Bad language.

Scioch

Why are certain words censored on boards ? Shít and fcuk must be two of the most versatile and widely used words in the English language. Used routinely in everyday conversation and used on here slightly misspelled. Which makes no difference in how its used, viewed or the meaning attached to it.

Is boards forced to censor it ? Is there any point in censoring it ?

Cookie_Monster

LordSmeg wrote: »

Why are certain words censored on boards ?

because a while back they left the office door open and one of the PC brigade got to the hamsters.

it's fucking shit easy to get around though

dr.bollocko

There's probably some benefit to making it a tiny bit more difficult for people to be uncivil to each other in an online discussion.

5starpool

LordSmeg wrote: »

Why are certain words censored on boards ? Shít and fcuk must be two of the most versatile and widely used words in the English language. Used routinely in everyday conversation and used on here slightly misspelled. Which makes no difference in how its used, viewed or the meaning attached to it.

Is boards forced to censor it ? Is there any point in censoring it ?

They are not forced to, but they choose to, probably to try and force things to be a bit more civil.

Scioch

dr.bollocko wrote: »

There's probably some benefit to making it a tiny bit more difficult for people to be uncivil to each other in an online discussion.

I dont think it makes any difference at all to be honest. You can post pretty much anything anyway if you want to say it. Plenty of insults are not censored (asshole, dickhead, prick, wanker, bastard, moron, idiot, slut, slag, fag, whore, bitch etc). So if you want to insult someone you will.

The only thing it does in regards civility of discussion is censor hotheads saying **** you ****head and the like and be honest now, is that any less uncivil than if it wasnt censored ? I dont think so and it certainly wouldnt be contributing much to the incivility (I learned a new word!).

Scioch

5starpool wrote: »

They are not forced to, but they choose to, probably to try and force things to be a bit more civil.

Censoring wont force people to be civil though it just forced them to say things in a different way. Fcuk you, isnt any more civil. So if they wanted to force people to stop being uncivil then they would infract that behaviour.

This censoring thing is just part of the wider view of those words in society I think. They are classed as vulgar and censored just to avoid offending people. About time we all copped on and realised they are just words and censoring isnt going to do jack fcukin shít isnt it ?

5starpool

I agree they shouldn't be, but I can see why they are, and it doesn't really bother me too much.

Mint Sauce

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because a while back they left the office door open and one of the PC brigade got to the hamsters.

it's fucking shit easy to get around though

Yes, but in the heat of the moment by the time you enter your code/tags to get around the swear filter you usally have calmed down.

Ickle Magoo

LordSmeg wrote: »

I dont think it makes any difference at all to be honest. You can post pretty much anything anyway if you want to say it. Plenty of insults are not censored (asshole, dickhead, prick, wanker, bastard, moron, idiot, slut, slag, fag, whore, bitch etc). So if you want to insult someone you will.

The only thing it does in regards civility of discussion is censor hotheads saying **** you ****head and the like and be honest now, is that any less uncivil than if it wasnt censored ? I dont think so and it certainly wouldnt be contributing much to the incivility (I learned a new word!).

Is it not just a way of making it clear the site doesn't support/advocate discussion peppered with bad language...seeing as flaming/trolling/incivility is covered by most if not all charters on the site?

While it won't stop people using them, the very fact you have to go out of your way to circumvent the swear filter sends a message about the standard of posting/language expected on the majority of the site...and I presume it isn't possible to have a swear filter on one forum and not on another?

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is it not just a way of making it clear the site doesn't support/advocate discussion peppered with bad language...seeing as how flaming/trolling/incivility is covered by most if not all charters on the site?

While it won't stop people using them, the very fact you have to go out of your way to circumvent the swear filter sends a message about the standard of posting/language expected on the majority of the site...and I presume it isn't possible to have a swear filter on one forum and not on another?

But then what message does it send that although censored its still quite ok to use them if you find a way ? "Fcuk" is perfectly fine on boards, it takes the same amount of time to write and all the attributes of the correct spelling. Its the same word yet its not discouraged at all.

