Home    Site Stuff    Site Feedback
#1

Unreasonable wordfilter

Archive: 77 posts

Is dam.n really so bad of a curse word? CC used it himself in the latest Creator Spotlight (well, he quoted Kiminski saying "Godd.amn", and it got censored). To me, it just makes posts look even worse, because "This **** game" looks to me like a certain word beginning with s-, and don't even get me started on what "D.amn you" looks like.

So I appeal to anyone who can change this to remove the unreasonable wordfilter in the word d.amn.		2009-10-27 02:11:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

yes the word in question needs to be changed.

Btw dawes .. gl with not getting a "Bypassing language filter" infraction.		2009-10-27 02:14:00

Author:
CreateNPlay
Posts: 1266

I mentioned this in another thread about the filters.

Everyone agreed with me and then CC just locked it. 		2009-10-27 02:17:00

Author:
ChristmasJew
Posts: 431

Well I think CC can hardly argue back seeing as he used it in his own post!2009-10-27 02:39:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

I think that if you don't absolutely have to use the word, it's not an issue. You can clearly refrain from using that word in a post, and it won't change the meaning of your post in the slightest.2009-10-27 02:45:00

Author:
BSprague
Posts: 2325

Sackdragon, why else would I need to create this thread but for the fact that I DO use it?! I have three stories on-going in Creative Writing, and d.amn is a word that fits perfectly for certain speeches etc. It is not offensive, in my opinion, and I've ended up accidentally having people think I said a much more offensive word when I said "d.amn you!"

As for the point about Christians being offended, does that mean (and this is a test) Jehovah is wordfiltered? Or Yahweh? They seem much more likely candidates for censorship on religious grounds!

BSprague, I want to use it a lot, as stated above, the villains/angry guys in my stories don't look so great saying "Darn you!" I have also seen a couple of people having to word-filter-dodge it recently (I believe Morgana or xSpaffax had to do it in the thread about xkappax's embroidery?)		2009-10-27 02:49:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

If you want to use it, use it, but don't attempt to circumvent the filters. Anyone who's heard the word before will know what you mean. As to our reasoning, it ensures the site is fairly open to people of all ages. It has nothing to do with any sort of moral or religious issues - in fact, the only reason that specific word is censored because it's unnecessary and potentially offensive. Yes, I've used it in rare cases where I felt it was appropriate, but I don't think it's necessary for a fansite based on LittleBigPlanet to display the word itself. As I said before, anyone who knows the word will understand what word you're trying to use, so I don't think it's an unfair compromise.

As to all of you who decided to display ways to bypass the filter, I have deleted your posts. Suggesting it as an alternative is a moot point anyway because doing so is expressly against the rules.		2009-10-27 02:54:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

Oh. My apologies.2009-10-27 02:58:00

Author:
Sackdragon
Posts: 427

Just because a site is about something that kids can like does not mean young kids who'll be offended by it will go on the site. In fact, I've seen much worse things on this site than the word "*****" that go by with no one giving a care.2009-10-27 02:59:00

Author:
Arkei
Posts: 1432

Just because a site is about something that kids can like does not mean young kids who'll be offended by it will go on the site. In fact, I've seen much worse things on this site than the word "*****" that go by with no one giving a care.
If so, that's likely because it was overlooked. Mind citing some specific examples?

In any case, our aim is not to alienate all but small children, our goal is to make this site a fun and safe place for the entire LittleBigPlanet community (which happens to include a younger crowd as well). I don't think sacrificing the use of a fairly pointless set of words is much of a sacrifice at all if it means the site's audience is broader because of it.		2009-10-27 03:01:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

To quote chezhead " you arn't afraid to write a little bad language", who thought I used a...more insensitive word than the one up for discussion.

As for your argument, I see it has its values, but its central point seems to be that said word can be construed as offensive. To that I say - cur. "[Word in question] you" is, to me, a lot less offensive than "You are a mangy cur.", and infinitely times less offensive than "**** you". Most words, in fact, can become offensive, depending on context etc.

You also say that you "don't think it's necessary for a fansite based on LittleBigPlanet to display the word itself.", instead that most people will understand what the word is and just fill it in in their own minds? Isn't that a bit...pointless? Again I say, that can be applied to any word. In most cases, I should think the word "photograph" can be understood to be "photograph" if it is written as **********, through its context. So why not remove it? It's probably used as much as the word in question.

You also say the site's audience is broader. I'm sorry, but I have to challenge that too. If we ever lose a single person because they come on this site and see the word in question without it being censored, I will personally chop off my own finger. In fact, as earlier mentioned, when it looks like I said a much more offensive word that is now replaced with ****, I should think their attitude is more likely to be tending towards not joining than if they saw the word in question, because the word that they would fill in for **** could give them the wrong opinion of the site.

Thanks for reading.		2009-10-27 03:05:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

Quite honestly, I'd have to agree with leaving the filter on. You can express your anger, but keep it lighthearted, with 'darn.' Is it as cool? You tell me...

Just drop it already, darnit!


