the profanity problem

[test_specimen]

I don't want to discuss a specific moderator action, I just want to ask, whether the profanity rules could be viewed with less strictness. Sure, certain f-words should get censored and lead to a mod-action or banning, but if words for body parts or food taking its natural route are followed by a banning mods are, imo, overreacting.

At least if those words are used in a censored or encrypted format.

 

[Dell19]

I'm sure the situation would be taken into account since moderators are probably not machines that automatically ban someone on the first sight of stars...

 

[Stapel]

I have always wondered how the term 'family-friendly' got linked to the banning of a word like , erhmm, the brown stuff you leave at the toilet.

From the first day I have been here, I think it has been over-moderated, though things have changed, I think.

 

[Hitro]

I have always wondered how the term 'family-friendly' got linked to the banning of a word like , erhmm, the brown stuff you leave at the toilet.

From the first day I have been here, I think it has been over-moderated, though things have changed, I think.

Changed? Has it ever been more restrictive than these days? Or do you mean that?

What I don't get is why we even have an auto-censor thing when even the censored words are worth a banning now.

 

[Stapel]

Changed? Has it ever been more restrictive than these days? Or do you mean that?

I remember a certain moderator making up his own rules.....

 

[ainwood]

What I don't get is why we even have an auto-censor thing when even the censored words are worth a banning now.

Because you can convey meaning with '****'.

If I posted a sentence with **** in a contextual location, then 99% of people could fill in the gaps. We simply got tired of it.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think a few lightning strike anti-swear bans might set a new course on the matter.

Courtesy costs nothing - Swearing is a sign of uncontrolled impulses.
I am saddened to see even some veteran posters setting a rotten example.

I for one, have never spoken in such terms on CFC.
(It's about the only thing I haven't been banned for!)

 

[Silverflame]

I agree with CurtSibling, swearing accomplishes nothing, and I have also never done so on CFC. Oh sure, I've been tempted to countless times. But managing to hold that anger back and word your post carefully as to sidestep this profanity problem helps one's argument or whatever point you're trying to get across tremendously.

While an auto-ban for seeing the asteriks in one's post may seem a bit harsh, considering that they've been warning users for ages, I think this may be very well justified.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I just want to ask, whether the profanity rules could be viewed with less strictness.

They can and they have been soo viewed in the past but some knucklehead suceeded in actually irritating Thunderfall the all merciful (not a easy thing to do) so now there is a crackdown. Another factor is the automaticly ending ban for 4 or 5 standards short periods, including 1 day and 3 day, which make shorter restriction less of an adminstrative issue. Thus more use of "shock probation" to get the posters attention, where only a warning would have been issued before.

 

[Dell19]

While an auto-ban for seeing the asteriks in one's post

There also has to be intent as well...

 

[Padma]

Of course there must be intent. We go (a little) easier on newbies who may not have bothered to read the rules, yet. What really gets our goat is the posters who know better, and have been warned in the past, who continually bypass the autocensor, using "!" for "i", or a strategically placed "*", or whatever. We reserve the harshest punishments for these.

Like Lefty said, this is a bit of a "shock treatment" to get your attention. A short 1 - 3 day ban shouldn't seriously hamper anyone here, but it should make you realize we're serious. It isn't that hard to clean up your language in public, no matter how foul-mouthed you may be in private.

 

[Moss]

I've never got the point of swearing. It adds no intellectual content to the conversation, and all it does is irritate the people who read the post. No one wants to read a post that has a swear word in every sentence, or, for that matter, even one in every paragraph.

Although, getting tough on swearing kind of seems strange in the 'family' forum sense of the argument. Especially considering there are thousands of explicit pictures in the Babe and Hunk threads.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

It isn't that hard to clean up your language in public, no matter how foul-mouthed you may be in private.

I can do it. Remember that I come from old board and miniature wargaming groups, where the typical banter in vulgarity, profanity, and flaming would wither the souls of most civilization players.

 

[Moss]

I can do it. Remember that I come from old board and miniature wargaming groups, where the typical banter in vulgarity, profanity, and flaming would wither the souls of most civilization players.

I think you underestimate the common soul of a civ player.

 

[Dell19]

and all it does is irritate the people who read the post.

Thats probably the point And possibly to emphasise a point.

 

[Moss]

Thats probably the point And possibly to emphasise a point.

True, but irritating someone isn't the best way to try to convince them that you're right and they're wrong.

 

[Tomoyo]

True, but irritating someone isn't the best way to try to convince them that you're right and they're wrong.

But it is a way to convince them that no matter how much they try, you are not worth arguing against, and make them leave the argument. Never had to resort to that. Probably never will.

 

[cgannon64]

Apparently I'm not allowed to take the Lord's name in vain now either!



These rules are ridiculous.

 

[WillJ]

Am I correct in assuming that the only "bannable" words are those that are autocensored? For example, I can say "bastard" all I want (assuming I'm not flaming someone with it, of course)?

If not, mods, please give us a list of things we can't say.

 

[Dell19]

Giving an official list would be idiotic since in the end it depends on how they are being used and if you were really to produce a list then it would end up being rediculously long and still wouldn't cover every possible combination of bannable words...