Autocensor Changes

[WarKirby]

.....

 

[Maimonides]

I have no problem with a profanity filter or an autocensor. I think we're really lucky to have a website like this at all. Thanks, Thunderfall!

That being said, I still wouldn't let my child view this website.

 

[Valkrionn]

I have no problem with a profanity filter or an autocensor. I think we're really lucky to have a website like this at all. Thanks, Thunderfall!

That being said, I still wouldn't let my child view this website.

Nor do I... The issue is the manner of filter.

There are better alternatives that are not heavy handed and bring far more benefits; They should be considered.

 

[ainwood]

There are better alternatives that are not heavy handed and bring far more benefits; They should be considered.

Up until I changed it, it simply deleted the word. Is that problematic?

...and for what its worth, I am opposed to a karma system as well. But go discuss that here, if you want.

 

[Afforess]

I have no problem with a profanity filter or an autocensor. I think we're really lucky to have a website like this at all. Thanks, Thunderfall!

Yes, we are all thankful our merciful overlords don't smite us this very second.

That being said, I still wouldn't let my child view this website.

I take it you haven't visited an elementary school during recess recently...

 

[Afforess]

...and for what its worth, I am opposed to a karma system as well. But go discuss that here, if you want.

An obscure place with no official thread for discussion yet? Yeah... I know what you're up to - cause I've done it myself. Hide us in obscurity, where we can't possibly do any harm... Nice try. If you want a open discussion of the autocensor, the karma system has to be allowed as a consideration.

 

[Valkrionn]

Up until I changed it, it simply deleted the word. Is that problematic?

...and for what its worth, I am opposed to a karma system as well. But go discuss that here, if you want.

Really, yes, it's still problematic to me; Any sort of automated filter is. No filter will pick up context in the manner a human is able to, and any filter errs on the side of caution and makes completely legitimate word use impossible.

This change simply made people post on the subject, it did not change anything major in any way IMHO.

And I'm quite curious as to why you are opposed to a karma system? Or rather, a community-driven censorship mechanic of some form?

However, I can and will continue to argue for it in this thread. The thread is for people to discuss the autocensor changes, no? Then I will continue to argue against the autocensor and in favor of a better mechanism.

 

[ainwood]

An obscure place with no official thread for discussion yet? Yeah... I know what you're up to - cause I've done it myself. Hide us in obscurity, where we can't possibly do any harm... Nice try. If you want a open discussion of the autocensor, the karma system has to be allowed as a consideration.

You mean the 'obscure' location set up specifically to discuss the forum rules? You mean the 'obscure' location announced via a forum-wide announcement?

Discuss karma all you like, just go discuss it in a different thread where people who may want to discuss karma may see it. Discussing it in a thread devoted to the autocensor is not going to get that input. Create another thread in site feedback.

 

[Afforess]

You mean the 'obscure' location set up specifically to discuss the forum rules? You mean the 'obscure' location announced via a forum-wide announcement?

Yes. This thread is visible because you announced it. That usergroup is not visible. It's rather hard to find. Casual posters will never stumble onto it.

Discuss karma all you like, just go discuss it in a different thread where people who may want to discuss karma may see it. Discussing it in a thread devoted to the autocensor is not going to get that input. Create another thread in site feedback.

Clearly I misunderstood the open nature of this discussion. I'll let the fascism continue unabated now. I shall not return.

 

[Valkrionn]

You mean the 'obscure' location set up specifically to discuss the forum rules? You mean the 'obscure' location announced via a forum-wide announcement?

Discuss karma all you like, just go discuss it in a different thread where people who may want to discuss karma may see it. Discussing it in a thread devoted to the autocensor is not going to get that input. Create another thread in site feedback.

A karmic system is an entirely valid course of discussion within the autocensor topic, as it is a mechanism that would replace the autocensor.

 

[Birdjaguar]

At the end of the day, people are always going to circumvent these blo ody filters if they want to. This does no good except to annoy the mature users of this site.

The fact that you think it is your place to correct him and straight out go against his wishes for his site, is a pretty good indicator of your actual maturity. But human judgment is still underdeveloped until the mid twenties, so there is hope for you yet.

