NationStates Jolt Archive

So, certain word are filtered now.

The official word is:
The first one was added because other areas of the forum were unable to contain themselves and showed a lack of maturity.

The 2nd one is banned because it just simply is not a nice word, and can only be used as an insult towards someone else, other words such as fuck and shit are not banned because we do not really deem them that offensive.

This forum is leaning towards a PG13/12A theme and some words fall outside that category.

What say the vast minions of NSG?

Well you can read my question to him, that'll tell you what I think.

I amazingly do not care.

Well you can read my question to him, that'll tell you what I think.

And his answer is still Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? :confused:

I amazingly do not care.

Slippery slope. To take it to an extreme, I find "Cthulhu" to be offensive, ban it! OK, now your name's banned.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy.

Also, I'd find it hilarious if my name got censored.

grow up and get over it?

its not like we dont know what you typed. (and if its not obvious you can always add a letter in edit)

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy.

Also, I'd find it hilarious if my name got censored.
Scunthorpe shire in England has this problem all the time with filtering programs.

As has the word s******.

Well, Scunthorpeshire probably doesn't get used much, but snigger/sniggers does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S******
^
hahaha

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for S****** in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the S****** article or add a request for it.
* Search for "S******" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons why this message may be displayed:

* If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
* Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
* If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?."

What did you link to?

http://files.myopera.com/RWgirl/albums/350451/sense.jpg

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for S****** in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

* Start the S****** article or add a request for it.
* Search for "S******" in existing articles.
* Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons why this message may be displayed:

* If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
* Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
* If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?."

What did you link to?

the above mentioned synonym for laughter

Ah, the one that is a filthy word and must be stopped, that one?

I for one s****** at this idiocy.

Ah, the one that is a filthy word and must be stopped, that one?

That very one indeed. Let's see... what other words offend that we can ask OMAC to ban?

He said he banned ****** because it was being used a lot, so I propose we now use cracker in every sentence, see what he does. Cracker.

I couldn't give a motherfucking shit.

Personally I like filters better than outright censoring because it's funnier, but hey.

Wait, there's a difference between filtering and censoring? Cracker.

Wait, there's a difference between filtering and censoring?

They both work the same way. Censoring replaces the word with asterisks, filtering replaces the word with a different word or words.

Personally I like filters better than outright censoring because it's funnier, but hey.
Well I like Raspberry jam better than peach, but you don't see me smearing either all over the Jolt servers.

And count me in the "Do not give a shit" crowd.

Well I like Raspberry jam better than peach, but you don't see me smearing either all over the Jolt servers.

Well, why not?

What? **** can be used in so many different ways than offensive swear words and insults. It can be used for entertainment values. Or just a general playful thing to call boys (girls seem to get extra insulted at this).

Well, why not?
Because I've already covered them in peanut butter and need to wait for it to dry, duh. Why you so stupid?

Personally I like filters better than outright censoring because it's funnier, but hey.

I once went to a forum that filtered "Coldplay" and replaced it with "I'm so gay it fucking hurts" so you ended up with people trying to talk about C01dplay.

I once went to a forum that filtered "Coldplay" and replaced it with "I'm so gay it fucking hurts" so you ended up with people trying to talk about C01dplay.

Sigged. Cracker.

I am horribly insulted by the term "cracker" and I demand that OMAC bans anyone who is degenerate enough to use it, honkies.

I am horribly insulted by the term "cracker" and I demand that OMAC bans anyone who is degenerate enough to use it, honkies.

No, we have to keep using it, then see what they do, the crackers.

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

So, certain word are filtered now.

The official word is:


What say the vast minions of NSG?

This is rather stupid.

What the fuck?

Oh no, not another fucking thread about fucking filtering.

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

Why would you want fruit on a cracker? Or do Americans have a different meaning for cracker, like you do jam?

PS how did you get that whole jelly/jam thing anyway?

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

It seems so weirdly arbitrary to choose this particular word to censor. It also seems oddly rooted in USian race politics. It's not as though there is any cultural movement to reclaim 'spic' or 'chink' etc...this word in particular has a common usage that isn't strictly speaking pejorative, along with it's historical, racist meaning. You'd think that using it in a offensive, flaming manner would attract censure, without needing to resort to censorship.

