Autocensor Changes

[isthmus]

If anything I hope this an temporary reaction to the sudden influx of many new civ players who are unaware of the rules currently accepted amongst the more regular CFC members.

I'm not one to put any profanity into posts here because I don't deem it necessary but I'm more worried about words, or a selected order of letters that cause me to change my post in order to conform to an autocensor in order to get my point across.

I'm in favour of limiting the swearing - despite the childish limits required to do so... I believe most regular CFCers at most resort to moderate or mild language in most constructive threads I've seen.
All I wonder is how sensitive are we speaking?
Offensive language is, in general a subjective opinion so an idea/limit of the language expected would be handy - at least so that arguments are preconstructed with a certain level of civility in mind.

I just hope I don't have to completely reorganise an argument because a particular sequence of letters interferes.

 

[Elephantium]

As Camikaze's just said, the autocensor's always been here! All that's been done is tweak it around a little.
The whole point of it was to stop profanity.

I've never noticed it before.

Regardless of how long it's been here or what its official purpose is, the fact remains that it's simultaneously foolishly broad and laughably ineffectual.

I wouldn't mind it as much if it actually did anything to resolve the problem, but instead it adds a layer of annoyance every time I accidentally trigger it via words that I foolishly thought were innocuous. What am I supposed to do, extensively research every last racial slur that's been used somewhere? It's utterly ridiculous.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Putting aside the thinly veiled insult, I have been, I would hope, a valuable contributor to this community for several years. I feel that this change directly impacts my comfort in using the site, and as this thread has been SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO DISCUSS THIS CHANGE, I feel well within my rights, as any user of this forum should, to voice my opinion about it here. May I direct your attention to the announcement at the top of the screen, specifically noting the last section:

The thread is for discussion of the topic. You decided to circumvent the filter to add a banned word to your post. That is not discussing the topic. It is throwing your objection in our face. It is also rude, childish and immature. You can voice your opinion, but you cannot break the rules. If you are uncomfortable about this new use of the auto censor, I'm sure you can find the door. But I doubt the sincerity of this discomfort because you've been here for 4 years, never been infracted and we've had the anti swearing rule for all that time.

To put it simply, the vision of the site owner often means little in the grand scheme of things. A community is defined by its members, and if an administrator exerts too much control over those members, they may leave.

TF's vision and execution of that vision in CFC is what has attracted and kept so many posters here. His vision has defined the posters who visit here. People hang out here because it is the site it is. Those who like porn and swearing go elsewhere. Those posters, like you, who have been around for a long time, and posted appropriately, have accepted that vision and contributed to the site as expected.

Certainly, people can make their points without "resorting to such language". They can also make their points with "resorting to such language". In the end, it's all semantics. Words are words, and the wise human being looks for the meaning, not the words used to express it. My culture predisposes me towards swearing significantly more than most, it's how I've been raised from an early age. Most of the men I know personally swear every few sentances as naturally as breathing. In scotland, the word cu nt is often used interchangeably with person.

It also worth pointing out that, although there may be many other cultures that swear frequently, mine is discrminated against because english is my first language. <snip>

The primary function of swear filters is to "protect" children against "inappropriate content". I would like to meet the child with the mental capacity, attention span, and/or intelligence to play a civilisation game

Well, I guess as a white, English speaking male from Scotland who can't control his vocabulary, you are being discriminated against. Life is tough. Get over yourself.

But somehow over the past four years you've managed to avoid swearing here, so you can probably maintain that approach, bear the discomfort and keep yourself infraction free.

 

[Moss]

I have a question for those who oppose this measure:

Would you rather be notified that a word in your post triggers the autocensor and thus be able to change that before you post (the system in place now), or would you rather post that word and then get infracted for it (the system that was in place)?

Lets assume for the sake of answering my question that the rule barring profane words is not going away, because honestly, it isn't. This is TF's house and TF's rules (and as has been stated a million times, freedom of speech doesn't apply here). It's just like coming into my house, if I don't allow swearing, I have every right to ask you not to swear.

 

[isthmus]

To me, they are just words. Used without malice, merely as exclamation or expression of emotion. I say <snip> close to 100 times a day, and I am not "smearing" fellow countrymen, I a completly honest when I say that others I know use these words in similar frequency.

I disagree.

In real life, you have to look someone square in the face when you swear at them, or otherwise in their presence. If you're comfortable, and non-hostile enough, to do it under those conditions, then the internet, relatively speaking, is nothing. Or to put it another way, if you wouldn't get punched in the face for saying it in real life, censoring it on the internet is madness.

haaaaaaaaaauuuuugh.