----

See, point made and no tears shed. The exclamation point does more to add emphasis than using the offending word, no?

2009-10-27 03:11:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

comphermc, the word you rewrote as darnit is actually spelt ****** anyway (which I should hope isn't wordfiltered, because it will serve to back up my point). Scratch that. As I already explained before, darn you does not work for stories, and is, in my opinion, as equally apt for filtering as the word in question!2009-10-27 03:13:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

If the stories are your only concern, you can host them with a Google Doc. These forums are first-and-foremost for LittleBigPlanet. Anything you get beyond that is a bonus. I don't think I'm wrong...?

As an aside, these forums have done a lot to cleanse me from my cursing habits I developed as a teenager (which I am no longer, I'm afraid). The real world (by that I mean the business, educational, etc. world) doesn't depend on being able to swear. It becomes more an aspect of our social lives (talking with friends, entertainment, etc). I don't really want to get too far into this, but the world would not end if we weren't allowed to "swear."		2009-10-27 03:17:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Regarding the "cur" point you made, I have one phrase for you: modern-day relevancy. There are a scant few number of people today who even know that "cur" is a word, let alone those who know what it means. It's not likely to offend someone in any serious way at this point in time. If for some reason I wake up tomorrow and find that "cur" is widely considered offensive by society, I'll add it to the censor list. Until then, it's fine the way it is.

Look, we can debate point-by-point if you'd like, but it's not going to change my mind. This method of censored-allowance is really the best solution in my mind because it satisfies both parties: those who prefer the site bad language-free, and those who would prefer to be able to use the words they want to use. I see no positive gain from allowing bad language to be displayed aside from satiating the few (such as yourself) who see it as necessary for day-to-day conversation.		2009-10-27 03:17:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

It's not that it's bad language, it's that it's mediocre language that, when filtered, looks a lot more offensive! If you go out there telling me to, "if I want to...use it", then the application of a wordfilter seems pointless, as the wordfilter itself should be there to prevent further occurrences.

I also take great offense to you saying "bad language to be displayed aside from satiating the few (such as yourself) who see it as necessary for day-to-day conversation.", which, to me, looks like you are insulting me, and saying that I am a bad-mouther in my everyday life. I do not swear, I do not curse, and the word in question is probably as far as I go, ever. You almost outright saying that I am constantly speaking in nothing but swear words in every conversation is something that I take to heart.

I'll run a test or two then. Is git filtered? Or brat? Twit? Idiot? These could all take the place of cur, and if any single one of them isn't filtered, it's a moot point. Your point of modern-day relevancy seems to backfire on itself, because I would wager that the majority of people on a common street would not see **** as offensive - and the majority of 6+ would probably think so too.

But, as you say, "it's not going to change your mind." I just wish I could.

@compher, I would have good basis to use it in the LBP-related sections too.		2009-10-27 03:26:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

While I understand your point about the ferocity of the word (pretty low), the line has to be drawn somewhere. We have chosen zero tolerance over a much trickier 'exception' policy. I actually pride myself in belonging to a forum that tends to be so 'pure.' That term is used loosely, since anyone can be vulgar using the current acceptable list-o'-words, but I think you get the point. The internet is literally filled with places that have no censoring policy, and you are more than welcome to use any of those... although, I do enjoy your presence here, so don't go anywhere! 2009-10-27 03:45:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Quite honestly, I'd have to agree with leaving the filter on. You can express your anger, but keep it lighthearted, with 'darn.' Is it as cool? You tell me...

Darn-it? What am I Daffy Duck?


comphermc, the word you rewrote as darnit is actually spelt ****** anyway (which I should hope isn't wordfiltered, because it will serve to back up my point). Scratch that. As I already explained before, darn you does not work for stories, and is, in my opinion, as equally apt for filtering as the word in question!
He knows what I'm talking about.



As an aside, these forums have done a lot to cleanse me from my cursing habits I developed as a teenager (which I am no longer, I'm afraid). The real world (by that I mean the business, educational, etc. world) doesn't depend on being able to swear. It becomes more an aspect of our social lives (talking with friends, entertainment, etc). I don't really want to get too far into this, but the world would not end if we weren't allowed to "swear."
Really, there is nothing wrong with what society calls "swear words". They're just words like all others, and we have a right to say them. Just because some idiot way back when decided to claim them as "swear words" and it caught on doesn't mean we should actually feel bad for using them.

I'm not saying "therefore lets get rid of the swear filter altogether!", I'm just pointing out a common societal flaw.


Regarding the "cur" point you made, I have one phrase for you: modern-day relevancy. There are a scant few number of people today who even know that "cur" is a word, let alone those who know what it means. It's not likely to offend someone in any serious way at this point in time. If for some reason I wake up tomorrow and find that "cur" is widely considered offensive by society, I'll add it to the censor list. Until then, it's fine the way it is.