Swearing itself isnt discouraged, only insulting fellow posters, trolling, being uncivil none of which are characterised by the censored words, nor is it made worse by the use of the censored words.

And in the case of fcuk and shít they are so widely used and have so many differing meanings that you just cant simply blame them for any incivility. They are not the tools of the ignorant they are very widely used words in the English language on all levels. And very much at home in the informal setting of an internet forum.

Yet words like moron, minger, slut, asshole, prick, dickhead and a multitude of what I'd consider unnecessary words which are mainly used in attacking and insulting are absolutely fine because all the stigma is attached to shít and fcuk.

Just to say too that you dont need to change a filter for different forums just the attitude in dealing with how people post. There's no filter for abuse or whats considered trolling but if the site wants to discourage it then mods will take action on it.

Ickle Magoo

LordSmeg wrote: »

But then what message does it send that although censored its still quite ok to use them if you find a way ? "Fcuk" is perfectly fine on boards, it takes the same amount of time to write and all the attributes of the correct spelling. Its the same word yet its not discouraged at all.

Swearing itself isnt discouraged, only insulting fellow posters, trolling, being uncivil none of which are characterised by the censored words, nor is it made worse by the use of the censored words.

And in the case of fcuk and shít they are so widely used and have so many differing meanings that you just cant simply blame them for any incivility. They are not the tools of the ignorant they are very widely used words in the English language on all levels. And very much at home in the informal setting of an internet forum.

Yet words like moron, minger, slut, asshole, prick, dickhead and a multitude of what I'd consider unnecessary words which are mainly used in attacking and insulting are absolutely fine because all the stigma is attached to shít and fcuk.

Just to say too that you dont need to change a filter for different forums just the attitude in dealing with how people post. There's no filter for abuse or whats considered trolling but if the site wants to discourage it then mods will take action on it.

Again, it's forum dependent...some forums may not curb swearing, others certainly would...again, I think it comes down to setting the tone for what kind of site Boards wants to promote itself as...a kind of 4chan, anything goes, swear all you like and reasoned, rational debate goes out the window or a civilised discussion site in which some forums have looser rules on the language permitted.

Mint Sauce

You have to consider the context in which is used as well. In terms of using it to display your emotion on a topic or for the odd lol, then I feel its fine. But if you using it just to be a prick, then not so.

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again, it's forum dependent...some forums may not curb swearing, others certainly would...again, I think it comes down to setting the tone for what kind of site Boards wants to promote itself as...a kind of 4chan, anything goes, swear all you like and reasoned, rational debate goes out the window or a civilised discussion site in which some forums have looser rules on the language permitted.

But simply using the words doesnt throw reasoned debate out the window. And what little it does contribute to any incivility its no more than many other words which are not censored.

A lot of things are forum dependant and thats why they have individual charters. But how many forums is there that would hold posters to a standard that they are discouraged to use profanity ? Not many I visit, in my time here I havent encountered one issue in relation to profanity.

I understand there may be reasons for censoring certain words who's only use are to insult or be aggressive. But thats not what has been done, a lot of those words are dealt with as they are used and in the context they are used while fcuk are outright censored even though they do not solely apply to that type of intent.

So to me its nothing to do with any standards that the site wishes to set as if it was the misspellings and all the other insulting language would be dealt with if that was the case.

Scioch

irish-stew wrote: »

You have to consider the context in which is used as well. In terms of using it to display your emotion on a topic or for the odd lol, then I feel its fine. But if you using it just to be a prick, then not so.

Absolutely but context goes out the window when there is censorship. So its already been decided these words are not wanted no matter what the context, which I find odd considering how versatile they are. And anyone determined to be a prick will have no shortage of words to use in their place.

Ickle Magoo

LordSmeg wrote: »

But simply using the words doesnt throw reasoned debate out the window. And what little it does contribute to any incivility its no more than many other words which are not censored.

