Bad Language

Steve

Or trying too hard to be polite?

Curse, to me, means witchcraftery or some such pagan art. I was trying to use a 'polite' word to discuss stuff that is not.

Maybe I got it wrong, feck.

feargale

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Steve, stop typing "cuss", you aren't even bleedin American!

Stop typing "bleedin". You're not even bloody British. :pac:

Overheal

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Steve, stop typing "cuss", you aren't even bleedin American!

Ain't.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Steve wrote: »

I hear you, however what spawned this thread was far from vitriolic, it was embellished frustration which is a different genre.

"When I got home last night, I stubbed my toe on the feckin doorstep, was in agony for an hour!!!"

Is that vitriol?

"Some fcukin scrote broke into my car last night, robbed the stereo and slashed the new leather seats I just bought"

Is that?

I really don't see a need to have to punish people for posting the odd post like the above. That said, if someone is posting cuss words as part of a normal conversation "just because that's how they talk" then that's a whole different kettle of worms.

Please, don't misrepresent this. No one use of bad language "spawned" this thread. If was many uses of the F word and the C word over time. It was not just an odd angry post. It is used in all kinds of situations where no anger or annoyance is in play.
And who said to punish anybody?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Dav wrote: »

Yea, I must say I'm on that side of the fence too - it's not really necessary and we have a swear filter not so much to protect your delicate sensibilities but to discourage that sort of needless vitriol.

And this gets to the root of the issue, thank you. You have a swear filter but allow blatant avoidance of it by people inverting letters, using numbers for letters, or using using accented versions of letters. It just seems so inconsistent. Why have a swear filter and allow swearing?

nesf

Dominique Powerful Bimbo wrote: »

Please, don't misrepresent this. No one use of bad language "spawned" this thread. If was many uses of the F word and the C word over time. It was not just an odd angry post. It is used in all kinds of situations where no anger or annoyance is in play.
And who said to punish anybody?

You'll find a lot more allies if you ask for the c word not to be used. This was one of the main arguments *against* the swear filter, not all these words are equal.

nesf

Steve wrote: »

Or trying too hard to be polite?

Curse, to me, means witchcraftery or some such pagan art. I was trying to use a 'polite' word to discuss stuff that is not.

Maybe I got it wrong, feck.

Curse has a few meanings: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/curse

I strongly recommend not using the 3rd one for the noun unless you're trying to get into an argument on this site.

Beasty

I fully understand where the OP is coming from both based on comments here and in some of their reported posts

Local mods are now fully committed to starting a feedback thread when this as well as any other concerns/suggestions can be aired. It may be a few days before its started as we would like this thread to perhaps quieten down first. We don't want the local feedback thread to be simply a continuation of this thread. It needs to focus on the issue in the context if the Angling forum. We also would see it as an opportunity to air any other points regulars in and readers of the forum may wish to raise.

Tarzana2

Dominique Powerful Bimbo wrote: »

I fish, I loose gear, I swear at the time but I don't commit that swear to writing when recounting the tale months later on a thread than kids read.

I gotta say, I have never, and will never, post anything on boards.ie with a mind to any potential kids that might be reading. I'm an adult, I'm writing posts aimed at adults and teenagers (there'd be a fair few teenagers knocking around on boards.ie). And believe me, teenagers have heard it all.

Tarzana2

biko wrote: »

An eloquent person doesn't have to resort to crude language to convey his or her meaning.

A nice notion, but completely untrue.

Dav wrote: »

but to discourage that sort of needless vitriol.

Swearing often isn't vitriolic or anywhere approaching it.

uck51js9zml2yt

Personally I can't see what is added to a post by the use of bad language where ever it is.
Apart from the extra work involved in adding asterixes etc to the sentence to beat the filters.

Tarzana2

Addilyn Quaint Wishbone wrote: »

Personally I can't see what is added to a post by the use of bad language where ever it is.

Swear words can be used wonderfully for emphasis.

GLaDOS

I'm pretty guilty of swearing in my posts. Never really thought much of it tbh. I genuinely can't understand why a word used to convey anger or frustration would annoy someone. I can understand with kids, but honestly if they're using boards I think they're past the point of having to censor them from swearing.

That said if the prevailing consensus was against swearing I'd cut it down.