And there are a scant few number of people today who even know what a dirty turtle is, but I shouldn't be saying that now should I? (for all you know I can just be talking about a turtle who get mud on him, so don't punish me for it, thanks. )		2009-10-27 04:48:00

Author:
ChristmasJew
Posts: 431

Really, there is nothing wrong with what society calls "swear words". They're just words like all others, and we have a right to say them. Just because some idiot way back when decided to claim them as "swear words" and it caught on doesn't mean we should actually feel bad for using them.

Yeah you have a right to use them, just not on this site. It's a privately owned, privately run site and the administrator does not want such language on the site. End of story really. I swear pretty much constantly in my day to day life and I do completely agree with you that society is too hung up on frickin' words. But, if I'm in someone else's home and they don't want me swearing, I don't. It's a simple matter of respect.

As for "artistic expression" in creative writing and such... meh, where do you draw the line? If you can say one word because it suits your characters personalities, then surely every other word should be uncensored. Plenty of characters would regularly use the "c" word the "f" word, offensive terms for people of varying skin colours etc etc etc. Do we simply open the floodgates on everything? I don't think I've ever seen an online community without filters that has managed to remain civil.		2009-10-27 10:17:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Darn-it? What am I Daffy Duck?

Your despicable!		2009-10-27 10:30:00

Author:
CreateNPlay
Posts: 1266

If darn it isn't strong enough to express your feelings, I would suggest you use the far more explicit:

gosh darn it

Actually, "darn it" is pretty topical for these forums, what with them being largely about sackpeople and that 		2009-10-27 10:33:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Haha RTM, i never viewed it that way.

Yeh.. I can imagine a sackboy going ... OH DARN IT and the sack nan going.. Ok dear hold still.

Lol funny mental image there.		2009-10-27 10:43:00

Author:
CreateNPlay
Posts: 1266

There was a thread about this a while ago. I PM'd CC after he had locked it saying I didn't thing ***** should be censored. I mean I use it all the time, and it is a bit annoying to see **** **** **** all over my posts when it's nothing offensive...

But yeah, if CC wants it to stay that way then it's his call. I am grateful for the filter as well because I write **** and **** a lot. See? The filter works great there.

CC himself has called someone a ******* before.		2009-10-27 12:04:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

And here I thought following the rules would be simple and easy. Is it that hard to not use the word, or is it just absolutely necessary? Consider the alternatives rtm223 mentioned. As far as I know, I don't hear Stephen Fry flinging the word left and right within the game.2009-10-27 12:55:00

Author:
aer0blue
Posts: 1603

Ok, then. So if '****' is considered as 'bad language', what about 'crap'? Or 'bollocks'?

Crap, in my opinion, is not bad language either, but it's worse than ****, no?
And 'bollocks'...that's a lot more offensive than either. If someone on the street came up to you and said "**** you, sir!" you'd probably just snigger and walk off. If they screamed "BOLLOCKS" at you, you'd hit them.

And that's not the only case, as Dawes mentioned it seems to fine to call someone a stupid git, a nobhead, a tit, a fannyface...surely those are all a lot more offensive, no?		2009-10-27 13:16:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

As far as I know, I don't hear Stephen Fry flinging the word left and right within the game.

Not in the game but he's certainly not bothered about swearing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM		2009-10-27 13:27:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

If someone on the street came up to you and said "**** you, sir!" you'd probably just snigger and walk off. If they screamed "BOLLOCKS" at you, you'd hit them.

XD You make me smile...

I also do not think that it should be censored, but it does not really effect me either way and ultimately it is CC's decision and I don't think he will change his mind. 		2009-10-27 13:49:00

Author:
moleynator
Posts: 2914

It also seems to be okay to say sod off.2009-10-27 13:54:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

It also seems to be okay to say sod off.

I don't think you should keep saying words that could be deemed offensive. You don't wanna get in trouble, g. 		2009-10-27 13:58:00

Author:
moleynator
Posts: 2914

But surely filtered = offensive, non-filtered = appropriate?

2009-10-27 14:00:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

Guys, the list is not comprehensive, and you surely know this, so try not to push the issue.2009-10-27 14:19:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Thanks for keeping this thread bumped guys, its obviously a heated debate.

However, I thought I'd post this for CC to read:

You mention it is a small few who want to have the word in question non-wordfiltered. I have sent PMs out to 50 of the most active members of this site (regardless of whether they posted in here or not) about whether they wanted it wordfiltered or not. So far ten have replied out of fifty, and it's currently 8 who want it to be displayed in full and 2 who want it filtered. I will get back to you with the full results soon enough, but so far...		2009-10-27 14:24:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

That's nice, but this isn't a democracy, it's CC's site. I don't think I've ever had any trouble with the filter, and it seems like a good thing, to me. Sure, having your darning mistaken for a fudge is annoying, but it's something you can avoid by considering how others might (mis)interpret your post. But you have to do that anyway, on the internet.

Maybe we should be discussing a rule against PM spammails instead. 		2009-10-27 14:33:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

But surely everyone one here is reasonable enough to not be a Sweary Mary and those too young to never have heard a single swear word in their life are either too young to even use the internet or can't be offended because they don't know the word.

