Bad *** language filter

[gbrandwood]

Looks like Segway Chat now has a bad language filter! When did that happen? Why?

[Desert_Seg]

Looks like Segway Chat now has a bad language filter! When did that happen? Why?

The morality police are out trolling....

Seriously though. If you can't speak without using a swear word then you shouldn't speak at all....(my opinion, at least). After all, since when has a swear word added any value to a conversation (other than when you hit your finger with a hammer, that is!).

Steven

[cruiter]

Depending on where you go on line, I think most of the really trash mouth posts come from teens that are experiencing un-supervised freedom and think their acting like adults and maybe trying to impress their peers. On web sights such as this where there the topics are generally less entertaing to teens, it's not near the problem. I used to play an on-line game "Army". Once the kids got into that, it took all the fun away.

The morality police are out trolling....

Seriously though. If you can't speak without using a swear word then you shouldn't speak at all....(my opinion, at least). After all, since when has a swear word added any value to a conversation (other than when you hit your finger with a hammer, that is!).

Steven

[gbrandwood]

I personally don't think we need one - as I've not seen any great display of bad language. However, perhaps the moderators have been extra vigilante at spotting it and changing it?? I'm sure they'd rather not have to worry about that and so I see the filter might have its place.

Steven, I was only asking the question about a new "feature" on the forum. I'm not the morality police. I'm simply interested in why this option has been turned on, now. I assume it has been available to turn on for a while - but it only just seems to have come on line. So, why now?

And for the record ("seriously though"), I don't think that people who can't speak without swearing shouldn't have a voice. There are conditions, such a turrets syndrome, or culture/sub-cultures where their main way of expressing themselves is very "street" or "colourful" and that is just part of who they are. Sure, I don't want SC filled up with bad language, but I like to hear all points of view.

[Sal]

And for the record ("seriously though"), I don't think that people who can't speak without swearing shouldn't have a voice. There are conditions, such a turrets syndrome, or culture/sub-cultures where their main way of expressing themselves is very "street" or "colourful" and that is just part of who they are. Sure, I don't want SC filled up with bad language, but I like to hear all points of view.

I don't think Steven was referring to those with tourette's or any other speech / behavior disorder,when he made that statement. Posting on a forum is decidedly different from involuntary swearing.

Maybe the bad language filter was always on, and no one noticed because the language used on these forums is pretty civil.

In any case, these forums are attended by folks of all ages, so anything that makes our lives easier is welcomed.

I do believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that when we don't know who is reading our posts, we need to be as diligent about behaving like civilized adults as possible; noting that 99% of those seeking membership are accepted. If we had a forum which restricted admission, maybe then the bad language filter need not be there...

For those of you wondering the 1% of members who are banned are banned from the outset due to a number of issues, the majority being spamming.

-Sal

[hellphish]

The language filter has always been on since I've been here.

[KSagal]

I have not run into it much, but I do seem to recall it being on a long time ago. Maybe it is part of the software of this forum package, and came on line when the format changed...

I have never been much of a fan of swearing, or using profanity, but it is all about communication. If you speak in a kindergarden the same way you speak in a bar down at the docks, you are only asking for problems at both locations...

In my opinion, it is the responsibiltiy of the speaker to at least attempt to be understood. In some instances, that means to speak as the locals do...

Since the vast majority of this forums users would not well respond to profanity, it is not a tool that would be usefull here...

[dale@thecoys.net]

The language filter has always been on since I've been here.

In another thread, when I was QUOTING spoken material on the Segway Safety Video, it came out:

"If you ignore the guidelines and warnings, well - it's your ***!"

So, sometimes the filter is a bit intrusive. But I don't run this forum, and I don't object to policies (or I just don't participate).

[Timezkware Tim]

This is not an "adult" site. It has a bad language filter like every other site where minors and civilized people post. That's a good thing.

It would be great if this site also had a sniper filter. Whenever someone with no guts wants to take pot shots at a poster without naming them in the post, the post should be automatically deleted.

