On Language Filters

[sophie]

If you can find filter-friendly alternatives for [poop]back, [poop]post, bull/horse[poop], [butt]hole, [excrement]hole, [device for capturing douche slurry], [poop] (in the general "Sache" or "Stoff" sense) that still capture the specific connotations and sense being expressed by the terms, let me know.

Because no, [butt]hole and butthole are not the same thing.

To people still doggedly declaring that "profanity is unskilled" or that profanity "limits your vocabulary", I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer to the above.

Or, to counter, give me an expletive and I will explain to you precisely why it has a deep and nuanced meaning that can't be easily replicated with alternatives without either:

a) opting for words so archaic or obscure that nobody knows what you're talking about
b) communicating the message in such a roundabout manner that the overall flow of the discourse or interest of the audience is lost

Or you guys can just keep [creating a feedback loop of reciprocal sexual satisfaction] about how eloquent you are because you don't say [fornication]boy or whatever.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Owen, in skilled hands most things usually deemed "unfit" can be made bright and interesting. But, as you probably already know, most of us are not so skilled that we can turn "poopyhead" into a sonnet of grace and beauty. Exceptions only prove the rules. Alas, we are not all Owen Glyndwr and so it is best if we are constrained and left to struggle within the confines of middle regions of the normal curve.

I would support individual exemptions to the ban though for those who can demonstrate poopiness with clarity of purpose and ingenuity.

 

[Bootstoots]

If I were Grand Poobah of CFC, I would probably relax the profanity rules somewhat, at least for profanity that is not directed at another user. But I'm not, and as it is I can confidently say that there's no way we're going to make any major changes in this direction, at least in the near future.

There is one thing to consider that doesn't have to do with people's standards of "family-friendliness" or the like. Our site has a very high standard for discussion compared to most of the internet - in particular, discussions are much more civil than "normal" for this sort of site, even on controversial issues. Cultures of civility are hard to maintain, and if it weren't for the strict ruleset, the level of civility would deteriorate rapidly. Allowing profanity may well change the atmosphere here in such a way as to make it less civil. In my limited anecdotal experience, sites that disallow profanity seem to have more interesting and civil discussion.

This isn't the strongest argument - we don't have any sure way of knowing that the profanity rules are helping the site more civil unless we run the experiment of relaxing them. But when we have a formula that works well, there are reasons to be conservative: rule changes are more likely to drive the site away from what we desire for it, rather than make it a better place for discussion.

Fundamentally, I agree with Owen that profanity is a very useful and linguistically interesting part of human communication, and expletives have no real substitutes. [Fornication], in particular, is in some ways the most versatile word in the English language. I do not agree that profanity is in some way less creative or limits someone's vocabulary, nor do I see any reason to consider it some sort of inappropriate content that we should shield from any young people who may be using the site. But whether it's actually a good idea to allow profanity on the site is a very different question, and I think it's quite possible that the rule is doing some good even though it may look, to some people, like 1950s-style prudery.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If I were Grand Poobah of CFC, I would probably relax the profanity rules somewhat, at least for profanity that is not directed at another user.

The problem with that would be determining if the word or phrase is in fact directed at another user. There are all kinds of ways already to indirectly insult another person without it being immediately obvious. Why add more?

This isn't the strongest argument - we don't have any sure way of knowing that the profanity rules are helping the site more civil unless we run the experiment of relaxing them. But when we have a formula that works well, there are reasons to be conservative: rule changes are more likely to drive the site away from what we desire for it, rather than make it a better place for discussion.

Normally I'm in favor of experimenting and giving changes a trial run of at least six months... but this is not something I'd be in favor of.

I would support individual exemptions to the ban though for those who can demonstrate poopiness with clarity of purpose and ingenuity.

I hope this is just a joke and not a serious declaration of support for user-specific rules.

 

[Omega124]

I for one think that the s word should become unfiltered. I can understand why the f bomb is filtered; even as a writer in the IOT section who would love to more accurately mirror how modern people talk (AKA liberal dropping of the f bomb), I understand the practical reasons to ban the f bomb (keeping the non story writing portion of the forum clean from low hanging insults). I'm 100% for keeping it civil.

However, banning the s word is stupid and needs to stop. The s word is very mild these days; its definitely vulgar but I can't really think of it as being offensive. I don't think anyone here would be offended if I called them a piece of s or a s-head. Might be angry because I insulted them, but its not the the insults themselves are especially egregious.