I disagree - trying to have a rational discussion with someone who's entire argument is that so and so is a ****ing **** is hardly going encourage posters to participate in rational, well-considered discussion or even take that poster and their views seriously, for that matter. Like it or not, society does not encourage the use of bad language in formal discussion, ie at work, in most publications, most TV shows, even for most at the family dinner table.

While posters may not care about hearing/seeing bad language, it does set a tone for the quality of discussion when posters are unwilling or unable to find a better way to express their views than via crass expletives.

LordSmeg wrote: »

A lot of things are forum dependant and thats why they have individual charters. But how many forums is there that would hold posters to a standard that they are discouraged to use profanity ? Not many I visit, in my time here I havent encountered one issue in relation to profanity.

I'm not sure what forums you've frequented thus far, but I think the majority would action a post indulging in expletives for kicks and giggles, especially if using them to refer to posters, their views, sects of people in society, etc, etc...

LordSmeg wrote: »

I understand there may be reasons for censoring certain words who's only use are to insult or be aggressive. But thats not what has been done, a lot of those words are dealt with as they are used and in the context they are used while fcuk are outright censored even though they do not solely apply to that type of intent.

Again, I suspect it's more about setting a tone for the site than actually censoring specific forums. When a site freely allows the use of profanities it gives a taciturn approval of their usage site-wide.

LordSmeg wrote: »

So to me its nothing to do with any standards that the site wishes to set as if it was the misspellings and all the other insulting language would be dealt with if that was the case.

I have to disagree again. Insulting language, deliberately circumventing the swear filter, etc ARE dealt with in many forums.

I think there has to be limits to censorship or it would be impossible to recant a funny story in some forums without it being covered in and ruined by stars and, of course, posters would just find ways around it...w@nker, sh!t, etc, etc...even the font size tags circumvents swear words. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be general message sent about the quality of discussion and respect to other posters/their views expected on the site in general tho.

stovelid

The current situation seems fine to me: where you can swear for extra emphasis or effect ( as I sometimes do myself) but by having to bypass the swear filter, you have to give the use of the swear word(s) that little extra moment of consideration as to its suitability.

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I disagree - trying to have a rational discussion with someone who's entire argument is that so and so is a ****ing **** is hardly going encourage posters to participate in rational, well-considered discussion or even take that poster and their views seriously, for that matter. Like it or not, society does not encourage the use of bad language in formal discussion, ie at work, in most publications, most TV shows, even for most at the family dinner table.

While posters may not care about hearing/seeing bad language, it does set a tone for the quality of discussion when posters are unwilling or unable to find a better way to express their views than via crass expletives.

But thats not caused by the words its caused by the poster. If their argument was that so and so was a stupid jerk it isnt going to encourage posters to participate. Thats a posting manner issue not a language issue. And if a poster says that "so and so did this and fcuking that and now we are in the shít because x and y and z" you have an entirely different scenario. It entirely depends on the posting manner not the use of language.

It doesnt set a tone for the discussion it only highlights the posters frustration and emotion about the issue. You can still express your opinion to the standard of a high court judge while adding in a few fcuks to show your pissed off while your doing it.

I'm not sure what forums you've frequented thus far, but I think the majority would action a post indulging in expletives for kicks and giggles, especially if using them to refer to posters, their views, sects of people in society, etc, etc...

I've visited plenty and used "fcuk" many many times and never been pulled up on it. Using it to refer to posters, their views and people in society has nothing to do with the words just how they are used. Refer to posters, their views or sects of people as idiots or morons and you are doing the same. Its not swearing that causes the issue its the meaning being put across and if that meaning is insulting then you have an issue.

Just the use of bad language in a non aggressive and non insulting context I have never seen actioned. I assume because there is nothing wrong with it.

Again, I suspect it's more about setting a tone for the site than actually censoring specific forums. When a site freely allows the use of profanities it gives a taciturn approval of their usage site-wide.

