Autocensor Changes

[Valkrionn]

Now that I am awake again...

Well, let's see. Do you get treated like a child on these forums when you don't do anything wrong? I certainly don't. So the only times you would possibly be treated like a child is if you had done something wrong. That means that being treated like a child is the effect, with acting like one being the cause.

In my opinion, yes. Simply by the fact that they decided it must exist. That would be the primary difference in our opinions.

This is what causes me confusion. Two contradictory answers. Is a karma system whereby the moderators decide your 'karma', or 'reputation', being proposed, or is a system whereby users decide your 'karma' being proposed? If it is the former, how would that be any different to what we currently have, particularly as it relates to swearing? If it is the latter, how would you protect against abuse and prevent elitism from creeping into the system? And how would reporting posts factor into the system in this case, given that users cannot see reports? And how would it actually prevent people from swearing?

Moderators prevent abuse. Community decides upon karma.

To fully explain it:

Anyone logged into the sight would see three new buttons on posts. Vote Up (thumbs up), Vote Down (thumbs down), Report.

The Report button highlights the post in some way for a moderator to notice; Sends them a pm, places it in a list of posts available in the moderator forum, whatever. They see it, they check the post, and if it deserved report they infract. If it did not, and the report was made maliciously, they infract the reporter heavily.

The Vote Up/Down buttons are what actually effects Karma, but effect the individual post as well; Karma is actually unnecessary to the system, but could be used rather than post count for certain privileges (so your posts have to actually CONTRIBUTE, rather than be spam). If a post is voted down by enough people, it is automatically hidden, minimized; If you wish to see it anyway, you are free to do so, but noone else would see it. Any post containing flaming, profanity, etc, would rapidly find itself in this situation.

Yes, the system could be abused if a large enough group decides to do it. However, that is what moderators are for. If you feel you are being targeted maliciously, you inform the moderators, and they check out who's been rating your posts. If it's the same group repeatedly, and your posts are not objectionable, then that group should be hit extremely heavily.

The same type of system works on a number of far more populous forums. They are able to deal with potential abuses. There is no reason CfC could not.

And on the upside, the system would cover much more than a filter could ever hope to do.
​

So if there was no rule against profanity, no profanity would exist in the forums? That seems to be an odd assumption.

No. His issue is that we were never given a chance to follow the rule without such a filter.

But you acknowledge that this autocensor will at least stop some people from swearing. It's a matter of whether the added impoliteness from indignant posters made at the forum for taking away their free speech outweighs the impoliteness prevented in this manner.

And in the process, it gets in the way of legitimate posts all over the forum.

It sticks in the craw of anyone who dislikes the idea of being treated as children, rather than trusting us to follow the rules.

Sure, there would be plenty who do not follow the rules. If such a filter was the only way to guarantee that, I would live with it, albeit unhappily. However, there are far better methods available.

How would up and down voting posts actually eliminate it? It would simply tell people that it is not considered acceptable to swear (assuming posts containing swearing were always down voted in the first place), which the forum rules do anyway. No one is going to be stopped from posting profanity anymore than they currently are.

Already said it in the above post, but if low-rated posts are minimized, the swearing/flaming/impoliteness is eliminated.

Not to mention that if the post is reported (and it likely would be), the poster would be infracted for it, so repeat offenders would be banned. With a report button, moderators can more or less do other things, and only worry about profanity when they are moving through that list of posts.

I dispute the claim that there are sometimes not better ways to get your point across. I for one have never had a need to resort to using profanity.

Context is important to some words, such as the one commonly in the same sentence as 'armour', but there are some words (the more notable and versatile swear words spring to mind) where there is no context in which it should be deemed acceptable to post. Context isn't important for these words, because no matter what the situation is, it isn't appropriate to post it.

If someone is flaming you, sometimes there is nothing so satisfying as letting a few choice words drop. I have not done so on this forum, but it still stands; If others can bypass the filter easily to curse me, I cannot respond likewise currently.

In the same way, certain strings of words can be used to emphasize your point in a way that others cannot do... This I have done here, on extremely rare occasion.