Meanwhile, me being able to say s word more freely would help accurately encapsulate how people speak. There's a lot of situations which calls for someone to yell "s word!", or perhaps they're trying to say something is s word, or perhaps I'm trying to describe literal feces. As Sone said, this would even help the regular part of the forums, allowing for easier communication if an idea or concept or event was truely terrible in a way that everyone would be able to understand.

Also children are going to eventually learn to swear somewhere on the internet why not here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think anyone here would be offended if I called them a piece of s or a s-head. Might be angry because I insulted them, but its not the the insults themselves are especially egregious.

You would be incorrect.

As Sone said, this would even help the regular part of the forums, allowing for easier communication if an idea or concept or event was truely terrible in a way that everyone would be able to understand.

Some threads get contentious enough without allowing even more ways to cause trouble.

Also children are going to eventually learn to swear somewhere on the internet why not here.

Because CFC does not need to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Yes, there are things about this forum I consider problematical, but prohibiting egregious use of profanity isn't one of them.

 

[Synobun]

I hope this is just a joke and not a serious declaration of support for user-specific rules.

I imagine it's a tongue-in-cheek challenge towards anyone who believes vulgarity is a tool of eloquent civil expression.

 

[Omega124]

You would be incorrect.

I'm sorry to say then that you need to get tougher skin. I can and have been called worse things. Outright slurs that would get me infracted if I repeated them.

Anything I mentioned is mild.

Some threads get contentious enough without allowing even more ways to cause trouble.

Maybe we should ban like that one person asked for. He thought it made threads more contentious.

Because CFC does not need to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Yes, there are things about this forum I consider problematical, but prohibiting egregious use of profanity isn't one of them.

Swearing isn't the lowest common denominator. It's a natural fact of life.

OT in general, however, IS the lowest common denominator and should be purged

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm sorry to say then that you need to get tougher skin. I can and have been called worse things. Outright slurs that would get me infracted if I repeated them.

Anything I mentioned is mild.

You think I haven't been called names that would get someone infracted here, if not outright temp-banned?

OT in general, however, IS the lowest common denominator and should be purged

OT isn't perfect, and yes, there are some very contentious threads there and some are downright ridiculous. But there are also some very good ones, and it's not fair to tar everything and everyone with the same brush.

I can think of a forum where you'd be right at home. But you'd have to put up with rudeness not only from other members, but also the moderators and admins throwing verbal abuse at you while simultaneously posting pious speeches about how they "hate cyberbullying." Almost anything goes in that place. You can be as nasty as you want; the only lines they draw are racial/ethnic slurs and explicit sexual harassment. And my ignore list on that forum has over 30 people on it.

That's really not what I'd like to see CFC become.

 

[sophie]

I for one think that the s word should become unfiltered. I can understand why the f bomb is filtered; even as a writer in the IOT section who would love to more accurately mirror how modern people talk (AKA liberal dropping of the f bomb), I understand the practical reasons to ban the f bomb (keeping the non story writing portion of the forum clean from low hanging insults). I'm 100% for keeping it civil.

However, banning the s word is stupid and needs to stop. The s word is very mild these days; its definitely vulgar but I can't really think of it as being offensive. I don't think anyone here would be offended if I called them a piece of s or a s-head. Might be angry because I insulted them, but its not the the insults themselves are especially egregious.

Meanwhile, me being able to say s word more freely would help accurately encapsulate how people speak. There's a lot of situations which calls for someone to yell "s word!", or perhaps they're trying to say something is s word, or perhaps I'm trying to describe literal feces. As Sone said, this would even help the regular part of the forums, allowing for easier communication if an idea or concept or event was truely terrible in a way that everyone would be able to understand.

Also children are going to eventually learn to swear somewhere on the internet why not here.

I don't think this is a particularly good tack to take - [poop]head especially piece of [poop] are still quite aggressive terms. However [poop] and [fornicate] do have certain uses that are no longer particularly offensive or even really vulgar, and in fact have developed special grammatical niches that have become difficult to disentangle from colloquial speech.

For example [fornicate] as a extreme intensifying adjective or adverb:

That guy was [fornicate]ing amazing! This was the best [fornicate]ing sandwich I've ever eaten!

There's also [fornicate] in certain idiomatic expressions that can't easily be replaced, at least not in the same visceral or expressive way that [fornicate] does it.

What the [fornicate] was that?! Which already gets skirted, for example with phrases like "dafuq". There's also "this game is [fornicated]" and "that's [fornicated] up dude". None of these are particularly aggressive or egregious, and satisfy useful needs in everyday colloquial contexts, which is why they have become so common, even in "formal" digital journalism environments.