PS: I think these things shouldn't be regulated through a program but rather through community behaviour.		2009-10-27 14:36:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

Right, but the program assists in the molding of community behavior. Precedence has to be established somehow. You can't expect the mods to regulate every post made, can you?2009-10-27 14:40:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

No, and they don't need to because just because there is no word filter doesn't mean that everyone suddenly starts swearing like a seamen.2009-10-27 14:43:00

Author:
Syroc
Posts: 3193

All it takes is one person to ruin it for everyone. I don't understand how it's that big of a deal. It's not essential to this forum's existence to be able to use those words... there are many more to choose from that have lesser negative connotations.2009-10-27 14:46:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

This is really one of the few issues that isn't up for debate. You may not understand the reasons why we choose to censor certain words, or you may simply disagree with those reasons, but I've learned very quickly that allowing bad language does bad things to a community like ours. It gets tempers running higher, gets people angrier, and tends to drive away most women because it becomes just another male-dominated site with their pointless arguments. Even if you don't agree that that could happen because of some stupid words, in the end, that's not your decision to make, it's mine.

Look, I've run this site the way I think it should be run ever since I became an admin, and now we're the best LBP fansite on the internet with the best creators signed up and active on the forums. If that isn't enough for you to trust that I know a little something about community behavior, then I really don't know what else to say.		2009-10-27 14:49:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

I understand, respect, and follow your opinion closely, but I'm afraid that this word has hit a nerve with me. It's clearly a matter of great debate in the forums - censorship vs. free speech - and without doubt world-wide. It is, of course, your decision to make, but I figured I'd show to you the forum's opinion as a whole.

I respect that you have built this site up to an incredibly strong and well performing one, perhaps the best community I've seen, and, from my time here, I've noticed that the way you've done so is by listening to the community as a whole, by asking our permission before a drastic change, and by listening to any thoughts we might have - which is why I made this thread. I made this thread to tell you what I thought, and to tell you how I thought the site may be improved. It is great that we have women on this site too, but one of the examples of the word in question being used was by a woman (it was either xkappax or Morgana25).

Of course, the final decision is up to you, and clearly you feel as strongly for the censorship as I do against it. I just thought that the idea of a democracy that you give this site would allow me to post my opinion, though, of course, the final decision is yours. Don't think I don't understand how much hard work you have put into the site - it definitely shows in the quality of the content and the people who join - but I just thought I would throw in my two cents.		2009-10-27 14:56:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

I understand, respect, and follow your opinion closely, but I'm afraid that this word has hit a nerve with me. It's clearly a matter of great debate in the forums - censorship vs. free speech - and without doubt world-wide. It is, of course, your decision to make, but I figured I'd show to you the forum's opinion as a whole.

I respect that you have built this site up to an incredibly strong and well performing one, perhaps the best community I've seen, and, from my time here, I've noticed that the way you've done so is by listening to the community as a whole, by asking our permission before a drastic change, and by listening to any thoughts we might have - which is why I made this thread. I made this thread to tell you what I thought, and to tell you how I thought the site may be improved. It is great that we have women on this site too, but one of the examples of the word in question being used was by a woman (it was either xkappax or Morgana25).

Of course, the final decision is up to you, and clearly you feel as strongly for the censorship as I do against it. I just thought that the idea of a democracy that you give this site would allow me to post my opinion, though, of course, the final decision is yours. Don't think I don't understand how much hard work you have put into the site - it definitely shows in the quality of the content and the people who join - but I just thought I would throw in my two cents.
Give me an example in which an idea cannot be clearly conveyed without "****", and I'll reconsider my stance on that specific word.		2009-10-27 15:06:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

That's like saying 'give me an idea which cannot be clearly conveyed without 'apricots'. **** is just a word.2009-10-27 15:17:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

ARD, even more to the point:


Yes, I've used it in rare cases where I felt it was appropriate, but I don't think it's necessary for a fansite based on LittleBigPlanet to display the word itself.

From P.1. You yourself have used it more than once before, at your own admission, so it is evidently necessary to use it. In effect, the message you're conveying is "it's all right to swear, just so long as it's not displayed as the word itself" (even though the obvious meaning is clear).		2009-10-27 15:23:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

In effect, the message your conveying is "it's all right to swear, just so long as it's not displayed as the word itself" (even though the obvious meaning is clear).

Tut tut, should be you're.

Anyway, by that logic, it should be fine to say daamn? That is not the word itself, but it's obvious what it is.		2009-10-27 15:26:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

That's like saying 'give me an idea which cannot be clearly conveyed without 'apricots'. **** is just a word.
...in your opinion. Look, if this was my personal site, I'd agree! Most language wouldn't be censored because I, like you, don't find most of it offensive. However, I have to keep in mind everyone else who visits the site and everyone who may potentially be interested in the site in the future. That means making this site as accessible as possible, which means censoring certain words. You guys argue for allowing that word as if you're desperately deprived linguistically without it, so I presented that offer to prove to me that it is an essential word and you are having trouble conveying your ideas without it. To me, I don't think you care about the word itself - I think you guys are against the idea of censorship in the first place. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but the policy isn't going to change because, like comphermc said, we have to draw the line somewhere.		2009-10-27 15:26:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729

So we should drop all the word filters then? They are all just words.

