Swedishguy
Deity
I actually agree that censoring is necessary but censoring the n-word and the old derogatory word for an Asian... that's just stupid.
Poll. Is curse word censoring really necessary?
- Thread starter warhead66
- Start date
sweared two times in your life. ok first of all i don't believe that for a second, but lets just say you hate swearing and you want to restrain yourself from swearing as much as possible, which is okay. But you can't say it's normal. Would you say that people looked awkwardly at you if you swore in a supermarket?
azzaman333
meh
Depends entirely on the situation.
Mise
isle of lucy
masturbated two times in your life. ok first of all i don't believe that for a second, but lets just say you hate masturbating and you want to restrain yourself from masturbating as much as possible, which is okay. But you can't say it's normal. Would you say that people looked awkwardly at you if you masturbated in a supermarket?
Moderator Action: I see the point you are trying to make, but that's a bit... "grotty". Please try for a nicer analogy next time.
Ciceronian
Latin Scholar
Just get more creative guys! The autocensor will remove "sh1t", but will leave "crud" or "crap" well alone. But if it actually goes for words in links, then that's something which really ought be changed.
There isn't anything wrong with the smileys themselves -- just how some people use them. I usually use them for positive things like laughing when I genuinely find someone's post funny, or if I'm referencing someTHING (not someONE) ridiculous or objectionable.
Do I believe it's necessary? Yes. Do I believe I should still get infracted if I type the first letter followed by three asterisks, which I did once? No.
Oh, and "damn", "hell", "crap", and stuff like "WTH", "omfg", and "rtfm" are still allowed here.
Oh, and "damn", "hell", "crap", and stuff like "WTH", "omfg", and "rtfm" are still allowed here.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
It's a lot easier to think of and use a curse word rather than something else, I forget what the other thing is.
Yeah, swearing is not beautiful and stuff, but is it really so big deal? People, including kids over 5 years, almost universally know the words, can use the words, and won't lose their minds for reading or hearing a swear word. You can say that only people with not very good expression skills swear, but they need to express themselves, too. You can say that swearing sounds stupid, but we wouldn't censor bad opinions or bad grammar, either? If we can't write a name of some book or song or website, or maybe even a person, it is a problem. So I am strongly against censoring any swear words.
Heh, this combined with the fact it breaks URLs just caught me:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6473009&postcount=40
I would be curious to know how I am "doing something wrong" or "so angry that you can't finds words to express yourself"?
Disabling the filter for URLs, if possible, shouldn't be a loophole (if someone intentionally posts a fake URL to get round the filter, that would obviously be against the rules). Alteratively, you could it be made to asterisk it out in the text, but keep the HTML link working?
(As I think I said earlier, I suspect this is an issue that crops up in the debate forums a lot more so than the general game-discussion forums.)
Right, but then we're back at the first point as to why asterisks are disallowed, if the intent is just to stop young people learning new words. Surely it'll mean they learn to just type asterisks instead, if anything - isn't that good?
Can the mods confirm if this is allowed? It seems that trying to get round a filter is frowned upon too?
Yes, good point - which I think is the thing people are saying for filtered words too.
Ciceronian
Latin Scholar
But crud and crap, in England anyway, are fairly mild terms and hardly deemed swearing or cursing. You could use the even more harmless shizzle or sugar too, for instance.
I didn't say the aim is to stop young people "learning" such words; I said it's to stop them "seeing" them. For one thing, there is a difference between simply knowing a word and being exposed to it constantly; such exposure will make it seem that it's OK to use it constantly. For another, as I said before, the people being kept in mind here are not children so much as parents. Ask the average parent if they're happy with their child browsing sites where all swear words under the sun are used - even on the assumption that the child has heard the words before - and see what they say.
Ciceronian said:
I would regard "crap" as a swear word, though not a very strong one. "Bloody" is also not censored here, even though that is certainly a swear word (and one which some people consider much more offensive than those which are censored here).
Surely, even in America, no-one who isn't actually Amish could seriously consider "damn" or "hell" to be swear words.
Catharsis
catch u on the flip scythe
It's true. I am that boring.
Depends on the word. If I said (and I'm going to have to use some creative Ctrl+C here, so as to not swear myself):
Plotinus said:
then there'd be a few disapproving tuts, no doubt, from the elderly shoppers.
Plotinus said:
ggganz said:
would get some mothers covering their children's ears. Anything worse and I'd probably get slapped.
Now, a forum like this is less like a supermarket, more like a clubhouse in an ant farm. If you don't like what goes on, you don't have to look at the ants, but the clubhouse element means that some sense of restraint is needed. Hence, the autocensor for words like the slapworthy four-letter blighters, and nothing for the 'milder' versions.
What an awful post. I am sorry, my analogy really was
Plotinus said:
wasn't it?
I would consider "bloody" a very mild swear word. It certainly wouldn't turn many heads if used it.
Where I live "damn" and "hell" are both defenitely swear words. It would certainly turn heads if I used either in say a church, now I have used far worse words in churchs and such and it has turned heads...
But damn is far worse than bloody... Not that i really care what people think of the words I us but...
I don't understand how "damn" can be a swear word. It's a perfectly normal word in theological discourse. How do you talk about people being damned without it? Or how do you talk about the problem of hell if you can't refer to it?
"Bloody", by contrast, originated as a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, which is why some people today consider it more offensive than the "Anglo-Saxon" swear words which merely refer to the cruder bodily functions. That's a bit extreme, perhaps, but it's certainly a swear word and certainly stronger than "damn" or "hell"; you could say the latter in church easily (they probably feature in plenty of sermons) but you couldn't say "bloody" there without causing offence.
But I suppose all this just highlights the differences between American and British views on these matters.
"Bloody", by contrast, originated as a blasphemous reference to the blood of Christ, which is why some people today consider it more offensive than the "Anglo-Saxon" swear words which merely refer to the cruder bodily functions. That's a bit extreme, perhaps, but it's certainly a swear word and certainly stronger than "damn" or "hell"; you could say the latter in church easily (they probably feature in plenty of sermons) but you couldn't say "bloody" there without causing offence.
But I suppose all this just highlights the differences between American and British views on these matters.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
I wasn't allowed to use those words (crap, damn, hell) in earshot of my mother when I was eight. If I had busted out "bloody", I'd probably have been laughed at.
But in reference to your last post, yes, it's different across the pond. Mind, I'm unpleasantly liberal in my use and tolerance of the dirtier bits of the language (read: I don't give a turd), but if we're talking about the average mothers of internet eight-year-olds, crap, damn, and hell are easily naughty.