[poop] is another good example of this, as [poop] has taken the role of a general replacement for words like "thing" or "Sache" (which is a German word for "thing" that refers to a more general context, event, or environment).

For example: "that's some good [poop] right there dude", "[poop]'s crazy yo", "what's this [poop], "that was some real messed up [poop] you did back there".

So yes these words do still exist in the technical "expletive" or "oath" sense, and those can be modified to form aggressive insults. "Aw [poop]" "[fornicate] off", "you [fornicate]-head". But they've also taken on far deeper meanings that have become more intrinsic to modern usage. The use of expletives qua expletives I see as secondary - the one rule of OT is don't be a dick and using expletives as expletives violates that rule: I am using a select set of words to put you down - but the absence of expletives doesn't translate to me being unable to put you down. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language; if I really want to make you feel bad about yourself I don't need [fornicate] and [feces] to do so.

I can understand the argument the administrators are making - moderating is work intensive, resources are stretched thin as it is, and removing auto-filters means more work. But the swear filter is, as I see it, redundant on the forum. The imperative to not be a dick supersedes any use of a swear that may have been done in bad faith.

That being said, I've made my peace with this dumb rule a long time ago. Moderation loosened the restrictions on linking/embedding "un-family friendly" content when that content can be demonstrated to be relevant to the topic at hand and that was the only thing that was truly irksome to me about the rule. I still think the rule is dumb, and if I were in charge the rule would be removed, but I know why the rule won't be changed, Bootstoots eloquent, thoughtful response was all I really think anybody should need and I'm sincerely grateful he took the time to make it.

I more just came in here to contest the really REALLY dumb arguments being put forward by pretentious dillweeds [practicing sexual self-satisfaction] over how eloquent and erudite their verbiage is because they don't debase themselves with such boorish language as those other vulgar youths.

Also I want to note that my argument applies more to "vulgarities" concerning sexual acts and biological by-products. I would say that over time - particularly the last few decades - the English language has shifted in their organizing of profanities away from taboo acts and towards words that denote or emphasize otherness. As words like [fornicate] and [poop] and [masturbate] and ass have abated in their severity, words like [homosexual], [female homosexual], [female dog], [woman's reproductive organ] (<- special case), [black person], [jewish person], [latino/a], [mental handicapped person] have risen to take their place. I want it to be clear that I'm not arguing for words like these. Unlike words like [poop] and [fornication] these words DO in of themselves indicate a breaking of cfc's prime directive. I can't think of a single use for any of these words that doesn't specifically and singularly entail belittling an individual or group of individuals.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Is it possible to set filters for individual subforums? .

Nope, there is only one filter. I do not believe it can be shut off for individual subfora, but ainwood or PeteK would know better on that point.

 

[Quintillus]

Is it possible to set filters for individual subforums? That way, we could have our uncivilized barbaric banter in IOT, while other people can sneer at our ways in OT and talk about enlightened things like sex robots.

While not an unreasonable question, I do find it somewhat ironic to ask for an uncivilized, barbaric area of the forum on a site called Civilization Fanatics Center. Though Firaxis did come out with the barbarian mod for Civ4 Warlords, so there is a precedent.

I don't think anyone here would be offended if I called them a piece of s or a s-head. Might be angry because I insulted them, but its not the the insults themselves are especially egregious.

Also children are going to eventually learn to swear somewhere on the internet why not here.

I would certainly consider that an insult... I wouldn't say offended but it would not endear the person who said it to me. I'd much rather have the civil discussion of "Hey, I found a bug in your mod {describes bug}, can you fix it?", than "Hey s-head, what the [expletive] is wrong with your mod and this bug?", or "No, you're wrong because of x, y, and z" than "You're totally wrong, s-head". I can see how in real-life situations with people you know well it may not cause any ill feelings, but that's often difficult to convert into communicating only with text with strangers on the Internet (and even if you could do it, not everyone else could).

And there's plenty of places on the Internet to learn how to swear... I doubt any child will be left behind because they only could have learned that on CFC.

I don't think this is a particularly good tack to take - [poop]head especially piece of [poop] are still quite aggressive terms. However [poop] and [fornicate] do have certain uses that are no longer particularly offensive or even really vulgar, and in fact have developed special grammatical niches that have become difficult to disentangle from colloquial speech.

For example [fornicate] as a extreme intensifying adjective or adverb:

That guy was [fornicate]ing amazing! This was the best [fornicate]ing sandwich I've ever eaten!