You'd think that using it in a offensive, flaming manner would attract censure, without needing to resort to censorship.
I suppose I can see the counter to this point - you'd think that, but the internet is a shithole, so that isn't necessarily guaranteed.

Sigged. Cracker.

Crackety ass cracker

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

Who would put jam on crackers? Sacrilege and treason.

Who would put jam on crackers? Sacrilege and treason.
Well what do you put on crackers? Surely you don't eat them plain, that would be a sin truly worthy of font changes.

I am horribly insulted by the term "cracker" and I demand that OMAC bans anyone who is degenerate enough to use it, honkies.

What about "haystack", "blue-eyed devil", or "Whitey", cracker?

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

I don't think a tantrum is being thrown about not being able to use the words pejoratively in general, but rather the fact that only one racial and one sexual slur have been censored. I don't think it's trivial to ask what those of other races might think about other slurs being uncensored. So a bunch of idiots use njgger a lot. So what? They're idiots.

Also this:

It seems so weirdly arbitrary to choose this particular word to censor. It also seems oddly rooted in USian race politics. It's not as though there is any cultural movement to reclaim 'spic' or 'chink' etc...this word in particular has a common usage that isn't strictly speaking pejorative, along with it's historical, racist meaning. You'd think that using it in a offensive, flaming manner would attract censure, without needing to resort to censorship.

Well what do you put on crackers? Surely you don't eat them plain, that would be a sin truly worthy of font changes.

Hummus, cracker.

Well what do you put on crackers? Surely you don't eat them plain, that would be a sin truly worthy of font changes.

Crackers are perfectly fine plain. They are salted here in America. Unless we are talking about different things. Also, cheese or peanut butter.

Crackers are perfectly fine plain. They are salted here in America. Unless we are talking about different things. Also, cheese or peanut butter.

To be fair, crackers can be nicely jammed, but I do it with cream cheese to get that salty-creamy-sweet combo...

...which I've just noticed sounds kinda naughty.

Apologies, all -- autumn makes me horny, I have no idea why. Spring does nothing for me, but show me grey skies and falling leaves? Yeah.

Wait...you can't say ****?

Oh frick. I love that word! Goddamn it!

Wait...you can't say ****?

Oh frick. I love that word! Goddamn it!

Best use ever:

The opening Executive Version announcement to the soundtrack from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"There is little, or no, offensive material, apart from four ****s, one clitoris and a foreskin -- and since they only appear in this opening introduction, you're past them now."

I have heard that at least a hundred times, and I laugh just typing it.

**** is such a visceral word...I feel cheated.

Hah, filtering words *snigger*
They can't even do it properly.

You can get away with it by using asterisks? ******

No, you can't. ********

*s*******.

What the fuck? Damor, how did you do it?

Hah, filtering words *snigger*
They can't even do it properly.

Ah. *cuntilicious

*s******* testing Damor's suggestion...

Alright, Damor, spill...

*s******* testing Damor's suggestion...

Quote it and you'll see how he did it.

LOL! DOH! Got it, ya silly ****!

Even better than the italc run around. :D

I broke the word in two, and colored both pieces black :)

I wouldn't advice abusing that trick though. Words that only contain the banned words as part of it are one thing, but using it to display the banned words is probably against forum policy and may get a response from the mods.

*shrug*

I believe I'll live without the benefit of referring to people as ******s and ****s.

As for continually using cracker... that might be construed as spamming. Unless you put fruit spread on it, in which case it might be jamming.

Seriously.... this is a silly thing to throw a tantrum about.

Agreed.

I'm no fan of censorship and wouldn't advocate those two words getting filtered, but I doubt discussion on these forums will be seriously hampered (let alone censored) because those two words get astericked.

It is also pretty amusing that some of those objecting to the filtering of these words are complaining that other words aren't being filtered as well. Is that really the point one wants to make? That more words should be filtered? Would that make you happy?

Add to that the some of the same complainers are making a slippery slope argument. Such ironic chutzpah.

Hah, filtering words *snigger*
They can't even do it properly.

*[co lor =black]snig[/ co lor][co lor= black]ger[/ co lor]*

Nicely done (minus the spaces).

Test to see if people are joking.

s******


Edit: Ok, now this is a legitimate complaint. Oversensitive censoring has caused them to eliminate a word from use on the forums simple because of SIMILARITY between it and a racial slur. Is anyone else reminded of the hubbub over the use of the word niggardly? (wonder if that will be censored too).