Tim

[gbrandwood]

I don't think Steven was referring to those with tourette's or any other speech / behavior disorder,when he made that statement. Posting on a forum is decidedly different from involuntary swearing.I guess I knew that. I was desparately trying to use symantics to make a point. Not one of my better ones. Apologies for that. Language, and the many different uses of it, by different people, is an interesting topic though, and the swearing and tourettes POV was something I picked up on a recent diversity seminar.

Maybe the bad language filter was always on, and no one noticed because the language used on these forums is pretty civil.I didn't think it was on because I recall recently reading the word "piss" quite a lot. Which is probably a bit stronger or at least on par with the word "***". But I may have missed it as it has never affected my posts before, and perhaps I assumed other people put astrix's in?? But I don't usually say "***", I usually use "arse", so perhaps that's also why?

In any case, these forums are attended by folks of all ages, so anything that makes our lives easier is welcomed.I agree with anything that can make the work of the moderators easier, because as I undestand it, you don't get paid for your work here. But the word "***"? Surely you'd find that in a "U" rated film? Perhaps not. Anyway, now I know the filter is present (and has been for a while), and why, so I feel my quesitons have all been answered. http://forums.segwaychat.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[gbrandwood]

It would be great if this site also had a sniper filter. Whenever someone with no guts wants to take pot shots at a poster without naming them in the post, the post should be automatically deleted.I guess it would be better if the snipe was never made to begin with (named or otherwise). But its so easy to snipe from behind a keyboard and even easier to misread something. But we all seem to do pretty well on here. Most of the time :)

[KSagal]

I'll play devil's advocate (Surrogate in some people's view) here and say that the snipe issue is largely a perspectives issue...

My own memory is that which is somewhat pictographic... I am great at remembering faces, but not so good at matching them up with the names... I am good at remembering turns of phrase, or specific words spoken, but not as good at properly attributing the author...

I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of singling out a paticular person in a post which specifically did not name them, or had a disclaimer about it being responsive to several posters... I have even had people send long diatribes about how I was picking on them or their words, when I was not even aware of their existance.

One thing here, that is fairly common, is an inflated sense of self importance. That shows well in many posts. (And surely I am not exempt)

So, a snipe filter would be hard pressed to work. I agree with the concept that policing ourselves will work well, and for those who don't police themselves, their posts will stand out as exceptions and will garner the respect they deserve...

As far as the original topic of a bad language filter, I have included the astericks myself, if I am quoting another person who used profanities. I did not wait for a filter to do it... I take my cue here from Beatle Bailey, who was famous for the "$#OO*" kind of swear...

[pam]

From my history <G> We've always had a bad language filter, because we've had posters of all ages at various times. We even had a filter on Schnitz that filtered out references to other things that Frank chose not to have on the forum. I'm pretty sure that this software is using a default group of words (I haven't been through it to look) -
Pam

[macgeek]

Its really ******* hard not to swear, When I get up in the ******* morning and scratch my ***** and then go take a ****,
I think WHAT THE **** am I doing today.

Then I get out into traffic on my segway and God are there alot of ******** on the road,

This one guy cut me off and I said to him *** * *** ** ** ******* **** ** ****** **** ***** **** ** ***!!!

Well what the ***** would you do?

Jonathan

[citivolus]

Jonathan,
I don't mean to be pedantic but... I think "****" is the wrong word since it is being modified by "*****" and therefore it should be "*******".
But then I've always had a problem with the past tense of a pluperfect participle myself.

[macgeek]

******* A
******* B
******* C

yea thats how a NYker Spells!

you got a ******** problem with DHAT?????


Jonathan
I * NY

PS: tree plus three plus tree is Nine
Dirty tree plus dirty tree plus dirty tree is ninty nine!

[guyler]

I read books, watch movies, and indulge in conversations decorated with a wide range of obscenities/vulgarities and it doesn't bother me. However, there are venues where a more refined version of the English language is preferred. In my opinion this forum is one of them.