I disagree that the use of profanity itself sets the tone so I dont see how censoring it makes any difference to the tone that a poster chooses to adopt. The site allows many words people would take offence to in the wrong context, they are allowed site wide yet I dont for a second think there is any approval of their usage in offensive ways. So I dont think it any different with whats currently censored if they were to be allowed.

I have to disagree again. Insulting language, deliberately circumventing the swear filter, etc ARE dealt with in many forums.

I think there has to be limits to censorship or it would be impossible to recant a funny story in some forums without it being covered in and ruined by stars and, of course, posters would just find ways around it...w@nker, sh!t, etc, etc...even the font size tags circumvents swear words. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be general message sent about the quality of discussion and respect to other posters/their views expected on the site in general tho.

I think I've made it clear by now but just to say it again swearing ≠ insulting.

But I dont think censoring fcuk and shít and allowing them and other similar meaning words does anything for the quality of discussion. Which is why I cant believe that that is the reason for the being censored. Perhaps it may have been true a while back when the site hadnt established itself to a degree where people knew what was expected and insulting was more common, then it may have been an attempt to lessen the insult but now I see no reason to keep censoring them. Not that its a major issue or anything but I just see it as pointless.

Madam_X

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because a while back they left the office door open and one of the PC brigade got to the hamsters.

Oh right. Thought the PC brigade wouldn't have a problem with swearing, and the uptight, ultra conservative contingent would.

Ickle Magoo

LordSmeg wrote: »

I disagree that the use of profanity itself sets the tone

And I don't think we're going to get any further while we disagree on that base point.

There is a reason why swearing at policemen or your boss will get you into trouble...or that you'll be kicked from most debating teams or educational courses if you can't make your discussion point without resorting to general profanities.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I think I've made it clear by now but just to say it again swearing ≠ insulting.

In your opinion. There are people who affectionately call others a cúnt. I think we can agree that if Boards took the position that it was acceptable for any poster to call another a cúnt, it might as well throw away any attempt to be, in the main, a civil discussion site...regardless of what specific posters consider insulting/affectionate terminology.

LordSmeg wrote: »

But I dont think censoring fcuk and shít and allowing them and other similar meaning words does anything for the quality of discussion. Which is why I cant believe that that is the reason for the being censored. Perhaps it may have been true a while back when the site hadnt established itself to a degree where people knew what was expected but now I see no reason to keep censoring them. Not that its a major issue or anything but I just see it as pointless.

And I can guarantee if a poster was actioned for posting in politics or humanities or PI throwing around the expletives they would be complaining why the words aren't censored if they aren't allowed. It's a no-win situation on a site this big. I'd argue that since the majority of forums would have cause to action a poster using those profanities at some stage, it is completely rational that they be censored and the forums that allow them or variations of them are the exception to the rule, rather than the other way around.

Of course, language usage evolves - as the acceptance to the word fúck on TV would attest. But then shows that now allow such language tend to be post-watershed and Boards is aimed at posters 13+, so perhaps that's another reason they choose not to give taciturn approval to such language?

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And I don't think we're going to get any further while we disagree on that base point.

There is a reason why swearing at policemen or your boss will get you into trouble...or that you'll be kicked from most debating teams or educational courses if you can't make your discussion point without resorting to general profanities.

All examples of the use of swearing in a formal setting. This isnt a formal setting its an open, anonymous forum where such language is tolerated, and the proof of that is in the posts. Swearing and crude discussion is commonplace in a lot of forums. Yet still only a select few are censored but with no additional effort to stop them. Yore man has been removed entirely, yet fcuk is censored but allowed in doctored form. Why if the meaning and the use of the word is the problem ?

In your opinion. There are people who affectionately call others a cúnt. I think we can agree that if Boards took the position that it was acceptable for any poster to call another a cúnt, it might as well throw away any attempt to be, in the main, a civil discussion site...regardless of what specific posters consider insulting/affectionate terminology.

