Well, British curses ain't bloody forbidden so far(t)!!!
Autocensor Changes
- Thread starter ainwood
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Moderator Action: You are welcome to discuss this as an issue.
You are not welcome to illustrate your points / frustrations by posting things that are offensive or work-around the spirit of the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This is a means of reducing the workload on the moderators. Personally, I got sick of infracting people who couldn't control their language (although it is preferential to simply giving them 24 hour bans, which is something we have done in the past.
We're not going to allow people to swear & cuss to their hearts content, no matter what they do in real life.
You are not welcome to illustrate your points / frustrations by posting things that are offensive or work-around the spirit of the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This is a means of reducing the workload on the moderators. Personally, I got sick of infracting people who couldn't control their language (although it is preferential to simply giving them 24 hour bans, which is something we have done in the past.
We're not going to allow people to swear & cuss to their hearts content, no matter what they do in real life.
WarKirby
Arty person
I have recieved an infraction for my contribution to this discussion, apparently my first ever. Let it be known that "discuss this change" comes with a whole lot of fine print, and pointing out security vulnerabilities is Not Allowed Because We Say So.
An I going to recieve another infraction for sharing a private message, perchance?
Moderator Action: You guessed right. If you feel the need to discuss an infraction, use a PM.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
No worries Ainwood, I'm guessing (hoping) that you're just the messenger, and I don't blame you.ainwood said:
An I going to recieve another infraction for sharing a private message, perchance?
Moderator Action: You guessed right. If you feel the need to discuss an infraction, use a PM.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
WarKirby
Arty person
Oh yes you will. It's called PDMA. You're not supposed to do that, lad.
PDMA?
the message contained no fine print about not sharing it with others.
Until told otherwise by moderators, I will feel free to repost it anywhere.
And if told otherwise by moderators, I will still feel free to repost it anywhere, except here.
You know, I like contributing to the mod community here, but I really don't appreciate being bullied into conforming. I stand up for my principles, and I've been banned from forums before because of it. The ones that see sense are the ones I know I can trust.
s.bernbaum
Mostly lurking
Since there is so much negative response here, I thought I would just chime in with a positive response. I support the decision. In RL, I know no one who finds it necessary to pepper their speech with foul language. Sure, I occasionally encounter such people. They are always people who I would not associate with for many other reasons. I make the encounter brief and avoid the person as much as possible in the future. I have enjoyed this board because the people here are, for the most part, pleasant and speak civilly.
Uh, read the forum rules, dude. You shouldn't need the moderators telling you what the rules are - that's your responsibility. You were lucky enough that you were never in a situation before which you felt the need to break them.
IMHO you're making the mistake here of assuming that the rule is simply to prevent new posters who may be prone to gratuitous swearing. But it's not. It's designed to apply to all posters, you and me included, based on the idea that it is impolite to swear under any circumstance. It doesn't matter whether or not you mean to cause offence. What matters is that regardless of such intent, it is simply impolite to swear in your posts. Doing so goes against the idea of 'civil posting'.
It wouldn't make me happy. I don't see why a compromise should be reached. I don't see why I should have to simply ignore impolite posting rather than have it banned, anymore than I don't see why I should have to simply ignore racist posts, or flaming posts, or any other form of post that does not meet the standards of the forum, rather than having those things banned.
isthmus
Warlord
Shame that most forum polls are likely to be very inaccurate relative to the people who visit forums generally. Why do you think most forums adopt similar anti- or reduced- swearing rules if there were not a significant number who didn't deem it offensive or inconducive to constructive conversation?
I personally have no problem with seeing, hearing or saying swear words. It's the norm where I come from. However it isn't in many places.
The internet forum, which is expected to be culturally neutral when relating to gaming shouldn't hold to the same rules. People from many different backgrounds consult and contribute to the discussions within the forums and it seems unessecary to exclude those who deem swearing to be unacceptable - be it younger civ players or those who don't like swearing. With a no swearing rule there is still a vast majority of the english language to use which can still convey a similar point in a more eloquent way. We can all still communicate.
It's still annoying to change an arguement if you personally think a swear word is ok but the admins don't. I'd like to see a list of the set of words which are on the edge of the limit but can still be used within discussional limits -ie still subject to moderation if used inappropriately ie in malice or whatever. This isn't to condone their use but it gives an upper limit to the expression of particularly passionate points made by those who feel it necessary to express on the forums.
It shouldn't be an issue of modifying on your end, I would expect to go to CFC and not have a ton of swear words chucked at me with every other topic. It's a good reputation. I'm aware the regular contributors don't do this but not including an autocensor leaves the system open to abuse by new members who aren't aware of CFC conduct.
The problem with allowing a post limit to be able to swear is that it still condones it to new members. A post&day limit on getting avatars is good because it encourages users to post in order to gain an indiviual place within the community. The ability to swear on the forums shouldn't be seen as a privilige to which new users should aspire to gain.
WarKirby
Arty person
I don't think that's a mistake. As a moderator has already pointed out, I've been here for four years and the existing rules had been fine for that period. New rules do not just happen, they require a stimulus. Someone has advised me that said stimulus is excessive trolling and flaming regarding Civ V, which is recently released.
How about because one party getting their own way is generally inferior to a compromise that makes both happy.
Perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough, but I wouldn't have a problem with the censoring filter being on by default. You wouldn't have to ignore anything, it would already be starred out for you.
