Good point.

 

*low pitch mask voice* well 3x isn't MrMojoRisin haven't saw you today... Weird

 

Poppycock.

At age 13 they can access Facebook which does not have uniform profanity filter rules. Certain pages can implement this at the page admin's discretion, but it's not going to filter a 13 year old's feed.

No the family friendly nonsense was because Josh was one of those intellectually timid people who had a "relationship with God" and was scared if people even thought about, much less uttered, profanity then he'd lose all his Heaven Bucks and wouldn't be able to buy a nice house on Jesus Street in the afterlife.

It's why we had prohibitions on a number of topical discussions - because unsurprisingly a person who needs the crutch of religion is unable to fathom a free exchange of ideas.

Let's not pretend there was some scenario of this being a virtual picnic slash daycare centre.

 

You've only just proven the point that most people in this thread have had as to why we should have it.

 

What?

I proposed that the filter be opt-out, not mandatory, SLG.

So it's hard to see how what you're saying is true. You're arguing I proved the need for a filter... but I never disputed that. In the OP in fact I said set it to on, have users agree to opt out.

 

Ramza

Edit anything you think is too far, and I won't be surprised or angry if I end up in the unban request forum for this post. I'm just trying to make a point, and there's no ill intent (I edited the hell out of this, it was much worse before), but I know I'm skirting a line here.

Ender, do you realize that "**** off" isn't even close to acceptable in any forum other than the JCC? It would result in an instant ban anywhere else here. Similarly, by extension, it would just be crazy if I started dropping (acceptable, non-attacking) uncensored f-bombs in Literature, it would completely change the (awesome) culture there, and in every other non-JCC forum. What you suggest (casual swearing) is completely unimaginable for any forum other than the JCC. Hint: there's not much starred out profanity going on outside the JCC, it's not part of the culture outside the JCC. Maintaining a default filter does nothing to alleviate the sudden sharp increase in profanity, even if it is starred/filtered out.

You can get away with Jesus Street and Heaven Bucks, but if you added swears to your comments about Jesus and anal sex (or "bumming" as you've call it, which probably shouldn't even be allowed even under the current rules), it jumps up twelve notches. You can say "but you have an option", but that doesn't mean anyone opted into reading comments about Jesus ****ing guys in the ass (filtered or not),to illustrate my point (see how the vulgarity jumped up a notch? And it can go much higher). The ignore button doesn't work either, because you cannot use "put me on ignore" as an excuse for your comments.

You've gotten away with "Jesus bummed guys" several times. So you're saying you should get away with saying "Jesus ****ed guys in the ass"? See how swears can easily devolve commentary? In those two examples, I'm describing the exact same thing. Right or wrong, you've gotten away with the first multiple times. Should I get away with the second? If not, you should be banned/edited the next time you say the first, and perhaps even retroactively for the times you've said it in the past.

Since you haven't been banned/edited for repeated comments about "bumming" (which is no doubt to anal sex what w***ing is to masturbating, and all masturbation euphemisms have been banned since I registered here, it's not new), your repeated insistence that this stuff will be "dealt with swiftly by the Administration" is not true in reality, and never has been. We both know we cross the line on a fairly regular basis and get away with it.

I'm a pretty crappy person as it is, but the ban on swearing encourages me to be nicer. Remove it, and I'll be an ***hole more often. It's just going to happen. On the old IGN boards, I had all kinds of nasty, attacking comments typed up and ready to go, only to see swear words littered all through it, which caused me to realize it was going to get me insta-banned, so I hit the 'cancel' button. I used that cancel button so many times. The ban on swearing saved me from getting banned.

On top of that, like SLG I drop f-bombs as naturally as I breathe. A lot of people, filter or not, are going to take that the wrong way. They already think I'm actually mad when I'm talking about some cartoon or movie, when I actually have a big smile on my face.

I don't really care, I'm just making an argument for what I think is the right choice for the forum. If you want to allow profanity, go ahead, I won't mind. But it will devolve, and I'll see you in the unban request forum.

 

CT-867-5309

I totally agree with what you're saying.