Not in my opinion its a fact. Shít is not an insult unless used in an insulting way. Fcuk is not an insult unless used in an insulting way. I have fcukin shít myself is not an insult. I had a cnut,bitch,fcuker of a day. Whats wrong with that ? Whats insulting about it ? Why are you hung up on these words being used as insults when we know insulting in any form is not allowed and these words themselves have multiple meanings ? Why would people run to insult each other simply because the small few profanities that were once censored are not any more ? If people insult each other then that has to be dealt with but they dont do it because they can use profanity they do it because they want to insult each other. If you want to insult someone you will do just that.

And I can guarantee if a poster was actioned for posting in politics or humanities or PI throwing around the expletives they would be complaining why the words aren't censored if they aren't allowed. It's a no-win situation on a site this big. I'd argue that since the majority of forums would have cause to action a poster using those profanities at some stage, it is completely rational that they be censored and the forums that allow them or variations of them are the exception to the rule, rather than the other way around.

I dont think so, forum like that do demand a standard of posting, not just in language used but also in how its out across. They would be no more keen to wonder why those words are not censored than they would be to argue against a mod deciding they were not posting to a standard. Anything can be argued when your in the mood for arguing.

I dont think the majority of forums would have to do anything more than what they already do in regards to current words used in that manner or those words used and censored. If I say **** this **** in politics, does the fact that its censored change the fact that I said it or that my post isnt of the standard required ? Course not, we all know what it is, we know the level the poster is posting to so why would you have to automatically infract them if it wasnt censored out ?

Of course, language usage evolves - as the acceptance to the word fúck on TV would attest. But then shows that now allow such language tend to be post-watershed and Boards is aimed at posters 13+, so perhaps that's another reason they choose not to give taciturn approval to such language?

The media would be even more so under fire than this website for the usage of such words, yet shows still get made using them. Content is available uncensored online and on tv. I dont think anyone is under the illusion that a 13 year old will be ignorant to the usage of swear words, or fooled by the crafty misspelling or the mystical asterisk that hides them.

Like I said if it was an issue they would have tackled it like they did with "yore ma" and "blast it with piss". Both those were never censored just discouraged. The swears in question were never discouraged, only censored. There is quite a big difference and it leads me to believe the problem lies not in the meaning of them as used on the site but in the fact they could be viewed and are deemed by some to be offensive. Which at this point in time is a very weak argument considering the prevalent usage in the English language.

Ickle Magoo

Em, I think you might be getting my view of why they are censored muddled with my showing fervent support for them being censored. I also think you're being deliberately obtuse now. Call your boss or your mother a fúcking cúnt and come back and let us know how you got on if you seriously can't see why there may be an issue with a site that tries to encourage participation from all demographics having no restrictions on the use of expletives, regardless of forum/context.

Some forums are formal - or at least formal discussion is expected as a matter of course, civil and mature discussion is expected and peppering a post unnecessarily with bad language can't really claim to be being either...while you view censorship as pointless, many others view swearing as pointless and adding nothing to discussion except lowering the tone and introducing ambiguity and possible offence - I assume it's about finding a balance to keep everyone happy...and that includes those that run/own the site picking a posting standard they wish to promote for the site, isn't that why charters came into existence? Precisely because Boards isn't a post-what-you-like/call everyone names/be as offensive as you want kind of site?

NB I was under the impression "yore ma" and "blast them with piss" were just getting asininely repetitive to the point of mass irritation, hence the action for using them now. Again, you seem to be using your experience of one particular forum to make assumptions about a very large site as a whole. I agree if people want to insult others they will, if people want to f and blind in every post they will find a way - I'm just not sure that is much of an argument for the site giving taciturn approval for posting expletives site-wide...given it clearly isn't language prevalently used by all.