No, because the other words that are censored can be considered offensive.		2009-10-27 15:28:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

As can the word in question. We again come back to the fact that a line must be drawn somewhere. It's pretty clear where that line is, and it's not going to change.

Capisce?

2009-10-27 15:30:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

Ahhh, Ard I went to delete that after seeing CC's post. Didn't realise someone would respond to it straight away.

I'm not offended by any of the words on the list. I personally don't consider any of them offensive. What you consider offensive is a personal opinion and you don't have the right to decide what everyone else should consider offensive. CC does have that right within the context of this website, as he runs this site.

Go and start up your own site and I'll wholeheartedly support your right to enforce any rules and regulations you want.		2009-10-27 15:32:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

You say about considering the forum as a whole, and their attitudes towards it...but as I say, with the PMs I sent it was (albeit with a small sample set so far) 80/20 against censor and for it, which is the majority. Should I resend the PMs with the question "Would you NOT have joined the site if the word in question was not censored"? Because I am 100% sure that it would be a much more biased split than 80/20.

To me, the line should be drawn at what you say in a stranger's house. Bloody, the word in question (along with its modifiers such as God-, -it, etc.), these are the sort of words I'd use. I would most definitely NOT say the other word-filter words, which I won't post here.

I don't like to insult people, especially those in power (who would), but rtm is slightly right when he says you are acting a bit rude by calling us all cussers who use swear words in every conversation we hold. I repeat myself - the word in question is about as far as I go. It is a perfectly normal word and, if it is a "swear word", the weakest of them all - in my opinion.

compher, the line SHOULD change though, in my opinion. Sometimes rules &c. require tweaking or changing. In the medieval ages, it would've been heresy to have a woman showing her lower leg in public - but a knee-length skirt nowadays isn't even considered risqu?. Are you saying that the line in that regard shouldn't have been changed? Should we still be drowning witches?

CC, I am both for and against the idea of censorship. In my opinion, society shouldn't need censors, because it should be the general public's responsibility to control its language. Unfortunately, this can never be the case, so certain censors must be applied - however, here, I feel they have been applied wrongly. Just my opinion, though.		2009-10-27 15:38:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

but rtm is slightly right when he says you are acting a bit rude

Nope, I was calling you and Ard rude. Your lack of respect is rude. See my earlier post on this thread.


I swear pretty much constantly in my day to day life and I do completely agree with you that society is too hung up on frickin' words. But, if I'm in someone else's home and they don't want me swearing, I don't. It's a simple matter of respect.		2009-10-27 15:40:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I'm going to drop this argument now. It's clear you aren't going to hear what you want to hear, so we are at a stalemate. Everyone's opinions have been made clear and the decision has been made. In the end, those with the power to make it, made it.2009-10-27 15:43:00

Author:
comphermc
Posts: 5338

There is not lack of respect here, I very much respect CC and all he has done, and I know Dawes does too.

Look at it like this: the word 'happened' is one everyone commonly uses, yet it's censored in LBP. That's annoying, right? You have to work around it. The same thing is here with '****' on LBPC, because it's a word that everyone commonly uses, and so far I haven't seen a reason for why it is censored.

Maybe I should start ********* all the ***** in my *****, because they are words I would commonly *** and would not ****** anyone.		2009-10-27 15:45:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

Ironic that that's the case, rtm, because it rather clearly shows how this argument is split. However I must take argument to what you say - I do not go about these forums posting every swear word I can think of, as both you and CC seem to be implying (and which I find many times more rude than me posting the word in question every now and again).

compher, I hate to agree with you here. When a reasoned debate leads to a stalemate, I am forever disheartened. However, I believe there is still discussion to be made here. I would also like to question you saying "those with the power to make it, made it", is that a comment on me being Joe User? My opinion of this site is nothing but a good one, I have seen nothing but reasoned discussion on serious matters, and CC has, in my opinion, always taken things to a public vote, such as CometChat and MNRCentral.

ARD, it's a slightly different matter, but I understand your point. CC is catering to what I see as the minority, as opposed to the majority, as he seems to see it as the majority (though I disagree).		2009-10-27 15:49:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

ARD, it's a slightly different matter, but I understand your point. CC is catering to what I see as the minority, as opposed to the majority, as he seems to see it as the majority (though I disagree).

So I **********. But ****, this is ******** as ****. I wish we could ******** and **** to a *********.		2009-10-27 15:52:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

I must take argument to what you say - I do not go about these forums posting every swear word I can think of, as both you and CC seem to be implying (and which I find many times more rude than me posting the word in question every now and again).

No one has implied that. Show me one time when anyone has suggested that? The only person I have accused of swearing constantly is myself.

Look if you went round someone's house and said the word "****" and they didn't like it and asked you not to, what would your response be? Would you stand there having a fight with them about how wrong they are? Would you tell them that you should be the one to enforce the rules in their house? To my mind it is the same here.

