Censored word list...

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by mvandemar

Just a simple ♪♪♪♪ing -> fookin

Fishing returns!!!!

[Sorvoja]

I don't want a forum filled with swearing, racism, sexsism and other bad stuff. However I don't see the need to censor our regular members on a automatic word for word basis. The current filter is not very comprehensive, there are a close to unlimited number of bad words that will slip though the filter. Someone told me that there are more than 2 million english words, and I am certain that the filter only affects a small portion of the words that potensially could be offensive. So in any case he forum has to be policed by members and moderators to weed out bad posts.

Also the English words often have multiple meanings, what is taken as a swear word in the US might be perfectly acceptable in the rest of the English using world. It is often not possible to know if a word is bad or not before it is put into context. This can't be done using a dumb filter, we should trust members and moderators to deal with this.

In my opinion the censored word filter must go, I personally find it to be as offensive as the karate belts that once were used at a different forum.
If the filter is kept then a good compromise would be to have the consored word in a title attribute, so it still possible to read it.

<span title="someword>♪♪♪♪♪♪♪♪</span>

In any case it is a bad thing that the filter affect URL's.

[jrothra]

I read about half way through this and could see where it was going... three groups:

Group A - allow any and all words, unfiltered unless the individual chooses to filter them.
Group B - filter all of them
Group C - indifferent, who cares

Here's my 10* cents, mostly in the form of questions.

1. The idea of unfiltering the words was brought up, which makes me ask why. Do you want to see the words? Do you have some inner need to see the letter combinations that make up the words your mind already comprehends?

2. What benefit would the community gain by having the words unfiltered? Does the content increase? Are relationships based on the ability to see certain words? Will not seeing the words drive people away? Will current members leave and sever relationships because they can't see the words?

3. Since DP was used as an illustration, I will address it. Could there be some behind-the-scenes filtering system that prevents the words from appearing? Maybe posts that use them or members who use them are removed?

4. Are the current SEOR rules unacceptable (Skitzz brought this up, and he's right)?

5. Hmmm... to make 10 cents, I need six more questions/points. Using them is not needed.

6. Foul language detracts from the quality of the content (grammar/spelling mistakes aside).

7. Is the work needed for coding the filter option worth it? Is the ROI high enough?

8. Uh... three more... why can't we all get along?

9. Are the words needed? Okay, I'm here, but gotta get 10.

10. My point is the filter would be doable, but not worth it. Leave the rules as they are. Okay, that's 10... for 10 cents.


------
* Having a Master's degree means that my nonsense is more valuable nonsense. Once I get the PhD, it'll increase in value and increase in non-sensibleness.

[AppleVenus]

ok, first of all I feel a tiny bit responsible for posting the link to the recipe in the sb, that I think prompted Sorv's post in the other thread about censored words.

I did when the url appeared with the musical notes, but it was no biggie, I found another way to post it, and then someone else gave tinyurl link to it.

But my view on this thread is this, although this forum has a great community, and we are made to feel IMO that it's our forum. the fact is that the forum is owned by someone, there is an admin team, and a mod team, who have worked hard to set up a framework for us to post, shout etc. in. And if they want a censored word list, then so be it. Doesn't bother me at all.

AV

ps I'm still trying to work out the words in MV's posts

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by jrothra

I read about half way through this

John, I'm a little surprised that you expect to get the dime, or in fact any portion thereof, for work you did not complete.

The original issue is with URL's being obfuscated, but it highlights the underlying problem that a "bad word" filter is something that shouldn't really be in place. Although this place is PG13, what we have is ridiculous to say the least. People are allowed to act like whack jobs on here, post in most inane crap, or stuff that is complete bs... but if I wanted to talk about the Seinfeld episode "The Soup ♪♪♪♪", I have to put up with the obvious distraction of notes, drawing complete undue attention to that one word in the title?

Btw, John, just out of curiosity:

jrothra agrees: I agree wholeheartedly!

Did you do know what you were agreeing with, aside from the first sentence, was opposite of what you said in your post?

-Michael

[jrothra]

Originally Posted by mvandemar

John, I'm a little surprised that you expect to get the dime, or in fact any portion thereof, for work you did not complete.

The original issue is with URL's being obfuscated, but it highlights the underlying problem that a "bad word" filter is something that shouldn't really be in place. Although this place is PG13, what we have is ridiculous to say the least. People are allowed to act like whack jobs on here, post in most inane crap, or stuff that is complete bs... but if I wanted to talk about the Seinfeld episode "The Soup ♪♪♪♪", I have to put up with the obvious distraction of notes, drawing complete undue attention to that one word in the title?

Btw, John, just out of curiosity:



Did you do know what you were agreeing with, aside from the first sentence, was opposite of what you said in your post?

-Michael

I read Sorv's post fully before I agreed. I think he is right.

Regarding my 10 cents... I was attempting to be humorous, hence my "I need more... hmmm" statements.

When it comes to filtering out domains with possibly bad words, the system should, I think, allow them.

Regarding filtering bad terms out of general post text (not domains, but including text links), then I think the rules are fine as they are. However, if the filter is removed, that's fine, too.

I think what I said obfuscated some of my humor. I was trying to do four things:
1. Play off "10" with the ten cents (and my 'qualifications' to give ten cents) and ten points/questions.
2. Filtering content words is a good idea, but not something to be worked up over. Filter or don't, up to the admins.
3. I like the rules as they are.
4. Allow domains to be left unfiltered (said in my agreeing with Sorv).

I'm tired and my writing probably shows.

Please forgive any confusion.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by jrothra

I read Sorv's post fully before I agreed. I think he is right.

Except he is against filtering (not just url's), and your #3 (3. I like the rules as they are.) says you are for it (aside from url's).

Originally Posted by jrothra

Regarding my 10 cents... I was attempting to be humorous

My bad, so was I. (I knew you were )

I think it was more of a problem that I mixed semi-seriousness with humor and failed to sufficiently smilie the post.

-Michael

PS - I wish I had more time to code some of my ideas, cause I just had one some ppl (not necessarily here) might like. A pre-cuss filter... if it is detected in your post, you are presented with a Paypal Donate Now button for $0.25, and you have the choice of changing your language or dropping a quarter in the kitty. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's the fact that I need more sleep, but that strikes me as cute.

[jrothra]

I like that idea! But that could be due to the greatness of the idea or the greatness of my drowziness (been up all night).

[Nintendo]

I got censors on my video game boards and da kids just use da vBulletin code to get around it. For example, if some one was crazy enough to censor 'wacko' here, you could do wacko or wacko and then there is da kool 1337 language, \/\/@c|<0!!

BDW, da other 'N' word isn't censored!! (Hint: Arnold Schwarzen♫♬♪♯r)