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 are correct that objecting to censorship is not a maturation issue and many post sin this thread attest to that. My exchange with WarKirby was not that. WarKirby had posted the F-word plain as day as a protest against the rules. He then labeled himself as a "mature user". He wasn't arguing for a reversal of the rules, or trying to add to the discussion; he was just breaking the rules to do so. Such rude behavior in a nice place is an act of immaturity regardless of one's age. The fact that he is 22 does mean that his brain is still developing its judgment capabilities, so over the next few years his judgment should improve.

 

[Valkrionn]

You are correct that objecting to censorship is not a maturation issue and many post sin this thread attest to that. My exchange with WarKirby was not that. WarKirby had posted the F-word plain as day as a protest against the rules. He then labeled himself as a "mature user". He wasn't arguing for a reversal of the rules, or trying to add to the discussion; he was just breaking the rules to do so. Such rude behavior in a nice place is an act of immaturity regardless of one's age. The fact that he is 22 does mean that his brain is still developing its judgment capabilities, so over the next few years his judgment should improve.

You, sir, should not be making posts of this nature while wearing the badge of a moderator.

It is completely irrelevant whether he broke the rules, or not. You are a moderator. You should be above such namecalling, and should keep those opinions to yourself. Doing otherwise does nothing more than encourage others to imitate you... Which is exactly what happened, to absolutely anyone arguing against this atrocious filter.

Your job is to penalize those who break the rules. It is in no way to publicly denigrate anyone's posts or insult them publicly. That is absolutely atrocious behavior.

So, I thank you, for illustrating exactly how the moderators of CfC behave. It is a fine example to be upheld.

 

[Bucephalus]

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.

If this is a fait accompli, then WTH is the point of this thread? For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with everything Warkirby has said.

Let's just be thankful that the English town of Scun-thorpe (my hyphen) isn't on the city list.

 

[ono-neko]

Oh, I think I forgot to mention it in my previous post. I don't have a stand, either for or against, with the new implementation of automated curse-word prevention. However, it's just easy for me to follow, or in this case, ignore the new implementation, since I don't curse and against cursing anyway. (Plus, I grew up with eastern philosophy, Confucious. Submit to the authority, and the harmony of the whole is more important than individuals. Remember the quote in Civ4 "The whole is more than the sum of its part"?).

As someone who used to moderate a small forum myself, I think I understand why CFC is taking the automated route. Sometimes moderating a forum can be a full time job in itself. It detracts the moderators from having fun, being a "forum police" (easily labeled as police state abuse), and limit their participation as member of the forum. Thus, the automated system takes away one of their job without them having to be involved directly.

From what I see and understand, until there's a viable (proved and have a successful track record) method that works more effectively to discourage (or eliminate) people from cursing, I don't think CFC will change the rules. The specific thread for discussion is created only so that there won't be hundreds of threads loitering the forums (users have the tendency of creating new thread even if that topic is already covered in existing thread). As well, to gauge the reaction and providing the reasoning from the mods (if any is given).

I feel it is a fine example, although the romans win they are stabbed by zombified legionnaiires. or something similar

I practically LOL at this when I read it That would be an awesome movies, zombies attacking the ancient roman legionaries

 

[Valkrionn]

Oh, I think I forgot to mention it in my previous post. I don't have a stand, either for or against, with the new implementation of automated curse-word prevention. However, it's just easy for me to follow, or in this case, ignore the new implementation, since I don't curse and against cursing anyway. (Plus, I grew up with eastern philosophy, Confucious. Submit to the authority, and the harmony of the whole is more important than individuals. Remember the quote in Civ4 "The whole is more than the sum of its part"?).

As someone who used to moderate a small forum myself, I think I understand why CFC is taking the automated route. Sometimes moderating a forum can be a full time job in itself. It detracts the moderators from having fun, being a "forum police" (easily labeled as police state abuse), and limit their participation as member of the forum. Thus, the automated system takes away one of their job without them having to be involved directly.