That said, once again, I'm not arguing in favor of cursing, really. I'm arguing in favor of a far better system to prevent it.

I can see where you're coming from here, but I think you're taking it the wrong way. This system should not make you feel like you are not being treated with respect, because it is targeted solely at those who use profanity. If you do not use profanity, it is not targeted at you at all. The moderators are not saying that you are a naughty child who can't be trusted to post without having your post looked over. They are saying that those who swear are. And the moment you introduce profanity into your post, perhaps the moderators have a good reason for not thinking you can post.

I myself am greatly opposed to collective punishment as moderator policy (in fact, I wrote quite a lengthy post about a month or so back stressing the importance of moving away from collective punishment). But this isn't actually preventing anyone from doing anything if they stick to the forum rules. It is only when you are doing something wrong that this rule affects you.

But it should. Whether it is intended to target those who use profanity or not is irrelevant; It is targets us all. Rather than given the opportunity to behave as adults, we are treated as children who have to have the once-over on anything they write.

A word filter is heavy handed by design, picks up words it should not, and hangs over all of us.

A community-driven system would take context into account, is something all are a part of, and is the difference between a parent telling you you are bad and a group of your peers telling you they no longer wish to deal with you; Child vs Adult.

Perhaps the Hitler analogy is representative of what the opposition think of this system, but it falls down when you remember that this is a private forum in which it has been made very clear that free speech does not apply. And considering that you aren't affected by this unless you are actually doing something wrong, I don't really see how it is heavy handed.

A private forum that is far more successful for the contributions of the very people who are arguing against this filter.

Look at those who are arguing against it. They are, for the most part, modders. People who have not abused cursing in the past, people who have created content that drove a large portion of the community on this site, and people who are now in the process of creating something new with Civ5.

CfC would not be CfC without those people, as it would lose a large part of the Customization section of the site.

So yes, it is a private forum. However, the opinions of the membership should be factored into decisions of this nature. Once again, I do not think many of us are arguing for the ability to curse on the forum; I don't want it, at least. But the filter as implemented is a terrible solution, and there are better available.

I don't see how the karma system proposed is a better method. Particularly if success is measured by how much profanity is posted.

Anyway, it's been nice discussing. QUOTE]

It allows moderators to do things other than comb through every thread looking for profanity; The report button takes care of that.

It prevents any rude post from existing more than a few moments, as it will rapidly be rated down and thus minimized. This covers all impolite posts.

Right now, if I called into question the virtue of your mother, the filter would do nothing. With a karma system, it would be removed just as quickly as cursing.

 

[Mathilda]

Anyone logged into the sight would see three new buttons on posts. Vote Up (thumbs up), Vote Down (thumbs down), Report.

The Report button highlights the post in some way for a moderator to notice; Sends them a pm, places it in a list of posts available in the moderator forum, whatever. They see it, they check the post, and if it deserved report they infract. If it did not, and the report was made maliciously, they infract the reporter heavily.

You do realise we do this part already.
The button is at the bottom left of each post, under the avatar.
Looks like this:

 

[Valkrionn]

You do realise we do this part already.
The button is at the bottom left of each post, under the avatar.
Looks like this:

Actually, it does not look like that. Though that may just be my forum style, which made it less obvious (Black CfC).

So tell me: Why can we not rely on that, then? Why is there any need to also have a filter, when the report button can be used to draw moderator attention to the post and remove it?

 

[ainwood]

Actually, it does not look like that. Though that may just be my forum style, which made it less obvious (Black CfC).

So tell me: Why can we not rely on that, then? Why is there any need to also have a filter, when the report button can be used to draw moderator attention to the post and remove it?

1.) Because people don't consistently report things.
2.) Because we'd actually prefer not to infract for language (by not having it posted in the first place.
3.) Because surprisingly, most people don't actually bother to read the rules and think they can post whatever they like. Putting it in their face shows them what is and what is not OK, and avoids them arguing with the moderators.

As for being treated like a child, there are a number of children on this forum. We also censor pornography and hate speech. Is that problematic for you as well?