I would also put it to you that anyone who doesn't reply to your PM, given a reasonable period of time, simply does not care. That would put them not in support of making change. In fact, if this really was the burning issue that you claim it is, that people realy really need this change to improve the community, would we not have seen hordes of forum members rushing to this thread to support the cause? Strange that most people really don't seem to care.		2009-10-27 15:55:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I don't think it's about what is the majority or minority, it's about asking for opinions, getting arguments to support all sides, and then making an executive decision. Majority does not equal truth.2009-10-27 16:07:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

rtm:


I see no positive gain from allowing bad language to be displayed aside from satiating the few (such as yourself) who see it as necessary for day-to-day conversation.

He expressly said that I use bad language in day-to-day converstation, i.e. I swear when I can. I don't.


But, if I'm in someone else's home and they don't want me swearing, I don't. It's a simple matter of respect.

And this one is from you. To say that if you're in someone else's home then you don't swear is implying that I do when I am. Which I find utterly disrespectful, contrary to the closing sentence of your quotation.

If someone told me off for saying the word in question, I would question IN MY OWN MIND who it was I was with - it would obviously have to be someone middle-aged or above, as they own the house, etc., so who would it be that I have this situation? - and I would also graciously apologise. I, in fact, had a similar situation in school, where I (horror of horrors) complained of "this **** solder" (NB: it was the word in question I used) while soldering a PCB. The teacher was not amused - but I apologised, and continued with my work. Having told this story to many people, not a single person agreed with the teacher (the people were also adults, not just children, before you ask).

You also (once again in a snide and offensive manner) say that the forum members don't care. Then why are we debating this? Why are some of the posts in this thread the longest I've seen on the forum, with many paragraphs outlining many points in a fairly reasoned and civil debate? Why is already over 4 pages long? Because people do care. That is why.

You cannot simply say that those who don't reply cannot be for the change, and therefore are against it, because I could say that those who don't reply cannot be for keeping it, and therefore are for the change, and that is a true corruption of democratic process. Only a certain percentage of the population vote for a certain politic party, but the votes that aren't cast aren't just pushed into one party's lot or another.

Rogar, I have asked people's opinions. At the moment, it is 3 who say keep the filter, 9 who say abolish it on the word in question, and 2 who are abstaining. That's a sample set of opinions. Arguments have been expressed on both sides (just take this post for an example on my side). And majority does equal rule in a democracy (as I had always taken this site to be).		2009-10-27 16:09:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

All of the above.


I, in fact, had a similar situation in school, where I (horror of horrors) complained of "this **** solder" (NB: it was the word in question I used) while soldering a PCB. The teacher was not amused - but I apologised, and continued with my work. Having told this story to many people, not a single person agreed with the teacher (the people were also adults, not just children, before you ask).

I also disagree with the teacher, and actually all my teachers say it themselves all the time. They certainly wouldn't appreciate it if I say BOLLOCKS to them.

Actually, since bollocks isn't censored, why don't I just use that instead of **** from now on?		2009-10-27 16:14:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

I agree with ARD (though I disagree with his repeated use of the word he discovered), if you're going to continue censoring the word up for discussion, at least use the one ARD seems to enjoy using so profusely. It is not even the correct medical term - if testes is censored, I am going to laugh out loud.2009-10-27 16:16:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

And this one is from you. To say that if you're in someone else's home then you don't swear is implying that I do when I am. Which I find utterly disrespectful, contrary to the closing sentence of your quotation.

Wow. Either you simply don't understand the analogy, or you are being obstinate. I'm guessing the latter. You're not thick, stop pretending you are. You know exactly what I mean about the "being in somone's home". The word "****" is the swearword in discussion. You are demanding that you have a right to use the word deemed inappropriate by the admin of the site.

That is the analogy of swearing in someone else's house when they ask you not to.

Anyway I'm done with this thread. I'm kinda embarrased you managed to draw me in so far on an issue that is so pathetic.		2009-10-27 16:17:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

I agree with ARD (though I disagree with his repeated use of the word he discovered)

I'm sorry, but since the word I would choose to use is not appropriate, it seems we have to put up with using more offensive language.

And it does sound like you guys are saying we swear all the time, which, as Dawes is saying, is much ruder than the word ****. It's judging people you know, let's be honest, nothing about, no?		2009-10-27 16:20:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

Wow. Either you simply don't understand the analogy, or you are being obstinate. I'm guessing the latter. You're not thick, stop pretending you are. You know exactly what I mean about the "being in somone's home". The word "****" is the swearword in discussion. You are demanding that you have a right to use the word deemed inappropriate by the admin of the site.

That is the analogy of swearing in someone else's house when they ask you not to.

Anyway I'm done with this thread. I'm kinda embarrased you managed to draw me in so far on an issue that is so pathetic.


Take a look at this post again from my perspective, and you tell me whether you are the one being disrespectful or I am. Calling my opinions pathetic and my method of expressing them thick is way more hurtful than someone saying the word in question. If I were a prospective new user, seeing such animosity from you is much more likely to stop me joining the site than the word in question.