And the JCC does have issues...

 

I mean... wot?

yeurgh Darth Punk, is the term "bumming" offensive or as part of every day vocabulary as words like "tea", "parsimony" or "frenetic"?

 

But if your argument rests on whether or not offensiveness is culturally contextual, aren't you making an argument in favour of less prescription - not more?

i.e. you can enable an approach where people opt out of a filter and then broaden the terms in the filter increasingly. More protections for those who want it; more freedom for those who don't, and ne'er the twain shall me. And since it's opt out, you're always seeing the **** until you physically elect to turn it off, meaning anyone viewing the forum and considering joining is not seeing profanity.

 

I think you're getting to the idea of a 15+ rating - the UK has rating of 15, we have M (Mature, recommended for age 15 and up).

If you had greater flexibility you would be able to better mandate this no?

 

Oi, Punk! I went to Henbury Comprehensive in Bristol. There wasn't much bumming but there was this one girl who was famous for taking it up the wrong 'un and used to poo herself if she laughed hard enough. Making her laugh was a great way to get out of double maths, by the way.

I quite like the idea of the optional filter but Americans are never going to understand, for example, the way Brits, the Irish, Aussies & Kiwis use the 'c' word.

What we probably need (and what the ignore feature is already on the way to granting me through successive approximation) is segregation. We could have English boards - where we swear and use adverbs - and American-English boards. Where you pledge allegiance to flags and have cheese with that. Not actual cheese, obviously. The weird, rubbery stuff you put on everything. The stuff that comes in either Trump-face orange or Trump-hair yellow.

 

Darth Punk you've just qualified for the English boards.

(There should be a test: basic grammar and/or correct use of the word ****).

 

Guys, the word r e t a r d is blocked by the filter. Inclusion on this list was ham-fisted and it should be removed. Someone used the term in its correct and intended context, talking of r e t a r d i n g the growth of a species, and it was blocked.

This is a bit silly no?

 

I actually don't like that one. I might even be the reason that's on the list to begin with. A couple of the old mods circa 2011-2012 used to use it all the time in the derogatory way. I got on their case about it. There's a reason -- I had close friends who had learning issues growing up and I remember they used to tense whenever other kids used that term. Even something like "Oh that's r*****ed" made them flinch or even PO'ed. I don't call that a "trigger" word -- it's more than that. These kids are called that enough times, or even just on ugly time by a wiseass punk, that it seriously does scar them. The F word and S word and all those others don't compare. But that word has seriously bad history behind it.

 

Without commenting further on the overall subject of this thread, I'll say this regarding the specific issue that Ender Sai just raised: No word should be auto-filtered unless it has exactly zero ways to be used in a child-friendly manner. F u c k, c u n t, etc. meet that condition. R e t a r d, as pointed out, does not, because it does have legitimate, non-derogatory definitions. See its dictionary entry: http://bit.ly/2mANYg5 (link goes to dictionary.com; link shortener used to prevent the filter from censoring the URL) It can be used non-offensively as a verb meaning "to slow down", and as a noun it is also a technical term used in reference to adjusting the timing on internal combustion engines. Therefore, it should not be auto-filtered.

 

So the reason retard was added to the filter list was at the request of some staff members who were noting it tended to be used almost exclusively in the insulting form rather than the non-insulting form, and, y'know, frankly the filter is faster than language edits. But I added it on condition that complaints to the contrary would get it removed. So it's off.

 

Sure, but the word has an actual definition. At no point do I advocate or mean to advocate for its use as a pejorative term. But discussions about the retardation of something - social/technological progress, for example - are common enough to avoid being labelled esoteric.

 

I don't know if anyone is making a poll or keeping track of how many people are for or against relaxing the profanity rules, but if they are, I'm voting against. I don't want to see the kind of ugly words that aren't allowed in the films. SW has always been escapism, and I like escaping from a lot of the ugliness that is associated with 4-letter words. Obviously ugly is in the eye of the beholder, as is offensiveness, but we still don't like it when people are deliberately offensive.

I share those thoughts because everyone has a right to my opinion.