Last I checked we were living in an age of free speech where the majority of societal taboos had been abolished.

To most of this I agree, for the purposes of RL. Hell, I swear ridiculously requently amongst my peers. However even in RL some people will be offended by certain language exhibited by those more "literally liberal" and the requirements of those people should be respected too.

I wouldn't swear in front of my gran, or in a debating competition (if I ever entered one) because it offends some people, ie gran, or distracts from the point I'm making (at least in the eyes of a significant proportion of people...politicians don't win elections by swearing their own emotional points in debates).

Everyone should feel comfortable in the language environment of CFC imo, and by maintaining a non-swearing rule it ensures the swearers and the non-swearers can still communicate, reducing swearing isn't a massive inconvenience imo, I manage it in front of the family, despite my regular usage otherwise.

 

[Zack]

Why is there such a negative response to this? Would you rather get an infraction?

 

[Omega124]

I'm having to agree with WarKirby with this conversation. We're not 3, we can handle the entire English Dictonary in its fullest extent. Sometimes, the word you're using is not vuglar at all in the context, like saying "I support The Rent is Too Damn High Party" (Google it, its a New York party that aims to lower real esate costs, from selling to renting). Sometimes, you're going to let sparks fly. Sometimes, only the F Bomb can discribe what you're feeling, or perhaps the chick you were with was really a Female Dog for not returning your calls after your date.

The Key is context. If I'm calling people stuff that would make James Rolfe blush, than yeah, I deserve an infraction. But just because I support a certain politcal party that has a cuss word, raise animals whom technical name have vuglar body parts, or maybe I need to take something off my chest, I should be able to. A blanket ban is just like gun control; criminals/naughty users will still get/use them, but the regular person now can't defend himself/use the full dictonary.

 

[Bill3000]

Er, the effect of swearing (and what curse it is) completely depends on the audience, dude. Saying that it is no big deal among your peers is rather irrelevant if you are instead swearing to someone who may find it incredibly offensive or uncomfortable. In such a situation, one shouldn't swear around them, even if you normally swear. Thunderfall clearly wants the forum to be comfortable to more people than those who are normally comfortable to casually swear.

 

[Camikaze]

I believe a moderator's place is to step in when one user is clearly malicious, threatening, trolling, or otherwise bringing down the mood of the site.

That is the whole point of the no swearing rule. It's not so much that swearing is going to offend people, it's that it is impolite. And posting something impolite is bringing down the mood of the site. I am not going to be offended if someone swears in their post, but I will think that they are being rather impolite in their discourse, and that they are lowering the tone of whatever they post. Ensuring that the tone of the site is not brought down in such a way seems to fit in perfectly well with the role of the moderator as you have described.

 

[Zack]

I find the whole argument that "we're mature, we can swear" funny. If you're so mature, why are you whining about it so much?

 

[WarKirby]

The thread is for discussion of the topic. You decided to circumvent the filter to add a banned word to your post. That is not discussing the topic. It is throwing your objection in our face.

To make a point, that the filter can be easily circumvented, and is therefore ineffective. Believe me, I've been around internet forums a lot. Swear filters are circumvented everywhere.

And while I appreciate that you claim that filter circumventing will be punished, it's really no different to simply saying swearing will be punished and not having a filter in the first place.

If you are uncomfortable about this new use of the auto censor, I'm sure you can find the door.

nice to know how welcome we are

But I doubt the sincerity of this discomfort because you've been here for 4 years, never been infracted and we've had the anti swearing rule for all that time.

Indeed, the anti swearing rule has been around for a while, and yet I've sworn plenty and not been infracted. Does that not tell you something about my usage of "naughty words"?

The difference is that before now, I could swear all I wanted and it'd simply put a smiley face in for each letter. I didn't have to know or care. Now, it stops me posting the message by putting in 12 faces for each letter, and actually forces me to care. HENCE, I CARE.

But somehow over the past four years you've managed to avoid swearing here, so you can probably maintain that approach, bear the discomfort and keep yourself infraction free.

I certainly haven't. I've just sworn in company and situations that make it clear there's no malicious intent, and presumably nobody has felt the need to report my posts.

 

[Omega124]

That is the whole point of the no swearing rule. It's not so much that swearing is going to offend people, it's that it is impolite.

So, me supporting The Rent is Too Damn High Party is impolite? Saying that Leonardo da Vinchi was a bastard (He was, btw. The two couldn't marry due to the caste system of Rennisance Europe, but they still, did it, anyways) is impolite? Saying that armour chinks when it hits an object?

There's a Freedom of Speech, but not a Freedom to not be offended.