{abbreviated}

Also I want to note that my argument applies more to "vulgarities" concerning sexual acts and biological by-products. I would say that over time - particularly the last few decades - the English language has shifted in their organizing of profanities away from taboo acts and towards words that denote or emphasize otherness. As words like [fornicate] and [poop] and [masturbate] and ass have abated in their severity, words like [homosexual], [female homosexual], [female dog], [woman's reproductive organ] (<- special case), [black person], [jewish person], [latino/a], [mental handicapped person] have risen to take their place. I want it to be clear that I'm not arguing for words like these. Unlike words like [poop] and [fornication] these words DO in of themselves indicate a breaking of cfc's prime directive. I can't think of a single use for any of these words that doesn't specifically and singularly entail belittling an individual or group of individuals.

Though it would be academic to list them all, I can think of less severe alternatives to nearly all your [fornicating] examples that still get the point across, most of which don't require any words that would be banned (a few with words that are, but are less severe). With more time, I could probably come up with good replacements for the rest. Not that the [fornicating] versions don't make their point well - I just tend to agree with Valka that there's usually alternative ways to say them that do as well. In a way, that ties in with your point that you don't need those words to make someone feel bad.

I do agree that Bootstoots' reply is the key one of the thread, and you also have a very good point with the shifting perceptions in your last paragraph.

I admit that I'm conservative on this in part because I've seen how much of a cesspool some similar sites have become after relaxing this, and thus don't expect the outcome of an experiment would be positive. With better moderation standards, which CFC generally has, it may be possible to allow it and maintain civility of discourse... but as Bootstoots says, things are generally working well, so why take the chance of experimenting with it and finding out that it actually was more important to the civility of discussion than we thought?

 

[Camikaze]

The point about it being possible to use alternative words to get your point across isn't correctly about forcing people to improve their writing, as if the purpose of the forum rules were to force education upon our members. Rather, it's just saying that it's possible to accommodate yourself to the rules, which have been implemented for the purpose of making the site more attractive to prospective users, who may have particular opinions about the use inappropriate language, whether those opinions be right or wrong. We're unlikely to dissuade people from joining the site by not having enough profanity on show, but it's somewhat likely that other people would be dissuaded from joining the site (or perhaps prohibited in the case of younger prospective members) if inappropriate language is on display. Given we'd rather not dissuade people from joining, and given the limitation on inappropriate language doesn't present much of a practical impediment to communication (this is where the 'you could use other words' comes in), the rules against inappropriate language are pretty low-cost to have in place.

 

[Mise]

Owen, in skilled hands most things usually deemed "unfit" can be made bright and interesting. But, as you probably already know, most of us are not so skilled that we can turn "poopyhead" into a sonnet of grace and beauty. Exceptions only prove the rules. Alas, we are not all Owen Glyndwr and so it is best if we are constrained and left to struggle within the confines of middle regions of the normal curve.

I would support individual exemptions to the ban though for those who can demonstrate poopiness with clarity of purpose and ingenuity.

Yeah, exactly. I support the status quo.

I know for a fact that my swearing is unskilled, unnecessary, and undignified. I'm pretty sure I'm in the 10% of this forum in terms of intelligence, originality, maturity, sophistication and wit, so if even I can't be trusted to swear well, then I really hold no hope for the rest of you.

 

[Hygro]

I just discovered that a word starting with R and ending with D has entered the language filter. This is pathetic. The language filter is going the wrong way. Just infract the rare people who use it pejoratively? Do we really need to unload a circus of smilies in its place?

 

[Synobun]

I just discovered that a word starting with R and ending with D has entered the language filter. This is pathetic. The language filter is going the wrong way. Just infract the rare people who use it pejoratively? Do we really need to unload a circus of smilies in its place?

Not surprising, it's quickly become considered as a slur in the past two years. I don't support censoring but since that's CFC's policy, it makes sense they'd start to censor things that are now socially unacceptable.

 

[leif erikson]

Yes, it is considered a slur and thus on the auto-censor list.

 

[Hygro]

as people are using it less and less, CFC reacts stronger to it being a slur

 

[Camikaze]

I believe the change occurred about 2 years ago, so any going the wrong way would have to be located at that time.

 

[Bootstoots]

It's been in the filter the whole time I've been a mod. It does have non-pejorative uses: e.g. "wind shear acts to [redacted] the development of a hurricane" and so could perhaps be considered for removal for that reason, but its most common use is for an insult we're not okay with.