options should be open to anyone. That's like only mods being able to have avatars.

 

[Honest]

A position of authority shouldn't inherently receive a benefit as pointless as being able to see curse words. There is literally no point in that.

Curse words are, in general, unnecessary. Where they're used, they could easily be removed or altered, and the post/whatever would still be able to convey the same meaning and weight nine times out of ten. PC grants its member-base the privilege to get a little foul mouth, with the expectation that the hearts appear very sporadically, and definitely not derogatorily. Keep in mind that PC isn't a a democracy, and that "freedom of speech" doesn't necessarily apply (I'm nearly 100% sure I read that somewhere, but if I'm wrong, someone please correct me on that; don't want to be ignorant on something as important as that). Hstaff could easily tighten the noose when it comes to cussing rules, but we don't. That being said, what exactly does removing the filter even promote? A stronger execution of what you want said? I personally find that pointless, considering the hearts alone should convey such a thought. Maybe we can argue on that, but I don't honestly see the point.

In a general sense, customization is great and all. But there does exist a line to cross where customization turns into simply obliterating rules. A toggle would be a halfway step towards such a result, and considering I see no plus side to a toggle coming into existence, but several possible negative sides, I'm still a firm no.

 

[Polar Spectrum]

Aw, nobody cares that c h i n k is censored. (It's really a normal word outside the racial slur!) And could I humbly request an 'indifferent' or 'don't care' option to the poll; if it's not too late to do so? I'm interested in this topic and where it's gone, and would like to input my stance on it within the poll.

 

[£]

A position of authority shouldn't inherently receive a benefit as pointless as being able to see curse words. There is literally no point in that.
we're on the same page here
Curse words are, in general, unnecessary. Where they're used, they could easily be removed or altered, and the post/whatever would still be able to convey the same meaning and weight nine times out of ten. It's all about common sense. Execution, timing, delivery, the whole deal that comes with every single syllable we string together, dear friend. The words have meaning. They can be appropriately used. We have a vast language, and I'd stand by the right to have every word used appropriately. You give me a foul word, I'll give you a perfect usage of it. PC grants its member-base the privilege to get a little foul mouth, with the expectation that the hearts appear very sporadically, and definitely not derogatorily this is how it is right now, there's nothing to talk about here. Keep in mind that PC isn't a a democracy, and that "freedom of speech" doesn't necessarily apply (I'm nearly 100% sure I read that somewhere, but if I'm wrong, someone please correct me on that; don't want to be ignorant on something as important as that). This is probably a key thing that's made me want to dissect this post. You're saying PC is not a democracy, and therefore it is a dictatorship. Strong claim. An internet forum however, should surely be all about our opinions and thoughts, and I'm certain that expressing these thoughts is only fair. And I'm sure that talking among others to achieve a positive conclusion is only fair. If this is indeed a dictatorship, and if we aren't permitted to have our own opinions and express our own feelings about this place... then this place is not somewhere I would like to reside any longer. If PC Hstaff could easily tighten the noose when it comes to cussing rules, but we don't. wait you're hstaff? I don't think you can get much tighter than complete censorship barring irrational bans... I can't see any gracious generosity here. That being said, what exactly does removing the filter even promote? A stronger execution of what you want said? I personally find that pointless, considering the hearts alone should convey such a thought. Maybe we can argue on that, but I don't honestly see the point. We certainly can disagree there. The hearts alone kinda disrupt the rhythm of the post when I read it. Perhaps I'm particularly fussy about posting, perhaps I like to get the feel for a post without going "oh what's in that gap?" It's not a total removal, and it doesn't have to apply to the whole forum.

In a general sense, customization is great and all. But there does exist a line to cross where customization turns into simply obliterating rules. I was not aware that this toggle had a dramatic impact on the state of the rules. You should know that my tongue's just as sharp without this toggle, if not sharper at present. I'm certain most people are the same. There won't be some apocalyptic incident from this reasonable change. A toggle would be a halfway step towards such a result, and considering I see no plus side to a toggle coming into existence, but several possible negative sides, I'm still a firm no. Plus side: I can read a post without having to stop and read some silly hearts, and this forum won't feel quite as oppressive as you're making it come across as.

Thank you for your post, please find my thoughts as above. Ta.

I must also add, now that I recall... as the instigator of a certain thread, I'd have thought you'd have been a bit more understanding. I can assure you: that change would have had more impact than this one, and this only makes your stance even more bewildering to me.