Autocensor Changes

[Afforess]

This kind of abusive argument is more troubling to me than use of swear words. Whether one objects to censorship does not necessarily have anything to do with one's maturity. Does TF like this type of posting, particularly from a moderator?

You do realize that Wikipedia lists that argument as a logical fallacy...

Ad Hominion. Look it up.

 

[WarKirby]

It's also keeping those terms out of Google search related to the site, and preventing certain kinds of advertising from being posted.

THERE WE GO.

How many pages has it taken you to admit it in the end? It's all about image. All this has been for naight if you don't admit it in the end, but you always have your flaws.

A friend of mine, reading the site, wishes to add the following:

Camikaze makes a clear point of being left wing, as well as being opposed to fascism, with his avatar picture, and his signature text. But the view that "words hurt", and that they should be censored/blocked at the sending side, and that one can't make the choice of seeing those words (on the receiving side) or not, show a desire for "purity". it's definitely a fascistic/conservative value.

it opposes free speech. it's generally conservatives who are more "offended", more strongly emotionally reaction, to the same stimuli (which is why they're more hating and more intolerant). when i see left wing people, they tend to be very polarized on either being for free speech, or being for political correctness. with people in positions of power being more often for political correctness.

in my view, someone who is truly left wing, also strongly promotes free speech, including discussion of "common taboos" - everything is open for debate, and subject to scrutiny and reason. nothing stands above it. taboos and political correctness are a right wing value. the truly left wing thing to do, is to be open to such things. going against it, and just saying "we do it this way, period" is typical of a totalitarian regime. in the most fundamental sense, generally, fascism is defined as "truth through power: the strongest is right"

I agree with this comment, and I wish to add. This site has evolved far beyond being "Thunderfall's House". It has become the basis for a wide variety of mod teams. Without many of which we might not exist today. But we do. And we have a voice. If you choose to ignore it, so be it. Camikaze, if you wish to reply to him personally, PM me.

 

[Camikaze]

And if they get caught abusing it, moderators would step in, and correct it. By golly, that's what they are for. Moderators are meant to stop rule-breaking, not nanny us.

Who determines this karma? How do you determine if someone is abusing the system or not?

There is no "Going out of your way" when all it takes is a single space to render a curse uncensored. All it does is aggravate people.

It's going out of your way to break the forum rules if you are actively engaging in activity that you know to be against those rules. Adding in a space to a word in order to circumvent the autocensor is doing just that.

I am of the opinion that if a person is already choosing to curse, on a public forum where you would expect cursing to be prohibited (This is not an anonymous board, therefore, a modicum of decency should be expected), then (gasp) they will curse regardless of any ineffectual, aggravating filter. I do not care if I ever trip this filter; I dislike the very concept of it.

A lot of people will simply naturally swear. Not everyone chooses their words with a fantastic amount of care. If they are posting something containing swearing, they will be reminded to be more careful about what they say, and will most likely rephrase. It requires a conscious decision to break the rules of the forum in order to circumvent the autocensor. Most people are not going to make that decision.

And there is no need to treat anyone like children. A public moderation system would rapidly remove rude posts, while doing so in a way that shows your peers will not allow it; This is being treated as an adult, not a child being slapped by a parent.

This is a point I really don't get. If people are acting like children by their use of profanity, why should they not be treated like children? It's not like breaking the forum rules is a mature thing to do, especially if we are talking about circumvention. To treat it as a mature thing to do would be to give it far too much credit. If someone wants to act like a child, why shouldn't the moderators put them into line?

To me, this is like saying that trolls shouldn't be treated like children, but like adults, because getting punishment akin to a parent slapping them is insulting. If you're breaking the rules, I don't see what right you have to complain about being insulted by the punishment.

Let me reiterate once more, in plain language: If there is a choice between something that insults many people who have a clean record of avoiding such language, and a system that accommodates both the desires of the moderators and the rights we all have to speak our mind and be treated as adults, how is this even a choice?

The only people it would insult are those that are using profanity. Which is precisely the type of poster that is being targeted. The simple fact is that if you are not using profanity, then you will not be punished. And you will not be offended by any moderation against profanity. If you are punished for it, then it is only because you are doing something that is explicitly against forum policy. I don't see why you should have a right to break the forum rules without being punished for doing so, on the logic that you are an adult who should be able to speak your mind. If your mind in this case involves profanity, then no, you should not be allowed to speak it on this forum.

 

[JFR]

The fact that posters continue to swear when they have been asked not to is a pretty good indicator of their childishness, selfishness and lack of self control. Such qualities are expected from teenagers who feel it imperative to express their rebelliousness, so we prod them back into line as best we can. In anyone else it is simply bad manners and a rude personality.

Sorry, this is the quote from Birdjaguar I meant to highlight. This is really objectionable; knock it off, please. This is inappropriate for any poster, but particularly for a moderator.