My 2c

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Em, I think you might be getting my view of why they are censored muddled with my showing fervent support for them being censored. I also think you're being deliberately obtuse now. Call your boss or your mother a fúcking cúnt and come back and let us know how you got on if you seriously can't see why there may be an issue with a site that tries to encourage participation from all demographics having no restrictions on the use of expletives, regardless of forum/context.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I have stated several times and explained several times that profanity does not equate to insulting and that we all know insulting isnt tolerated. Why would I call my boss and call him a cúnt ? Why would I call anyone a cúnt ? I dont want to insult anyone, I'm not arguing that its ok to insult people, but me using the word cúnt doesnt automatically make whatever I say an insult. I have explained this yet you refuse to acknowledge it and continue to argue that insulting is bad. I'm not the one being deliberately obtuse.

Some forums are formal - or at least formal discussion is expected as a matter of course, civil and mature discussion is expected and peppering a post unnecessarily with bad language can't really claim to be being either...while you view censorship as pointless, many others view swearing as pointless and adding nothing to discussion except lowering the tone and introducing ambiguity and possible offence - I assume it's about finding a balance to keep everyone happy...and that includes those that run/own the site picking a posting standard they wish to promote for the site, isn't that why charters came into existence? Precisely because Boards isn't a post-what-you-like/call everyone names/be as offensive as you want kind of site?

Thats an issue for the mods in relation to how a poster words, implies and puts across an opinion in any given post. Replacing fcuk with **** just reformats the text. It doesnt change the meaning or what has been posted. If its not acceptable as is then it surely cannot be acceptable slightly changed but still with the original meaning clear. And your still on about name calling and insulting. If your gonna censor every word that can be used as an insult we'd have very little to read on here.

NB I was under the impression "yore ma" and "blast them with piss" were just getting asininely repetitive to the point of mass irritation, hence the action for using them now. Again, you seem to be using your experience of one particular forum to make assumptions about a very large site as a whole. I agree if people want to insult others they will, if people want to f and blind in every post they will find a way - I'm just not sure that is much of an argument for the site giving taciturn approval for posting expletives site-wide...given it clearly isn't language prevalently used by all.

My 2c

Your misunderstanding. You implied that the use of the censored words was an issue. I am saying issue such as the use of words and phrases are removed from use when deemed necessary. The use of knacker is come down on hard, yore ma and blast it with piss was deemed to be an issue and action was taken to remove them from use.

If the use of fcuk and shít was an issue then why was it only censored and never made an actionable offence itself to say them ? Imo because there is nothing wrong with actually saying them if your not using them in an insulting manner. Because the have multiple meanings and are common words in the English language. Thats why they are still used and still allowed to be used.

Its no major issue that they are censored (as it changes nothing that I see anyway whether they are or are not) but there is really no other reason to do so other than the stigma attached to them as being vulgar.

Ickle Magoo

You are being obtuse if you think the only objections posters would have to a serious discussion being peppered with expletives is that they're insulting - insulting to the intelligence perhaps but I don't think the complaints would be about "insults" per say, rather that it's crass, unnecessary and lowers the quality of discussion to the lowest common denominator...and as I said earlier that's possibly something a discussion site/formal debating forums seeking to attract all kinds of posters would seek to avoid...for obvious reasons.

LordSmeg wrote: »

If the use of fcuk and shít was an issue then why was it only censored and never made an actionable offence itself to say them ?

I've seen both actioned - again, your frequent use of one specific forum which has more of a "pub chat" vibe seems to be forming your views on a site-wide policy being deemed unnecessary.

I think, as a site-wide policy, it works - because for the majority of forums on the site expletives have absolutely no purpose in making a relevant point and I suspect isn't the style of posting that the majority of posters want to see being used. Circumventing the swear filter takes an extra degree of effort that both sends the message that it isn't language the admins want to see being bandied about in every forum and gives posters those extra few seconds to think through whether there's a better way of phrasing their point that might ensure they avoid being actioned....both good reasons for the filter to remain.