From what I see and understand, until there's a viable (proved and have a successful track record) method that works more effectively to discourage (or eliminate) people from cursing, I don't think CFC will change the rules. The specific thread for discussion is created only so that there won't be hundreds of threads loitering the forums (users have the tendency of creating new thread even if that topic is already covered in existing thread). As well, to gauge the reaction and providing the reasoning from the mods (if any is given).

There is a viable, proven alternative, that lessens the workload of moderators, allowing them to actually stick to moderating rather than babysitting.

It has been proposed throughout the entire thread.

A community-driven censorship mechanic (For lack of a better term, "Karma", as it is commonly called, though CfC's implementation could easily differ substantially) eliminates issues with perfectly acceptable words being banned, and also catches derogatory posts that do not currently trip the filter (again, it is easily possible to be more insulting WITHOUT cursing than you can be with cursing), while doing so without moderators directly intervening.

The moderators, in turn, can stick to more important things, only being called in to investigate potential abuses. How this is not obviously a better implementation, I do not know, and I will continue to argue for such a mechanism.

 

[classical_hero]

Does it mean that the autocensor is fixed so that words that can be used a as racial insult, but do have a proper use?

lets check it out. I want to find if their is a still a (censored word) in the autocensors armour.

Considering that such words are being edited out, I think it is a bad policy, since the autocensor is not good since correct words are being censored when they shouldn't be.

I hope people know what word I was trying use and it was used properly, even though it can be used as an insult. This is the main reason why I don't autocensors is that they don't understand words and how they are used in the language.

 

[ainwood]

Clearly I misunderstood the open nature of this discussion. I'll let the fascism continue unabated now. I shall not return.

It is hardly fascism to request that you take a tangentially related but off-topic subject and discuss it freely in another location.

 

[Bill3000]

Does it mean that the autocensor is fixed so that words that can be used a as racial insult, but do have a proper use?

lets check it out. I want to find if their is a still a (censored word) in the autocensors armour.

Considering that such words are being edited out, I think it is a bad policy, since the autocensor is not good since correct words are being censored when they shouldn't be.

I hope people know what word I was trying use and it was used properly, even though it can be used as an insult. This is the main reason why I don't autocensors is that they don't understand words and how they are used in the language.

Wouldn't that be more of an argument to remove that particular curse word and instead infract it when it is necessary instead of removing this new system altogether? I mean even with the old system you'd still have it bleep out.

 

[Valkrionn]

It is hardly fascism to request that you take a tangentially related but off-topic subject and discuss it freely in another location.

Yet it comes across as an effort to simply halt discussion of alternatives and force us to accept the current mechanism as inevitable.

Any discussion on the autocensor will feature those who are opposed to it for one reason or another. Any discussion will feature proposed alternatives, and quite rightfully so.

If you disagree. close the discussion or prevent me from posting in it. There is nothing else that would prevent me from continuing on arguing that any filter is ineffective, undesirable, and that there are better, tested solutions.

In short, no.

Wouldn't that be more of an argument to remove that particular curse word and instead infract it when it is necessary instead of removing this new system altogether? I mean even with the old system you'd still have it bleep out.

No it would not. It's an argument that context is important, and that context cannot be judged by any filter.

Just about all curse words become acceptable under the correct context. Why? Because they nearly all have a mundane meaning, as well as an impolite one.

No filter will distinguish between the two. Thus, no filter is a good solution to prevent cursing. Only direct human intervention can judge context, which means either more work for moderators or some other mechanism; We have proposed that other mechanism.

 

[Maimonides]

Question: are anacronyms like "WTH" & "STFU" permitted? I've seen "WTH" used many times w/o warning or infraction throughout the years. "STFU" would probably be infractable as sheer rudeness from one poster to another.

Yes, we are all thankful our merciful overlords don't smite us this very second.

...I take it you haven't visited an elementary school during recess recently...

I really don't understand why you responded to my post or what your responses mean.

My mom & wife are elementary school teachers. I have a child in elementary school. I lead a den of 14 Cub Scouts. I used to attend elementary school.

What do your responses have to do with the thread topic? It's a rhetorical question.