What's the point with the swearfilter if you're gonna infract anyway?

[Valka D'Ur]

The real issue here isn't so much swearing as in the actual words, but using substitutes for swearing. The rules for this need to be sensible and consistent.

 

[Zelig]

Why would I use terminology for a franchise I don't care about?

Maybe you want to tell someone what notable roles Ralph Fiennes has had.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Maybe you want to tell someone what notable roles Ralph Fiennes has had.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, or who Ralph Fiennes is. I know who Joseph Fiennes is, though.

What has this to do with the thread topic?

 

[schlaufuchs]

FWIW I generally like the way this place is moderated because the conversations mostly stay on-topic and productive. Sure, when I'm watching hockey with my friends we say all kinds of things that don't belong here; there's a time and a place for everything. I think the local rules here are wholly appropriate. Hats off to the mods for keeping this a good place to discuss Civ in all its iterations.

You're drawing a false equivalency here.

 

[Arakhor]

Ralph Fiennes played Voldemort in the same franchise wherein just saying the Dark Lord's name became taboo.

However, in a similar vein to He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named, there are 'approved' bowlderisations for certain swearwords that are currently under review.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

bowlderisations

If you mean substitutions, just say substitutions.

 

[Arakhor]

The word comes from Thomas Bowdler, the 18th Century printer who decided to edit Shakespeare for "inappropriate" language, thus anything that has been expurgated (had the naughty bits removed) is said to have been bowdlerised.

 

[GenMarshall]

The word comes from Thomas Bowdler, the 18th Century printer who decided to edit Shakespeare for "inappropriate" language, thus anything that has been expurgated (had the naughty bits removed) is said to have been bowdlerised.

And I thought someone's been hanging around TVTropes for a long time .

 

[Arakhor]

Well, yes, but my sesquipedalian loquaciousness is actually a character trait, rather than an affectation, and long predates TV Tropes.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, yes, but my sesquipedalian loquaciousness is actually a character trait, rather than an affectation, and long predates TV Tropes.

May I request that you express this character trait where it's appropriate (ie. in OT)? I come to Site Feedback to discuss technical issues, moderation issues, rules, policy, etc.

I don't come to Site Feedback expecting to haul a dictionary along with me. Yes, I understand a lot of polysyllabic words, but isn't the point of this part of the forum to make sure everyone understands you, instead of getting annoyed?

 

[Synobun]

Your ability to discuss technical issues, moderation issues, rules, and policy is not impeded because someone used a word you don't like.

 

[Arakhor]

There is certainly a lot to be said for clear language, however.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Your ability to discuss technical issues, moderation issues, rules, and policy is not impeded because someone used a word you don't like.

This is an ironic comment, considering the topic of this thread.

My comment wasn't about a word I don't like. It was about a word I didn't understand.

There is certainly a lot to be said for clear language, however.

Agreed.

 

[Akka]

It's normal where you live for people to swear at each other at work?

It's normal where most people live to have people use swear words during the discussion when they talk with others.
"using swear word in a conversion" doesn't mean "swearing at someone". Just in case it wasn't absolutely obvious from the context.

 

[Lexicus]

It's normal where you live for people to swear at each other at work?

Yes, quite normal. If we weren't allowed to swear at each other at work everyone would be really ticked off at each other all the time and undoubtedly I would have already died from the effects of high blood pressure. It's actually kind of interesting because the office where I work is normally quite staid and quiet but when people do talk there's a lot of bad language. Of course, I also work in a building trades union so that's probably got something to do with it.

I don't come to Site Feedback expecting to haul a dictionary along with me. Yes, I understand a lot of polysyllabic words, but isn't the point of this part of the forum to make sure everyone understands you, instead of getting annoyed?

Is it really so difficult to google a word if you don't know it? And is getting annoyed really a reasonable reaction to seeing an unfamiliar word?

@This topic, I think the language filter in general is kind of silly, I'm okay with censoring racial slurs I suppose but even that I think is kind of silly. @Vincour brought up being 13 years old when he first went into OT - when I was 13 I was cursing like a fishmonger in real life, and would have found censorship on the internet to protect my virgin eyes/ears nothing short of hilarious.

Now, I know the language filter isn't going to go away but I really do think it's ridiculous to have a policy of infracting people whose posts are edited by the language filter. If there must be an autocensor, rely on the autocensor to enforce your clean language standards and infract people who attempt to circumvent it.

 

[leif erikson]

Now, I know the language filter isn't going to go away but I really do think it's ridiculous to have a policy of infracting people whose posts are edited by the language filter. If there must be an autocensor, rely on the autocensor to enforce your clean language standards and infract people who attempt to circumvent it.

The autocensor is not there is enforce any rules. When you signed up to use this forum, you agreed to the forum rules. These included this:

Inappropriate Language
Our basic philosophy is that there is nothing that anyone needs to say on our forums that requires them to swear/cuss. If you can't get your point across without swearing, you will be infracted.

This forum is considered a family-friendly forum. We have an autocensor which will automatically remove many swear/cuss/bad words, but not necessarily all. Just because a word isn't caught by the autocensor, doesn't give you permission to use it. Do not rely on the autocensor to do your thinking for you. Finding ways to get around the ban on swearing or using foul language, whether or not it is caught be the autocensor, may result in an infraction.

So the easy answer is to just follow the rules and do not type in the inappropriate language.

 

[Lexicus]

These included this:

Considering that I joined 10 years ago now, I'm not sure that it did include this (though I'm wiling to take your word for it of course). I haven't seen a real defense of this policy in this thread. Two different people now have said "you signed up to abide by the rules including this one" which I don't view as a real defense of anything. It's at best an irrelevant observation and at worst a red herring because it detracts from actually discussing the merits of the infraction policy.

There seems to be no actual coherent reason for the policy as-is; "everyone can tell what you meant to say" is one point I think was brought up in this thread but there are plenty of circumlocutions one can use where it's totally obvious what one means to say that don't seem to get infracted so that is an inconsistency that should be addressed. As things are now the policy is in effect infracting people for lacking the presence of mind to avoid triggering the autocensor, whereas people who think of ways to obviously convey bad language without triggering the autocensor get a free pass. For example in a recent conversation @Farm Boy and I had he mentioned "female dogging" which is as obvious as anything produced by the autocensor yet it gets no infraction.

 

[Farm Boy]

Eh. I may be incapable of dealing with it reliably, but I don't mind taking my dings on swearing. Enforcement isn't draconian, but it's actually enforced enough to not become the rest of the internet, which I avoid because the discourse is ****. Roughly satisfied with the present state of enforcement regarding dodging the filters.

 

[leif erikson]

Do not understand what is not clear. The rule says that if you swear or cuss, you may be infracted for it.

As to how the OT Moderators interprete that and implement it, I will take that up with them as I do not moderate in OT.

 

[Lexicus]

Do not understand what is not clear. The rule says that if you swear or cuss, you may be infracted for it.

People are getting infracted for strings of asterisks, not swears.