Poll. Is curse word censoring really necessary?

[ainwood]

Funny thing was when i got my thread title changed by mod when i did add four * myself to title. Once i couldn't post a book name because of the autocensor, i did vote 'no', but it doesn't really matter.

I will make something clear (then await the protests by those who disagree with the policy):

We, as moderators, may infract all of the following:

1. Post swear words in a form that will bypass the autocensor
2. Post words that are very similar to swear words (eg slightly different spellings of them)
3. Post swear words, and allow the autocensor to hide them.
4. Directly post . .. .. .. .. or *****- type phrases (ie: Post directly themselves what the autocensor would have posted)
5. Posts letters & symbols in place of swear words.

That list is roughly most serious to least serious in the infraction scale.

My view: If you can't post something without swearing, then you probably didn't need to / shouldn't post it anyway.

 

[Yoda Power]

It helps on the maturity of discussion. Please keep it.

 

[Catharsis]

but anyhow, there are posters here who don't like swearing and we should respect that for ****'s sake

Yo.

Just in case people think the OP's generalisation about Europeans is true: I've sworn twice in my life, and on both occasions it was accidental.

As for the censor: to be honest, if you constantly find yourself being constrained by the swear censor, then you're doing something wrong. And it's not worth getting rid of it entirely just for the sake of a Prodigy song.

 

[nc-1701]

I will make something clear (then await the protests by those who disagree with the policy):

We, as moderators, may infract all of the following:

1. Post swear words in a form that will bypass the autocensor
2. Post words that are very similar to swear words (eg slightly different spellings of them)
3. Post swear words, and allow the autocensor to hide them.
4. Directly post . .. .. .. .. or *****- type phrases (ie: Post directly themselves what the autocensor would have posted)
5. Posts letters & symbols in place of swear words.

That list is roughly most serious to least serious in the infraction scale.

My view: If you can't post something without swearing, then you probably didn't need to / shouldn't post it anyway.

Out of curiosity does using words which aren't blocked by the auto filter against the rules? I mean ost people least in America consider Hell a swear word, but it doesn't get blocked... Does that mean it' ok? Or can I still get in trouble for saying it?



@Hitt-Litti
Actually I think Halo/Starcraft/etc. chat is the lowest common denominator and Youtube comments are the second lowest. But that's basically what I meant. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote?

 

[ainwood]

Out of curiosity does using words which aren't blocked by the auto filter against the rules? I mean ost people least in America consider Hell a swear word, but it doesn't get blocked... Does that mean it' ok? Or can I still get in trouble for saying it?

I personally won't warn anyone for using "hell" or "damn". There are some offensive words that are not on the auto-censor: case-by-case basis / judgement used.

 

[mdwh]

Moderator Action: Moved to Site Feedback

And personally I don't think curse words are necessary to express any sentiment (in writing at least), or at any rate any sentiment inspired by a computer game.

It's not about cursing - there have been various times when a "naughty" word has come up in the context of a thread, and it needs to be used.

And what good does it do - people can usually guess what the word is anyway.

At least it doesn't suffer from the s****horpe problem.

I wonder how many people voting "Yes" only post on Civ threads, compared to those in the debating forums such as Off-Topic? (And I'd hope that a mod should be aware that not all forums here are related directly to the computer game!)

 

[lutzj]

Wait. Are we allowed to type a generic @#$%! without meaning anything specific?

 

[LucyDuke]

I would like to be able to swear freely here, but the tradeoff is worth it to me. I'll rant and swear in #fiftychat, and have the more civilized discussions here. If we could swear here, we'd abuse the privilege. Thing would get too stupid too quickly.

When I want to use a phrase that has to contain a swear, I modify the swear a little bit. It might be technically against the rules, but I haven't gotten in trouble yet.

i know that old story "forum isnt a right, it's a privilege" . No it's not. because without us you would have nothing to do and this page wouldn't exist.

That makes it a right?

 

[lutzj]

i know that old story "forum isnt a right, it's a privilege" . No it's not. because without us you would have nothing to do and this page wouldn't exist ... I'm not gonna rant about the rules and flame admins and mods for not listening to me i'm just saying that these rules are implying that you're hosting a forum for a bunch of dumb asses, which i don't believe is the case.