The point of an analogy is that it is a real-world example that can be applied to another situation. To me, you were saying that I swear when I'm in someone else's home. I don't (unless they're a close friend, and even then I barely go much further than "crap"). Your analogy, while it has its merits, is inherently flawed, because a house owned by one person with just one other person inside it is completely different from a free entry, free to use forum with many people on at once.

Perhaps something more appropriate would be a swimming pool, run by the council. The council is elected by the members of the parish. Therefore, the swimming pool manager is elected/accepted by members of the parish, as CC is. The many different aspects of the swimming pool - the free-to-use pool, the diving boards etc., can be like the LBP-related parts of the site, and the non-LBP related parts can be the sauna and lounger beds. Can you name me a single public baths/swimming pool where you would never say the word in question in conversation with friends?		2009-10-27 16:29:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

Calling my opinions pathetic I called the issue pathetic. The fact that we are arguing over it is pathetic. On both sides. Not your opinon. Please don't put words in my mouth.


and my method of expressing them thick I specifically said you are not thick. I never said anything about how you expressed your opinions.

You are constantly misinterpreting my words and implying plenty that isn't there. Yet another reason for me to see my involvement in this whole thing as pointless and a waste of time.		2009-10-27 16:40:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Rogar, I have asked people's opinions. At the moment, it is 3 who say keep the filter, 9 who say abolish it on the word in question, and 2 who are abstaining. That's a sample set of opinions. Arguments have been expressed on both sides (just take this post for an example on my side). And majority does equal rule in a democracy (as I had always taken this site to be).

Well, you wouldn't pass a law based on the opinions of a few people in the street, would you? If you want a democracy, you have to give all the members enough time to vote.

But before you send out more mails, this is not a democracy (or a swimming pool). As far as I know, CC owns the site, so why shouldn't he get to make the final decision? Especially a strategic one like the target audience. I think he's doing a great job getting input from the community, he's open to different opinions, he even gave you an out on this issue. But in the end it is his decision, and his alone.		2009-10-27 16:41:00

Author:
Rogar
Posts: 2284

While it may seem completely random, but I think this is actually appropriate to the situation in a strange way:

Yeah, let's stand up for what we believe in, let's get out there and face the world! We have nothing to worry about, we are winners, we are the champions, my friend, and we'll keep on fighting till the end! Never give up hope! Get off the wall, stand proud and tall, get out there and dance like an idiot. We are proud, we are confident, we can overcome any obstacle, whatever life may throw at us, we will not let it get us down. That which halts us is our enemy, thwart all who stand in your way, do what it takes to get where you want to be, let nothing stop you! You, and your life is all that matters, live it to the full, you are a winner, you will win, everyone will win, and if we stand up strong, and face the world together, then together, we can make a difference. We can right the wrongs, fix all that is broken, bring peace to our war-ridden society, live together in harmony.

Because let me tell you, my friends, as a very wise and handsome young chap once said, you only live once, so do whatever the hell you want in order to enjoy it.




...

I don't think I'm going to win 		2009-10-27 16:44:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

Well, you wouldn't pass a law based on the opinions of a few people in the street, would you? If you want a democracy, you have to give all the members enough time to vote.

But before you send out more mails, this is not a democracy (or a swimming pool). As far as I know, CC owns the site, so why shouldn't he get to make the final decision? Especially a strategic one like the target audience. I think he's doing a great job getting input from the community, he's open to different opinions, he even gave you an out on this issue. But in the end it is his decision, and his alone.

LBP(The original forum creator) owns it, but CC runs it. We know what you mean though.

Sorry Dawes, but as much as we believe that it is not offensive, somebody might and CC needs to cater for everyones needs. However, this word is not that offensive and I do not think it should be banned. But, it has to be done, even if it is just for a the very smallest of minorities. You could carry on about this, but nothing will change.

Love Moley. 		2009-10-27 16:46:00

Author:
moleynator
Posts: 2914

rtm, I brought up the issue, the issue was started by me. Calling it pathetic is calling my involvement with the issue pathetic. Q.E.D. You also said I was acting thick. I was not. It is you who was putting actions into my body. You implied that I was deliberately acting thick, when I was arguing reasonably and trying to draw out some conclusions. The exact opposite.

Rogar, it is the people in the street who vote in a democracy, so it is their opinion that does matter. You would not simply ask 50 people on the street and base the laws off that opinion, but you would ask the population as a whole (i.e. in a general election). I asked 50 of the most active people on the site, those who use it most. I also said that the 13 or so who have so far replied do not represent a good sample set, but a trend will slowly appear.

The swimming pool analogy does seem to fit, though. CC is like the manager of the pool, who is put there by the council/public, and takes suggestions from the council/public - like CC does. He IS doing a great job taking the community's input, but here, I, and apparently many if not the majority of others seem to agree.		2009-10-27 16:49:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

rtm, I brought up the issue, the issue was started by me. Calling it pathetic is calling my involvement with the issue pathetic. Q.E.D.