The words that are censored are those that traditionally offend more or are used more by those wishing to offend, so it would make sense to remove any ambiguity that allowance of such words is approved site-wide. I'm just not seeing much of an argument for lifting the filter beyond it being language you don't have an issue with and view as common-place. You must appreciate that not all posters share that view? So then it comes down to what benefit is there from having zero filter and given the purpose of a discussion site is to appeal to the greatest spread of potential posters, I don't see one. *shrug*

Scioch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You are being obtuse if you think the only objections posters would have to a serious discussion being peppered with expletives is that they're insulting - insulting to the intelligence perhaps but I don't think the complaints would be about "insults" per say, rather that it's crass, unnecessary and lowers the quality of discussion to the lowest common denominator...and as I said earlier that's possibly something a discussion site/formal debating forums seeking to attract all kinds of posters would seek to avoid...for obvious reasons.

I was responding to the issues you raised. You concentrated on insulting and thats what I addressed. How is that being deliberately obtuse ?? If you wanted me to address other concerns then you have to raise them.

Sure its crass and crude but a lot of general discussion is in todays society. Dicsussions about politics are no longer the domain of the upper class, everyone has an opinion and this forum is open to everyone. If some people find certain phrases and words insulting to their intelligence thats their problem but as long as a poster is getting a valid opinion across in a coherent way without being aggressive or insulting then a few crass words here and there dont diminish it to anyone who's interested in listening to them. I'm sure forums may seek to avoid discussion being over loaded with profanity yes but that again is an issue for a particular mod of a particular forum based on a given post. Thats the case as it stands with a wide range of issues. People still swear and curse and if its not acceptable in the context of the forum/discussion its dealt with by a mod. The censoring changes nothing only the visual of the text.

I've seen both actioned - again, your frequent use of one specific forum which has more of a "pub chat" vibe seems to be forming your views on a site-wide policy being deemed unnecessary.

I dont recall mentioning any forums, its possible that I did but I certainly havent been frequently referring to any one in particular. I have used one reference in relation to how the site can remove problem phrases but thats not forming my opinion on the entire site from one forum. I have said several times I have frequented many forums on this site and I see no reason that if those few words were uncensored that the entire thing would descend into chaos.

I think, as a site-wide policy, it works - because for the majority of forums on the site expletives have absolutely no purpose in making a relevant point and I suspect isn't the style of posting that the majority of posters want to see being used. Circumventing the swear filter takes an extra degree of effort that both sends the message that it isn't language the admins want to see being bandied about in every forum and gives posters those extra few seconds to think through whether there's a better way of phrasing their point that might ensure they avoid being actioned....both good reasons for the filter to remain.

There is no extra effort worth talking about fcuk fcuk cnut shít. You dont even have to break your stride to do it. Certainly doesnt take an extra few seconds and force you to think of an alternative word. Perhaps initially when you see it posted as **** and you later see someone spell it to avoid the filter. Either way I dont think it does much to change anyones posting style.

I agree that they may not be necessary in general chat but they are widely used and I never got any message from this site that the use was discouraged other than the filter which is largely ignored and this I havent seen challenged.

The words that are censored are those that traditionally offend more or are used more by those wishing to offend, so it would make sense to remove any ambiguity that allowance of such words is approved site-wide. I'm just not seeing much of an argument for lifting the filter beyond it being language you don't have an issue with and view as common-place. You must appreciate that not all posters share that view? So then it comes down to what benefit is there from having zero filter and given the purpose of a discussion site is to appeal to the greatest spread of potential posters, I don't see one. *shrug*

Once again I dont see the need to censor a word that is not acceptable site wide if the use of the word is the problem. Its a pretty dumb solution to a problem (basically a sign saying "please ignore"). If it was an actual problem it would be dealt with but it doesnt seem to be. The problem is with the stigma attached and that it is somehow offensive to merely see the word regardless of how its used.

I'm not arguing that it should be removed, I'm questioning how much use it is. Its it too much bother to remove it then dont remove it, make no odds either way but I was questioning why it was in place given its largely pointless (imo) and easily circumvented without being reprimanded.

Dr.Broccoli

I don't see how bad language isn't allowed but discussion about drugs and adult content is allowed to be discussed?

Orion

And fuçking broccoli. There's a vegetable that should be filtered too!