If you have a problem with people who have aggressive attitudes beyond just language, then that's a problem that human moderation has to solve, not an automated filter.
Afforess
The White Wizard
I hate to self-promote, but Warkirby seems to have completely stolen this thread and my post was lost in all the raging. If it's a terrible idea, let me know.
Rules such as the moderators infracting bleeped cursing (which this new rule is supposed to remove the need) and no PDMA have been on the forum for a very long time. You just haven't noticed them, possibly because you haven't been in a situation where you would feel the need to break them.
WarKirby
Arty person
I'm very sorry for that, you're right. I did quote one of your posts on page 2 though, and I do appreciate your support here.
Perhaps it would be useful to have some clarification of how theis self moderation would work. imo, a report post button seems to work fine for most forums, though I've seen some go deeper with things like user karma scores.
This isn't a new rule. It's an alteration to an existing one, brought about by suggestions that the system would work better if, instead of simply smiley-facing the word and handing out infractions to those that post such words anyway, the individual was prevented from posting the word at all, reducing the need to infract them. I don't think a new influx of posters had anything to do with this slight alteration at all.
The idea of compromise is a nice one, and works a lot of the time. But sometimes there is no reason for it.
Why should I compromise with someone that says 2+2=5, when it simply doesn't?
As it pertains to this situation, why should there be a compromise with those that wish to be able to post something that is impolite?
Starring out words still leaves the implied meaning. Which still leaves the impoliteness. Removing the word altogether automatically makes a post less impolite.
I have no problem with people outlining their frustrations, but if they feel the need to do so through the use of swear words, they are simply being impolite. I have a problem with posters who are impolite, and this change to the autocensor automatically prevents them from posting in an impolite form.
WarKirby - as to why this change took place it isn't really due to any one factor.
Over the past month or two, the staff has been looking more closely at MANY procedures to help improve the forum. We had an OT survey a couple of weeks back, and currently have a rules discussion social group in which the admins and moderators are seeking input from members. This autocensor change came in large part due to member input in the rules discussion group.
And again, I ask the question:
Would you rather have the opportunity to go back and edit a censored word before posting (the current system) or just simply get infracted for it (the old system)?
Over the past month or two, the staff has been looking more closely at MANY procedures to help improve the forum. We had an OT survey a couple of weeks back, and currently have a rules discussion social group in which the admins and moderators are seeking input from members. This autocensor change came in large part due to member input in the rules discussion group.
And again, I ask the question:
Would you rather have the opportunity to go back and edit a censored word before posting (the current system) or just simply get infracted for it (the old system)?
WarKirby
Arty person
To clarify:
About cursing. Previous to this incident, the system afaik was to replace curse words with
, one each per letter. Which left the user somewhat to guess at what was said, and as expected still had the numerous flaws of not detecting certain words. This was generally not an unusual system though, and so I didn't have a specific problem with it (despite not being a fan of it either)The recent change causes curse words (which are apparently chosen at random by the admins, several common ones are not included) to be censorted in a manner as-above, except with twelve
per character, which for any word greater than 2 letters will push it over the forum limit of 30 images per post. This makes it effectively impossible to post a curse word without circumventing the filter. Beforehand, someone could see a sequence of four and at least guess the meaning dependant on the context, but now even posting a censored version is impossible. It's not just censoring, it's denying it even ever happened.As to this PDMA rule (which I believe means Public Discussion of Moderator Action), I had never heard of, or cared about it until now. If a moderator has a problem with my actions, that's theirs to do with as they wish.
Neither, the question is invalid. If you are censoring what I post, then you have no valid reason to give infractions for it too. it's one or the other. If the rules state that swear words are banned, that's your choice, but then I reserve the right to post my swear words in censored form according to the censorship tools you have provided.
It's like the government selling cars which are fundamentally designed to not be allowed to go above 60 MPH, and then using speed cameras to prosecute people who hold the acceleration pedal down too hard anyway, despite them never going above 60 MPH.
Can I make a poll to determine the veracity of this statement?
To clarify:
About cursing. Previous to this incident, the system afaik was to replace curse words with
The recent change causes curse words (which are apparently chosen at random by the admins, several common ones are not included) to be censorted in a manner as-above, except with twelve
No, there was another component to the rule as well - posters who posted words which were censored by smiles were infracted. The posts in the forums which you visit were not infracted due to the forum possibly being lightly moderated, and your posts not reported as it ought to have been, not because of any rule change. In more heavily moderated forums such as the Off Topic, they were generally always infracted. The forum rules towards profanity has always been that the curse words should never have been said in the first place, not simply that they were bleeped out - so yes, the point was always to deny the curse from ever appearing on the forum, whether it be through proscription of censored posts or preventing the posts in the first place.
As for which curse words are censored, that is of course set by the thunderfall and the admins, who determine which words are appropriate for the forum.
Bill3000 has it exactly right:
The purpose of the no swearing rule is to ban swearing from the forum. The reason people were infracted for triggering the autocensor or for evading it were because we don't just want the words censored, we want them gone. The new system allows this. But the new system also protects members from accidentally posting a word that is banned and thus, I would think, will hopefully cut down on the number of language related infractions because I would like to think that the people of this forum respect the rules and won't just post the banned word in a way that avoids the autocensor.
- Status
Similar threads