 

[Bill3000]

A friend of mine, reading the site, wishes to add the following:

One of the forum rules states that there is no such thing as freedom of speech on the forum. Indeed, that is incoherent, as it is contradictory to the forum rules in many respects (it bans much speech which would be protected from a government, for one!) and more significantly, this is a private forum. Any complaints about "nanny state" or "fascism" or the like is irrelevant.

 

[Afforess]

Who determines this karma? How do you determine if someone is abusing the system or not?

Thunderfall. Moderators decide. Simple?

The only people it would insult are those that are using profanity.

Right. Let me give you an analogy of this situation. (Godwin's Law folks). Hitler took away the rights of the Jews. But why should us non-Jewish worry? As long as we don't convert to Judaism, you're fine. Move along citizen.

This is a point I really don't get. If people are acting like children by their use of profanity, why should they not be treated like children? It's not like breaking the forum rules is a mature thing to do, especially if we are talking about circumvention. To treat it as a mature thing to do would be to give it far too much credit. If someone wants to act like a child, why shouldn't the moderators put them into line?

The rule against profanity came before profanity was ever used. Therefore, we were never given a chance to prove that we could behave maturely.

 

[JFR]

You do realize that Wikipedia lists that argument as a logical fallacy...

Ad Hominion. Look it up.

Exactly. Birdjaguar was using an argument ad hominem. I looked it up.

 

[WarKirby]

Who determines this karma? How do you determine if someone is abusing the system or not?

Who determines the rules? How do you know if someone is following the rules or not ?

It's going out of your way to break the forum rules if you are actively engaging in activity that you know to be against those rules. Adding in a space to a word in order to circumvent the autocensor is doing just that.

Oh, your forum rules are universal truth now, but just theory in the previous question ?

 

[Afforess]

One of the forum rules states that there is no such thing as freedom of speech on the forum. Indeed, that is incoherent, as it is contradictory to the forum rules in many respects (it bans much speech which would be protected from a government, for one!) and more significantly, this is a private forum. Any complaints about "nanny state" or "fascism" or the like is irrelevant.

Thunderfall opened this up for discussion. Obviously he cares about free speech. If he did not care, he would simply have done whatever he felt like. He has not made a rule against discussing and debating the rules, so we can rail against them as we please.

 

[WarKirby]

One of the forum rules states that there is no such thing as freedom of speech on the forum. Indeed, that is incoherent, as it is contradictory to the forum rules in many respects

You have a good point. At the end of the day, on this site, what thunderfall says goes.

Who's up for emigration ? I have my own server where there will be no censorship of any kind, and ridiculous amounts of extra bandwidth.

 

[Afforess]

Who's up for emigration ? I have my own server where there will be no censorship of any kind, and ridiculous amounts of extra bandwidth.

Not really. Doesn't work. WePlayCiv tried, and is largely a failure. Change must come from within.

 

[Valkrionn]

Who determines this karma? How do you determine if someone is abusing the system or not?

Everyone determines Karma, by how they post and how that post is received by the community. And if you feel someone is abusing the system, you inform the moderators of that fact and they investigate.

This is what moderators are for. The same system functions extremely well on any number of forums; There is no reason it would fail here.

A lot of people will simply naturally swear. Not everyone chooses their words with a fantastic amount of care. If they are posting something containing swearing, they will be reminded to be more careful about what they say, and will most likely rephrase. It requires a conscious decision to break the rules of the forum in order to circumvent the autocensor. Most people are not going to make that decision.

I would personally expect that to encompass less than a quarter of those who will curse. The others are those either actively wanting to, or mad enough to ignore the filter.

However, neither of has any firm data. So let us simply say that it will not stop those who do not wish to be stopped. On the other hand, being able to rate up/down posts (IE, Karma) allows the community to rapidly eliminate undesirable posts which contain such content... Meaning those who wish to post such content will be stopped anyway, whether they like it or not.

This is a point I really don't get. If people are acting like children by their use of profanity, why should they not be treated like children? It's not like breaking the forum rules is a mature thing to do, especially if we are talking about circumvention. To treat it as a mature thing to do would be to give it far too much credit. If someone wants to act like a child, why shouldn't the moderators put them into line?

To me, this is like saying that trolls shouldn't be treated like children, but like adults, because getting punishment akin to a parent slapping them is insulting. If you're breaking the rules, I don't see what right you have to complain about being insulted by the punishment.

Because it is not always childish. There are times when profanity gets a point across in a way that cannot be carried otherwise; There are also times when the word is not profane at all, which would be filtered anyway in the current system. This would not exist in a community-driven censorship system, as with humans behind it context can actually be picked up.