Beasty

In some of the forums I frequent it's fairly commonplace. I rarely will so so myself (although I could not claim to be completely "innocent" on the matter - I can't recall resorting to the F or C words though), but generally if it's there for emphasis I don't have a particular concern. If it's gratuitous though and adds nothing then I personally would prefer it if the user leaves it out. I do though think that it is really down to whatever the consensus is within the forum, which is why I am very supportive of getting specific feedback from the forum the OP has concerns over

TheLastMohican

How the fuck are you Srameen?

Joeseph Balls

Dominique Powerful Bimbo wrote: »

regularly frequented by younger members

Ah Dominique Powerful Bimbo, 99% of posters here are younger than ya

TheLastMohican

Dominique Powerful Bimbo wrote: »

I appreciate that some forums allow foul language but wondered if it could be curtailed in some other forums. The Angling forum for example is regularly frequented by younger members and I feel swearing in not suitable there. It is camouflaged by inventive spelling quite often but is unnecessary all the same.

Dominique Powerful Bimbo, once again. Can you explain how a few random letters of a language thrown together constitute "foul" language. Does language not evolve?

The World is flat

The Sun is the centre of the Universe

Objects heavier than air will not fly

God made the world

Adam and Eve were the first inhabitants.

Let's face it ..... if you had a 10lb salmon at the end of your line and it snapped ...... you'd be entitled to say, "Oh fiddlesticks. The blighter's got away".

Beasty

TheLastMohican wrote: »

How the fuck are you Srameen?

Sometimes posters may post stuff in the heat of the moment and I can understand when they may resort to swearing on occasions. However in my view this sort of gratuitous use of foul language has no place in the public forums of a site that encourages 13 year olds to participate.

I don't know what the exact guidelines are in determining whether the site is suitable for 13 year olds, but presume those rules are part of the reason we have swear filters in place. I would certainly have no issue if mods in the forums I am responsible for acted against posts like this.

uck51js9zml2yt

Beasty wrote: »

Sometimes posters may post stuff in the heat of the moment and I can understand when they may resort to swearing on occasions. However in my view this sort of gratuitous use of foul language has no place in the public forums of a site that encourages 13 year olds to participate.

I don't know what the exact guidelines are in determining whether the site is suitable for 13 year olds, but presume those rules are part of the reason we have swear filters in place. I would certainly have no issue if mods in the forums I am responsible for acted against posts like this.

It would certainly be nice to see a site wide move to deal with it.
Most of it is unnecessary and used to offend.
Apart from that, why do people feel the need to make the extra effort it takes to add words that don't add to the conversation.

Dan_Solo

Addilyn Quaint Wishbone wrote: »

It would certainly be nice to see a site wide move to deal with it.
Most of it is unnecessary and used to offend.
Apart from that, why do people feel the need to make the extra effort it takes to add words that don't add to the conversation.

There's no end of trolling and direct personal abuse ignored by mods when it's reported... (or we're supposed to say "it's none of our business"). Adding more rules to apply/ignore on a whim is hardly going to help.

Penn

Addilyn Quaint Wishbone wrote: »

It would certainly be nice to see a site wide move to deal with it.
Most of it is unnecessary and used to offend.
Apart from that, why do people feel the need to make the extra effort it takes to add words that don't add to the conversation.

But they can and do add to the conversation. If I say "I f*cked up my exam", you know that I'm saying I did very poorly in my exam. If I say "Some c*nt pulled out in front of me. I nearly sh*t myself." You know I'm very angry at the guy, and the experience was frightening.

In some cases, one curse word can actually decrease the number of words you have to use to describe something, because everyone knows what you mean when you use it. Swear words are not limited to trying to offend people, they and their meanings are a standard part of our lexicon.

There are no bad words, only bad intentions. While these words can and are used in offensive ways, a site-wide ruling or crackdown on these words would be pointless and creates needless obstacles for discussion.

LuckyLloyd

Dominique Powerful Bimbo wrote: »

And this gets to the root of the issue, thank you. You have a swear filter but allow blatant avoidance of it by people inverting letters, using numbers for letters, or using using accented versions of letters. It just seems so inconsistent. Why have a swear filter and allow swearing?

I swear a lot. I probably shouldn't but I do. I tend to write as I think / talk so often I will type out swear words. And the site's filter blanks out what it blanks out. I intensely dislike those who use methods to swear and bypass the filter. 'Fuck' and the like. It essentially means one is making a conscious effort for you to be forced to read their swear word.