 

[Valkrionn]

1.) Because people don't consistently report things.
2.) Because we'd actually prefer not to infract for language (by not having it posted in the first place.
3.) Because surprisingly, most people don't actually bother to read the rules and think they can post whatever they like. Putting it in their face shows them what is and what is not OK, and avoids them arguing with the moderators.

As for being treated like a child, there are a number of children on this forum. We also censor pornography and hate speech. Is that problematic for you as well?

1. Then get the community to do so. That is one of the things a karma system would do; By adding those new features, the report button is "In your face" as part of the new system, and people start using it. For that matter, most people LIKE a karma system, as they like being rated up.
2. Understandable, but it will be posted regardless.
3. Then that is their own fault, IMO. If you expect to be a member of a community, you check the community's rules. It should be that simple. If you break them, whether you knew it existed or not, you are infracted. I mean, just because I am "unaware" that pot is illegal does not mean I can get away with possessing it if I am caught.

No. It is not problematic for you to desire to filter anything of that nature, and I have said so throughout my arguments. I have not, and will not, argued in favor of allowing cursing. If that is what you believe I am doing, you have sorely misinterpreted my posts.

I am stating that the manner in which the filtering is occurring is undesirable. Not the filtering in and of itself; This is the internet. People act stupid.

 

[Mathilda]

Actually, it does not look like that. Though that may just be my forum style, which made it less obvious (Black CfC).

You're right, that looks like this:

(posted here in case someone else was looking for it)

 

[Valkrionn]

You're right, that looks like this:

(posted here in case someone else was looking for it)

Yep. I always took it as part of the online/offline display.

That would do a lot more good if it was more known to people, really, and puts you halfway to the system I proposed anyway.

 

[Mathilda]

Noted

 

[ainwood]

Then get the community to do so. That is one of the things a karma system would do; By adding those new features, the report button is "In your face" as part of the new system, and people start using it.

In my experience, people who have no problem with swearing will not report it. How do you make them do that?

If the language is used and its not reported consistently, then people see this as tacit approval of that language. And when it is found, and infracted, then people complain that it was tolerated in some other post. The moderators then get accused of inconsistency, and people lose faith in the moderators. This is not some sort of 'slippery slope' argument, either. It is a statement of fact based on my experience moderating here.

I have not, and will not, argued in favor of allowing cursing. If that is what you believe I am doing, you have sorely misinterpreted my posts.

No; you're arguing that blocking people from posting profanity is treating them like children. Personally, I think it is more akin to treating them like children by 'telling off' (infracting) grown adults when they post swear words.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Our goal is to not have swear words show up in the forums, the use of the auto censor gets us pretty far along that path by not allowing many words to show up at all. No response needed. Using the reported post button gets us the rest of the way and allows for a variety of responses: deletion, infraction or banning.

A karma system has a different goal and is a broader tool with other implications and potential problems. Your goal is not the same as ours.

 

[Mathilda]

Personally, I think it is more akin to treating them like children by 'telling off' (infracting) grown adults when they post swear words.

Exactly this.
Even more so when it's infracting for a row of smileys.

 

[Valkrionn]

In my experience, people who have no problem with swearing will not report it. How do you make them do that?

If the language is used and its not reported consistently, then people see this as tacit approval of that language. And when it is found, and infracted, then people complain that it was tolerated in some other post. The moderators then get accused of inconsistency, and people lose faith in the moderators. This is not some sort of 'slippery slope' argument, either. It is a statement of fact based on my experience moderating here.


No; you're arguing that blocking people from posting profanity is treating them like children. Personally, I think it is more akin to treating them like children by 'telling off' (infracting) grown adults when they post swear words.

Yet if the entire community is involved with the report/rating of such posts, you do not have to "make" people do it; They do it automatically.

As I said, there are multiple larger forums that use it successfully.

And I do not see an infraction as "telling someone off"; It's a penalty for breaking the rules of the community. A speeding ticket is not a cop "telling you off", it's society telling you speeding is not tolerated. The cop is simply the agent delivering the message. Same principle applies here.