The only people it would insult are those that are using profanity. Which is precisely the type of poster that is being targeted. The simple fact is that if you are not using profanity, then you will not be punished. And you will not be offended by any moderation against profanity. If you are punished for it, then it is only because you are doing something that is explicitly against forum policy. I don't see why you should have a right to break the forum rules without being punished for doing so, on the logic that you are an adult who should be able to speak your mind. If your mind in this case involves profanity, then no, you should not be allowed to speak it on this forum.

No. The system insults me by it's very existence on this forum. I treat others with respect, and I feel I have every right to expect the same in return. Knowing that such a heavy handed system is hanging over the head of anyone frequenting this forum is repugnant to me.

As I have said, I do not care if I trip it or not. My opinion of it will not change. It is vile. It is repugnant. It leaves us assured that the moderators consider us naughty children who cannot be trusted to post without having a nanny give it the once over.

Sorry, this is the quote from Birdjaguar I meant to highlight. This is really objectionable; knock it off, please. This is inappropriate for any poster, but particularly for a moderator.

I am entirely agreed with that particular statement.

As I have pointed out, the first several pages are filled with the same sort of ad hominem attacks on anyone arguing against the filter. This is disgusting, particularly when moderators took part in it.

 

[Camikaze]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I'll get round to replying to them all later on; I have to get ready to go to work.

I'll just quickly address these two points first:

Yet that is one of the most common arguments amongst the proponents for the filter; Those arguing against it are obviously immature and thus their opinion is of no merrit.

Just so you know, that is really not what my argument is at all. You have been constructive and polite in making your points, IMO. I'm allowed to attack the points without thinking that you are immature for stating them.

Right. Let me give you an analogy of this situation. (Godwin's Law folks). Hitler took away the rights of the Jews. But why should us non-Jewish worry? As long as we don't convert to Judaism, you're fine. Move along citizen.

Ugh. That is a really, really bad analogy. It either assumes that being impolite on the forums is acceptable, or that swearing is not impolite. Both of these assumptions are false, IMO.

Oh, and to WarKirby's friend.

 

[Afforess]

IMO.

Opinion != Universal fact.
Wasn't the greatest analogy though. Hitler came to mind first.

This thread is a testiment to the failures within the higherups at CFC. Frankly, I'm surprised at how many self-proclaimed "open" and "liberal" people are fascists when it comes to anyone disagreeing with them. I guess living in the echo chamber that is OT does that to a person...

 

[ono-neko]

I am one of the long term lurker and now part-time lurker because I am helping with mods. However, the only reason I keep coming back to this site is the "polite" community, where I don't have to read curse word used (even if it's used in non-aggressive way) every other posts/threads. Being mature and responsible is being able to restrain one self. That's what I believe anyway.

Having said that, this argument is like the smoker/non-smoker argument.

Smokers: I have the right to smoke anywhere and anytime I want.
Non-Smokers: I have the right to fresh air free of smoke.
Smokers: Then why don't you just go to place where there's no smoke?
Non-Smokers: Why don't you go to the designated smoking area?
Smokers: Why do I have to restrain and make extra effort to exercise my right?
Non-Smokers: Why do I have to be the one making extra effort to avoid you?

So on and so on. So you can replace the smokers and non-smokers with pro-curse, and con-curse group, and change smoking to cursing. There you go: an endless debate with no point of reaching any agreement. The only thing the two sides will agree is to agree that there is a disagreement between the two sides.

In any case, my take on things is "Do like the Romans do when you are in Rome." Basically follow the rules and laws of the place you are going. Since this forum has placed rules/laws, regardless of your agreement, I think it's not unreasonable to follow the "local" rules/laws. Just a small example, I have a habit of snapping my fingers while calling someone. In some culture, it's acceptable to do so, while in others, it can be taken as impolite, or even looking down on the person you are calling. In this case, I consciously and constantly reminding myself not to do so when I am visiting one of those cultures.

For forums, I simply use the same rule, and even so. It's a global worlds where a lot of cultures (not just personal habits, etc) are going to mesh into a place. A simple gesture can an offensive one to another. So, the solution? Keep it polite, and don't take anything personally. It's online world, where you don't see the facial expression of the others.

I know I am one of the (seemingly few in this thread) supporter of non-cursing implementation. So, it's probably easy for me to follow the rules. Just like any rules of any places. You can never satisfy everyone, only some will satisfy. Most choose to satisfy the majority.

*going back into lurk mode and work on mods*

 

[Valkrionn]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I'll get round to replying to them all later on; I have to get ready to go to work.

I'll just quickly address these two points first:



Just so you know, that is really not what my argument is at all. You have been constructive and polite in making your points, IMO. I'm allowed to attack the points without thinking that you are immature for stating them.

I wasn't directing that at you specifically, haven't really seen you do it.

The point remains that the first three or so pages are filled with it.