That for me is something that should be moderated across the site. Let the swear filter do what it is intended to do.

So yeah, I completely agree with the above.

Penn

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I swear a lot. I probably shouldn't but I do. I tend to write as I think / talk so often I will type out swear words. And the site's filter blanks out what it blanks out. I intensely dislike those who use methods to swear and bypass the filter. 'Fuck' and the like. It essentially means one is making a conscious effort for you to be forced to read their swear word.

That for me is something that should be moderated across the site. Let the swear filter do what it is intended to do.

So yeah, I completely agree with the above.

The reason people do that though is because f*ck sh*t p*ss c*nt becomes **** **** piss ****.

They use * or italicise letters to display which word they mean, as it's not always obvious. Hell I do it purely out of habit now even on another forum I post on which doesn't even have a swear filter.

Edit: Oh, piss isn't counted as a swear word? I did not know that.

KomradeBishop

There are enough nitpicky ways to have run-ins with mods over trivial things as it is - people swear, children in school probably swear more than most adults, so it's not exactly an age-related moral issue - it's compulsive, it's regular to the point that people can type fúck instead of fuck, such that it requires no added conscious effort (bypassing the swear filter does not mean a conscious effort), and it wastes both mod time and causes unnecessary grief for both mods/users.

If it gets excessive, sure, it's good to target specific posters going over the top with it - but if mods/admins reserve the right to randomly pick out any instance of swearing, then either:
1: It's impossible to enforce consistently as it will piss everyone off, being actioned for minor/petty things.

2: If it's enforced inconsistently at the whim of whatever mod/admin is around, and if they reserve the right to enforce it at a 'zero-tolerance-threshold' when they feel like it, then it's just going to lead to people picking up random mod action - or worse - it could give mods an excuse for targeting specific posters that they have an issue with, unrelated to swearing, or to otherwise use it to target a user for removal (which I totally don't put beyond mods/admins at all...).

Tarzana2

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I intensely dislike those who use methods to swear and bypass the filter. 'Fuck' and the like. It essentially means one is making a conscious effort for you to be forced to read their swear word.

Why would you dislike that if you swear a lot? You're forcing someone to hear your swearing when you utter a swear word. They can cover their ears but the swear has happened by that stage. So why would it bother you to have to read a swear word?

I can't believe people think teens should shielded from swear words. And I definitely don't think we should be thinking of the children when considering whether swearwords should be banned.

Peregrine

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I swear a lot. I probably shouldn't but I do. I tend to write as I think / talk so often I will type out swear words. And the site's filter blanks out what it blanks out. I intensely dislike those who use methods to swear and bypass the filter. 'Fuck' and the like. It essentially means one is making a conscious effort for you to be forced to read their swear word.

That for me is something that should be moderated across the site. Let the swear filter do what it is intended to do.

So yeah, I completely agree with the above.

If used properly and not gratuitously, the filtered word is very much part of the sentence. It can be quite disruptive while reading a sentence containing ****s and forces the reader to guess the word.

In general, moderating innocuous swear words would be an enormous waste of moderators' time.

LuckyLloyd

Peregrine wrote: »

If used properly and not gratuitously, the filtered word is very much part of the sentence. It can be quite disruptive while reading a sentence containing ****s and forces the reader to guess the word.

In general, moderating innocuous swear words would be an enormous waste of moderators' time.

So are you arguing to remove the filter?

Das Kitty

I think the filter should go.

I'm not in favour of banning particular words. If you think a swearword is more harmful than some of the hateful bile that comes from some people whilst using 'clean' language, you need to have a good hard think.

Penn

Das Kitty wrote: »

I think the filter should go.

I'm not in favour of banning particular words. If you think a swearword is more harmful than some of the hateful bile that comes from some people whilst using 'clean' language, you need to have a good hard think.

I think however that not having a swear filter puts the website into a different category which means it may become inaccessible to some due to parental control settings, including in schools and libraries. It needs a swear filter to not be classed as a website with inappropriate content, even if people on the website use ways to get around the swear filter.

May be totally wrong on all of that, I just know of it being the reason for a swear filter on another site I post on.

Das Kitty

If it works the same way UBB used to (years ago now, yikes), it's a simple text parser during posting. It's not something that would show up on a content filter.

Although I do think it's funny that I can say pissing cock-womble, but I can't say s**t.