Okay. You potty-mouths all leave. See what we care. We'd actually prefer not being called dumbasses

 

[azzaman333]

I reckon the swear filter is too strict, but removing it completely would be a bad idea.

 

[Plotinus]

Wait. Are we allowed to type a generic @#$%! without meaning anything specific?

That would be no. 5 on ainwood's list.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I admin/mod several forums (mostly RPG/SF related), and it's an ongoing problem dealing with people who think that just because it's the Internet and nobody can see them, it doesn't matter what they say.

On one forum, the early members had a discussion about whether or not to allow swearing, and to what extent. We decided that a mild "hell" or "damn" was okay. So is "crap" -- although I've seen that censored on some forums. But we had an amusing incident happen when the word filters messed up one of the emoticons because part of its code contained one of the forbidden words. We simply changed the code for the emoticon, and everything was fine.

I agree with Plotinus: If you are so angry that you can't finds words to express yourself other than swearing, it's time to consult a thesaurus. There are lots of words in there, most of which hardly ever get used in an average day. As for myself, if any of my posts here include <unprintable>, that's my own version of expressing extreme anger.

Forums are not the same as chat rooms. I had to ban one person who couldn't understand that. He has since taken his filthy posts to another site, and I don't miss the aggravation one bit.

But ultimately, each forum is a community, and each has its own rules and customs. I find the rules and moderation here at CivFanatics to be quite fair and balanced, and have cited this place as one of the best examples I know of excellence in forum management.

 

[RedRalph]

I think theres a big, big difference between cursing and attacking someone. I think calling someone a curseword deserves an infraction, but I once got one for posting "FFS"... honestly, why?

 

[sirdanilot]

The autocensor is not needed, but I don't mind it being there anyway. The poll needs a third option .

 

[Hitti-Litti]

@Hitt-Litti
Actually I think Halo/Starcraft/etc. chat is the lowest common denominator and Youtube comments are the second lowest. But that's basically what I meant. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote?

My point was that I thought that ye didn't understand that those, who post "lulz ZOMG allyourbasebelongtous" don't post in CFC, this forum looks to official for them.

 

[LucyDuke]

The autocensor is not needed, but I don't mind it being there anyway. The poll needs a third option .

This, I agree with. I voted that it is unnecessary.

 

[mdwh]

On one forum, the early members had a discussion about whether or not to allow swearing, and to what extent. We decided that a mild "hell" or "damn" was okay. So is "crap" -- although I've seen that censored on some forums. But we had an amusing incident happen when the word filters messed up one of the emoticons because part of its code contained one of the forbidden words. We simply changed the code for the emoticon, and everything was fine.

This isn't a debate on whether to allow swearing though, it's about the word-filter.

You can ban people swearing at other people without a filter.

Meanwhile, the filter catches more than simply when people "can't finds words to express yourself other than swearing" (as I say, sometimes there are legitimite reasons - and my thesaurus doesn't have naughty words blanked out...)

I'm a mod on a forum that needs to be far more sensitive to people, but we don't resort to things like filters.

Personally I find the graphical smilies far more annoying - ones like the "laughing" and "rolls eyes" just get used to ridicule people in a debate. How about we disable those?

 

[mdwh]

That would be no. 5 on ainwood's list.

This doesn't make sense to me? If it's decided that the asterisks are just as bad as the original, and will have a mod take action, why bother with the filter?

 

[Plotinus]

This doesn't make sense to me? If it's decided that the asterisks are just as bad as the original, and will have a mod take action, why bother with the filter?

Because filtering out the naughty words means that our younger members won't see them. Remember that part of the rationale behind this is to keep the site "family-friendly". Implied swearing is as infractionable as actual swearing, at least in theory, but either way, we don't want swearing to appear on the site.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

^^

I've got to answer to your post, Plotinus. IMO it's a very bad reason to forbid swear words just to keep the forum "family-friendly". The younger members already know those words, there is no need to censor those because of that. However, I think that the filter keeps this forum more enjoyable to read. So, after all, we agree with each other, but IMO the filter shouldn't be just so younger members don't see the swear words.