Edit: It is also a large reason I am posting in the manner I am. Such attacks are absolutely, blatantly unnecessary and as opposed to the idea of a polite atmosphere as cursing is. They have no place here, emphatically so amongst the moderators.

Ugh. That is a really, really bad analogy. It either assumes that being impolite on the forums is acceptable, or that swearing is not impolite. Both of these assumptions are false, IMO.

Oh, and to WarKirby's friend.

Yet it illustrates the point nicely, and shows quite effectively why several of us vehemently dislike this system. If it is desire of the community to prevent cursing, that is perfectly fine to me... But doing so in such a heavy handed manner is both undesirable and repugnant.

There are better methods. There have been better methods for years. If the point of this thread is to discuss the changes made, then alternatives can and should be discussed here, rather than have easily avoided/dealt with flaws be thrown at it in order to prevent said discussion from taking place.

There are better methods in use on any number of forums. On any number of far larger, far more active forums. If they work there, there is no possible reason they will not function here.

 

[Bill3000]

Thunderfall opened this up for discussion. Obviously he cares about free speech. If he did not care, he would simply have done whatever he felt like. He has not made a rule against discussing and debating the rules, so we can rail against them as we please.

No, you're reading me wrong. TF and the moderators certainly allowed discussion of the rules. But you can't use "this goes against freedom of speech" as an argument for why a certain rule shouldn't exist or be enforced - at least when it comes to something like how appropriate cursing ought to be in the forum, anyway.

 

[Valkrionn]

I am one of the long term lurker and now part-time lurker because I am helping with mods. However, the only reason I keep coming back to this site is the "polite" community, where I don't have to read curse word used (even if it's used in non-aggressive way) every other posts/threads. Being mature and responsible is being able to restrain one self. That's what I believe anyway.

Having said that, this argument is like the smoker/non-smoker argument.

Smokers: I have the right to smoke anywhere and anytime I want.
Non-Smokers: I have the right to fresh air free of smoke.
Smokers: Then why don't you just go to place where there's no smoke?
Non-Smokers: Why don't you go to the designated smoking area?
Smokers: Why do I have to restrain and make extra effort to exercise my right?
Non-Smokers: Why do I have to be the one making extra effort to avoid you?

So on and so on. So you can replace the smokers and non-smokers with pro-curse, and con-curse group, and change smoking to cursing. There you go: an endless debate with no point of reaching any agreement. The only thing the two sides will agree is to agree that there is a disagreement between the two sides.

In any case, my take on things is "Do like the Romans do when you are in Rome." Basically follow the rules and laws of the place you are going. Since this forum has placed rules/laws, regardless of your agreement, I think it's not unreasonable to follow the "local" rules/laws. Just a small example, I have a habit of snapping my fingers while calling someone. In some culture, it's acceptable to do so, while in others, it can be taken as impolite, or even looking down on the person you are calling. In this case, I consciously and constantly reminding myself not to do so when I am visiting one of those cultures.

For forums, I simply use the same rule, and even so. It's a global worlds where a lot of cultures (not just personal habits, etc) are going to mesh into a place. A simple gesture can an offensive one to another. So, the solution? Keep it polite, and don't take anything personally. It's online world, where you don't see the facial expression of the others.

I know I am one of the (seemingly few in this thread) supporter of non-cursing implementation. So, it's probably easy for me to follow the rules. Just like any rules of any places. You can never satisfy everyone, only some will satisfy. Most choose to satisfy the majority.

*going back into lurk mode and work on mods*

I have not and will not claim that cursing should be allowed.

I have instead stated that the manner in which it is disallowed is extremely undesirable in and of itself.

 

[Afforess]

No, you're reading me wrong. TF and the moderators certainly allowed discussion of the rules. But you can't use "this goes against freedom of speech" as an argument for why a certain rule shouldn't exist or be enforced - at least when it comes to something like how appropriate cursing ought to be in the forum, anyway.

Well, why can't we have free speech in the first place? Don't answer, just think about it.

Anyway, I never used that as a argument. I used the carrot/stick thing.

 

[Valkrionn]

No, you're reading me wrong. TF and the moderators certainly allowed discussion of the rules. But you can't use "this goes against freedom of speech" as an argument for why a certain rule shouldn't exist or be enforced - at least when it comes to something like how appropriate cursing ought to be in the forum, anyway.

Once again... I do not think either Afforress or myself is actively arguing in favor of cursing being allowed.

Rather, we are arguing for a better method of preventing it, one that allows context to be taken into account (There is a chi nk in my opponent's armor, as opposed to the racial epithet), one that does not rely on heavy handed filters, one that incorporates the community into the process.

Better yet, one that prevents other methods of flaming which are both just as undesirable as cursing, and far more commonplace.

People have stated that the desire is for a more polite forum. If that is the case, a karma system results in a FAR politer forum than any filter can possibly do.