I never said anything about your opinions being pathetic. I never said anything about the way that you express your opinions. You are still implying things from what I say and promoting your assumptions as fact. At least when I assumed you were being obstinate I admitted up front I didn't know, that I was guessing.

And I do think this thread is pathetic. It may have started off as a reasonable proposition, but can you really look back through all these pages and say this has been something worthwhile? I really can't. (now don't imply that as a critisism of yourself in any way - it's not)		2009-10-27 17:08:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Execution of democratic process? Leading by example, i.e. showing other members hat they are allowed to have their say too? Pointing out the flaws in censorship as a whole and the difficulty of managing it?

Look, rtm, it's open to debate, and, let me say this - I don't know for certain. But what is implied by something someone says can be as important as what they intend to say. As I said before - you say the issue is pathetic, I am strongly involved with the issue, there is clearly going to be some link between the two in my mind.		2009-10-27 17:13:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

This topic is a bit is iffy to me because basically I don't really care if it's censored or not but yah doesn't matter to me.2009-10-27 17:20:00

Author:
Mod5.0
Posts: 1576

Most of the time, if you go looking for implied meanings in other peoples' words, you will find something that isn't there. Adding the same weight to an interpreted meaning, as to the explicit meaning of the text is bound to lead to misunderstanding.2009-10-27 17:32:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Hidden meanings to spoken words wouldn't be important if they weren't being taught to me 4 hours a week in English lessons. Then again, don't even get me started on the education system.2009-10-27 17:38:00

Author:
dawesbr
Posts: 3280

I'm done with this thread. I'm kinda embarrased you managed to draw me in so far on an issue that is so pathetic.


IYet another reason for me to see my involvement in this whole thing as pointless and a waste of time.


And I do think this thread is pathetic. It may have started off as a reasonable proposition, but can you really look back through all these pages and say this has been something worthwhile? I really can't.

If all you're going to contribute to this thread is your opinion on how pointless it is, then please stop dragging it out...		2009-10-27 17:38:00

Author:
ARD
Posts: 4291

No one's making you read my words ARD Freedom of Speech and all that. Lol. Yeah I said I was done, but have come back to respond to things directly said to me. Partly in defense of my self and partly because things are feeling more civil now.

@Dawes: I know, I genuinely like the fact that poetry and literature spoken words can be layered with meaning, but any interpretation of the hidden meanings will realistically project you own mental and emotional state onto someone else's words. I find it's best to take it with a pinch of salt, especially if the hidden meaning you find is offensive to you.		2009-10-27 17:48:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Here's a few observations and thoughts of my own after reading 5 pages of this thread:

- For those of you who want the word in question unfiltered, I don't understand why you are so passionate about it? I agree that you have the right to make suggestions like this, and I know CC appreciates all ideas and suggestions, but once the decision has been made, why keep arguing about it?

- People read way too much into what other people are saying. When discussing on forums, it is sometimes difficult to get a point across. So I typically take what people say in forums at face value, because the last thing I want to do is wrongly accuse them of something I think they implied.

- Kudos to Rogar who pointed out that "Majority does not equal truth."

- Ultimately, I do not see what the word in question would add to posts. I never use it, and I don't appreciate it when others use it. However, if CC did change his mind, I'd still use this site - but I wouldn't let my kids use it... if I had kids 		2009-10-27 18:36:00

Author:
Powershifter
Posts: 668

I agree with comphermc and CC, and anyone else that agrees.

The filter needs to stay. I once mentioned to ChristmasJew about it not being appropriate I think it was when he used the word justifying it by saying it was from a movie, which would be the same as me saying ****** is from a movie so should be allowed.

I could care less if people say the word if this wasn't a family site. I personally find this thread/complaint to be kind of silly. If you absolutely must curse, then there's something wrong there, lol. No offense.

This is a family site for ALL ages first and foremost, and that should be respected. It's not that hard to do, lol.		2009-10-27 23:41:00

Author:
Unknown User

erm guys - I think CC made it clear that it's not going to be changed.....
Plus it's a lot easier for him to silence you than vice versa 		2009-10-27 23:58:00

Author:
Coxy224
Posts: 2645

I'm sorry to say this, but I don't see this thread going anywhere new, so I'm going to lock it. We've touched on the same few points regularly since this thread was created, and I don't think there's any new ways to look at the issue. My stance remains the same - offensive language will continue to be censored. If you really don't like our policy toward offensive language, I invite you to join one of the many other forums that allow it.


erm guys - I think CC made it clear that it's not going to be changed.....
Plus it's a lot easier for him to silence you than vice versa
I wouldn't ever silence someone for voicing an opinion that is contrary to my own. Opposing opinions are always useful, because they ensure I rethink my stance on an issue from many different perspectives. We only silence members when they regularly make posts that are inflammatory or offensive - e.g. we'd be better off without them posting in the first place.		2009-10-28 00:21:00

Author:
ConfusedCartman
Posts: 3729


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.