 

[Zack]

There's a Freedom of Speech, but not a Freedom to not be offended.

By this logic, moderation is unnecessary.

 

[Camikaze]

So, me supporting The Rent is Too Damn High Party is offensive? Saying that Leonardo da Vinchi was a bastard (He was, btw. The two couldn't marry due to the caste system of Rennisance Europe, but they still, did it, anyways) is offensive? Saying that armour chinks when it hits an object?

There's a Freedom of Speech, but not a Freedom to not be offended.

The autocensor has faults (and damn and bastard aren't censored, anyway, so I fail to see your objection on those two points), definitely, but that's completely different to have a no-swearing policy. And completely different than an argument that the autocensor is a flawed system in principle.

Also, if you care to read my post again, you will see that I made a distinction between 'offensive' and 'impolite'.

 

[Omega124]

By this logic, moderation is unnecessary.

Well, obviously you can't call someone a "Person whom has sex with their mother", that would be abuse and flaming, which is totally different than having a colorful vocab. But, at the same point, situations like that are already covered in the rules! Simply saying, there is no good reason for any, /any/, filter.

 

[isthmus]

Why is there such a negative response to this? Would you rather get an infraction?

It's the same rules as before, but people now have a safety net with the new system I suppose. I guess that the changing of the censoring mechanism brings up again the issue of whether censoring is still an approriate action.

I'm having to agree with WarKirby with this conversation. We're not 3, we can handle the entire English Dictonary in its fullest extent. Sometimes, the word you're using is not vuglar at all in the context, like saying "I support The Rent is Too Damn High Party" (Google it, its a New York party that aims to lower real esate costs, from selling to renting). Sometimes, you're going to let sparks fly. Sometimes, only the F Bomb can discribe what you're feeling, or perhaps the chick you were with was really a Female Dog for not returning your calls after your date.

The Key is context. If I'm calling people stuff that would make James Rolfe blush, than yeah, I deserve an infraction. But just because I support a certain politcal party that has a cuss word, raise animals whom technical name have vuglar body parts, or maybe I need to take something off my chest, I should be able to. A blanket ban is just like gun control; criminals/naughty users will still get/use them, but the regular person now can't defend himself/use the full dictonary.

We may all be able to handle the full vocabulary available - doesn't mean that all of us want to see that.
Free speech is still subject to the opinions of others - and if a significant proportion of people are perturbed or offended by the use of swear words (which they still are - taboos are not extinct) within a forum then they will not be inclined to contribute to a discussion within it. A forum is generally set up to host discussions about subjects and if this alienates a certain audience then the forums are less active - which is a bad thing imo.

I completely agree that the context can cause some confusion or difficulties in communication because certain words are censored. A blanket ban in terms of human resources is far more effective than indiviual moderation given that large influx of members CFC has recieved since the release of CiV.
The autocensor hasn't changed in terms of strictness, it just means that the mods don't have to hunt down individual posts as much now - unless you insist on breaking the rules.

 

[Omega124]

and if a significant proportion of people are perturbed or offended by the use of swear words (which they still are - taboos are not extinct) within a forum then they will not be inclined to contribute to a discussion within it.

You constantly keep on saying that no one on this forum execpt those speaking out against it wants to hear it. If you're so confident about it, then why don't you let a vote about this situation? Either get rid of the censor, keep the new way, or revert to the old. Whatever gets the most votes win, (No need for a majority). I'll shut up if this is done.

 

[WarKirby]

We may all be able to handle the full vocabulary available - doesn't mean that all of us want to see that.

I know a lot of people probably aren't aware of this, but there are firefox plugins (and probably for other major browsers) to do just about anything you could want: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4175

If some don't want to see it, the above presents an option for them that doesn't affect others.

If there's a significant problem with lots of new people coming for no other reason than to curse and rant, then why not limit the swear filter to new users, similar to how PM functions are restricted. I have over 5000 posts, with both previous and continuing involvement with mod projects for civ games, I'm certainly not just here to swear at firaxis, why should I suffer a sanction aimed at controlling an influx of new players, 90% of which will probably not stick around.

 

[Krill]

Bollocks to this idea.

 

[WarKirby]

If it's really the intention to filter out profanity, then how about a compromise.
An OPTION in user profiles, which can default on if you wish, or even adjust it's default dependant on user age, which causes potentially offensive words to appear like **** instead. You know, the kind of swear filter that's adequate for 95% of other organisations in the world.

Those of us who want to swear, can do it all we want. Those of us who don't want to see swearing, won't. And those of us who do, can disable the option and see things uncensored. It's the best of all worlds. It makes everyone happy without sacrificing anyone's freedom.