Question: What are the rules for censor bypass?

[poopnoodle]

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.

 

[Nick]

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.

 

[Legobricks]

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.

 

[Nick]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Legobricks]

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]

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]

@_@ 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..

 

[professor plum]

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~

Spoiler:

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~

Spoiler:

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:

Spoiler:

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]

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

Example: Possible offensive statement hidden~

Spoiler:

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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[professor plum]

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]

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.]

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]

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.