Where I part company with the administrators of this forum is with the substitution of asterisks (*) for the letters of an obscene/vulgar word. If the word itself is obvious--in spite of the substitution--from the context of the sentence, what is the point? Generally the word literally jumps off the page and can be heard in the mind. It is not the printing of the word that offends me. It is the meaning.

I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.

If you don't agree with me, **** you!

[dale@thecoys.net]

I've been doing IT stuff for close to 50 years! In some circles, I'm considered somewhat of an expert on office automation (including things like email, "bulletin boards", etc.).

In my professional opinion, there are only three major "drawbacks" to automatic language (or content) filters:

1. Use of such filters leads to occasional "discussions" such as this, which will inevitably contain content that may be viewed as creative, or childish, or angry, or .....

2. In some less-polite climates, participants may become creative in using obscure language, or other work-arounds, to incorporate "bad language" in their communications. Or perhaps just "foreign language" depending on the depth of the filters. Hopefully, that won't occur here.

3. A legitimate argument can be made that, in fairness, participants deserve access to a list of all the prohibited words. The argument is that participants should be given the opportunity to NOT stumble into the use of prohibited words (or content). Of course, there's an obvious problem doing that.

So, like many things, there's no "right" answer.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Where I part company with the administrators of this forum is with the substitution of asterisks (*) for the letters of an obscene/vulgar word. If the word itself is obvious--in spite of the substitution--from the context of the sentence, what is the point? Generally the word literally jumps off the page and can be heard in the mind. It is not the printing of the word that offends me. It is the meaning.

I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.



What would you consider an acceptable correction for my previous posting that said, when I was QUOTING spoken material on the Segway Safety Video?

"If you ignore the guidelines and warnings, well - it's your ***!"

[gbrandwood]

Guyler & Dale,

Your posts contain points that I've never considered before and I've been in front of messageboards (and behind them) for years. I'm glad I started this thread.

Cheers, guys.

[Sal]

What would you consider an acceptable correction for my previous posting that said, when I was QUOTING spoken material on the Segway Safety Video?

"If you ignore the guidelines and warnings, well - it's your ***!"

Just out of curiosity... what is the time stamp of that statement in the Safety video?

-Sal

[pam]

I do that would require, I think, to put everyone on moderation, and I'm definitely not in favor of that! :)
Pam



I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.

If you don't agree with me, **** you!

[pam]

To do that would require, I think, to put everyone on moderation, and I'm definitely not in favor of that! :)
Pam



I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.

If you don't agree with me, **** you!

[dale@thecoys.net]

Just out of curiosity... what is the time stamp of that statement in the Safety video?

-Sal

In Title 7 (Chapter 7), it's at 14:25 - 14:28. The other quote in the "Title 7 on Gen2 Safety Video" thread that I started...

http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=14818

... starts around 14:12

By the way - hellphish offered (in that thread) to make Title 7 available. I sent the necessary files to him several days ago, and I'm sure he'll soon find time to "publish" it.

[Sharkie]

Well, some times automated filters can do too much. On one forum that I'm on, something was referred to as a pussycat, but the filter changed it to **** cat. It took me a while to figure out what it was. In years gone by, AOL had automated filters that over did things a bit too. They had a forum called "Hooter cancer survivors" because the word breast was prohibited. I guess discussing cooking chickens or turkeys would have been a problem as well. From what I've seen, this forum has things set fairly reasonably.

Jim

[macgeek]

I do that would require, I think, to put everyone on moderation, and I'm definitely not in favor of that! :)
Pam

http://www.segwaychat.com/forum/image.php?u=302&dateline=1175774559
Nice picture!!!

jonathan

[hellphish]

I think that word substitution is better than partially censoring the words, if not just for the hilarious results. One of the most popular forums on the entire internet does this. If you post the word '****' it shows up as 'gently carress.' You see alot of stuff like "what the gently caress were you thinking?"

[macgeek]

One of George Carlin's best bits is he replaces the word "Kill" with "****"

"Sheriff were gonna **** you, and were gonna **** you reeeeeeal Slow"

Jonathan