Exactly this.
Even more so when it's infracting for a row of smileys.

Once again, I do not see that as treating someone as a child. It is upholding the rules of the community.

Now, it is treating someone as a child if the aforementioned infraction includes derogatory statements directed at the person being infracted, but then, my opinion on that should be known from previous posts.

 

[GenMarshall]

Would there be any false positives created by using a foreign language that contains a piece of the offending word, I know some words in Japanese have them (even if the text is translated to English).

Though with the karma system, I would be heavily using it knowing that I am always the atoner round these parts trying to get on the mod's good side .

 

[Kozmos]

Did Thunderfall actually said that he finds asterisks and smilies offensive and demanded more overbearing censorship?

 

[Mathilda]

Triggering the autocensor has been against the rules as long as I remember, nothing new there.

 

[GenMarshall]

Triggering the autocensor has been against the rules as long as I remember, nothing new there.

Even in cases of false positives?

 

[Sephi]

Before I quote anyone, let me give my own opinion... I am quite vehemently against this.

As others have said, we are not children. As others have said, the context of a word is important, and radically changes the meaning. No automated filter will pick up on that context, and thus any automated filter will be heavy handed.

I go out of my way to avoid cursing on this forum. Even when being actively flamed (which has happened several times in the past) I go out of my way to avoid it unless I feel I cannot make my point without it.

I still despise this change. When it was simply smileyed out, it could be ignored quite simply, leaving me able to post and the choice of infract or not up to the moderators. Now, it is thrown in your face; This alone makes it far more repugnant to me.

So yes, I most certainly would rather be allowed to make the post and then be infracted, than have it block my post. I have never been infracted in my history posting on this site (though admittedly came close); Context matters.

In my opinion, it would be far more desirable to approach the issue like adults and use a karma system as Afforress described, or simply have the choice of censorship be a personal option.

Blocking words does nothing. It does nothing. It can be bypassed, it can be ignored, it can be manipulated, or you can get creative and flame using entirely proper, but extremely insulting, language. This filter does nothing to improve the atmosphere of the site, never has, and never will; It is simply something to remind us that we are children.




As I said, this filter does nothing to prevent impolite posting. I am quite capable of ripping into someone in an entirely polite manner, with a smile on my face. Capability does not mean I will do so, nor that I should, but this filter does nothing whatsoever to prevent this. It simply means flaming takes more creativity... And thus becomes more fun for those who do so regularly.

Having cursewords starred out does not make a post more impolite. Frankly, if I were to desire to curse and was unable to due to a filter of this sort, I would go out of my way to be as impolite as possible. Censorship of such a heavy handed nature is never a good solution.

Again, context is key. Context is always key. If a post with cursing had both the words starred out (for those with that option on) and was automatically sent to moderators, who could actually examine the context and tone and decide whether to infract or not, I'd be okay with it; I have no qualms about wanting to prevent flaming. My issues are when it is done in such a heavy handed manner.



Once again: The removal of curse words in no way increases the general politeness of posts, and may well prove detrimental to that effort. Anyone above the age of 12 should be quite capable of being as insulting as they wish without needing to rely on such words, while some of us use them in everyday speech without thinking twice (I am one such person, I simply have no desire to have that associated with my modding. ).


Honestly, the best solution is a karma system, or rating system, or however you want it. When posts can be rated up/down, reported to moderators (with false reports being infracted heavily, abuses of the rating being infracted, etc), you tend to find things become far more polite almost immediately.

100% agreed. But something tells me the decisions have already been done

 

[Mathilda]

Even in cases of false positives?

I don't know, probably not.
Though in my personal opinion there isn't any real need to post in Japanese on CFC.

 

[Moss]

Did Thunderfall actually said that he finds asterisks and smilies offensive and demanded more overbearing censorship?

To me, it's not more censorship but better censorship.

As Mathilda said, triggering the autocensor has always been against the rules.

 

[Valkrionn]

I don't know, probably not.
Though in my personal opinion there isn't any real need to post in Japanese on CFC.

False positives are demonstrably not limited to non-english words.