Agreed.

I'm no fan of censorship and wouldn't advocate those two words getting filtered, but I doubt discussion on these forums will be seriously hampered (let alone censored) because those two words get astericked.

It is also pretty amusing that some of those objecting to the filtering of these words are complaining that other words aren't being filtered as well. Is that really the point one wants to make? That more words should be filtered? Would that make you happy?

Add to that the some of the same complainers are making a slippery slope argument. Such ironic chutzpah.

No, that's not the point. It just seems to be a bit racist. If you're going to ban one epithet, you have to ban them all, lest you draw fire from the PC police. The solution, logically, is to err on the side of expression and moderate those who can't use the word without pointed, racist, insulting intent.

Why not just allow the censoring to be an option that can be turned on and off in your settings? That way those people who's eyes are burned out by the sheer force of such horrible, horrible words can spare their precious, innocent minds from them while those who don't give a shit can see them. Also, if the censor is optional, it could be more pervasive without pissing people off, win win.

Of course, I don't know how hard this would be to actually do, technically. I am guessing that it will probably be impossible. Oh well.

It seems so weirdly arbitrary to choose this particular word to censor. It also seems oddly rooted in USian race politics. It's not as though there is any cultural movement to reclaim 'spic' or 'chink' etc...this word in particular has a common usage that isn't strictly speaking pejorative, along with it's historical, racist meaning. You'd think that using it in a offensive, flaming manner would attract censure, without needing to resort to censorship.

Except that Jolt is based in the UK, not in the US....
*shrug* Of course people are ignoring that crackers are also food or things you pull at Christmas dinner for a silly saying, a paper crown and a small novelty, that chinks appear in armor and walls as well as slurs about Asians, that spic is half of the term spic and span as well....

I really can't think of a way in which **** would mean anything other than a derogatory word for females and their genitals, and I think we can all manage to substitute snickers for s******s, since they mean the same thing. Do I think it's silly? Yes. Do I think the owners of the forums can censor what they please? Yes. Do I think that if you've not yet fulfilled your quota of ******s and ****s you can do that in IM or on the many other lovely fora of the internet? Yes.

Agreed.

I'm no fan of censorship and wouldn't advocate those two words getting filtered, but I doubt discussion on these forums will be seriously hampered (let alone censored) because those two words get astericked.

How can we discuss Huckleberry Fin if we can't talk about ****** Jim?

No, that's not the point. It just seems to be a bit racist. If you're going to ban one epithet, you have to ban them all, lest you draw fire from the PC police. The solution, logically, is to err on the side of expression and moderate those who can't use the word without pointed, racist, insulting intent.

What "PC police"?

The only ones complaining so far that other words are allowed are definitely not doing so because of some commitment to political correctness. To the contrary, it is a cheap and rather shallow argument against any filtering?

To be clear, I agree that allowing expression and moderating abuses is better than preemptive censorship. I'm just not that worked up about this particular situation. Get over it, folks.

Crackety ass cracker



Who would put jam on crackers? Sacrilege and treason.
I would. Thin slick of butter and thin slick of jam on a saltine... nom nom nom.

Except that Jolt is based in the UK, not in the US....
*shrug* Of course people are ignoring that crackers are also food or thinkg you pull at Christmas dinner for a silly saying, a paper crown and a small novelty, that chinks appear in armor and walls as well as slurs about Asians, that spic is half of the term spic and span as well....

I really can't think of a way in which **** would mean anything other than a derogatory word for females and their genitals, and I think we can all manage to substitute snickers for s******s, since they mean the same thing. Do I think it's silly? Yes. Do I think the owners of the forums can censor what they please? Yes. Do I think that if you've not yet fulfilled your quota of ******s and ****s you can do that in IM or on the many other lovely fora of the internet? Yes.

Fair enough.

How can we discuss Huckleberry Fin if we can't talk about ****** Jim?

You just did.

It is also pretty amusing that some of those objecting to the filtering of these words are complaining that other words aren't being filtered as well.My main problem is that it affects other words that have no relation to the banned words except for containing it as a substring.
I mean, the poor people from S****horpe can't say where they are from on this board without jumping through hoops. It's ludicrously bad programming.
And added to that, there are tons of hoops people can jump through if they desperately want to use the words anyway.

While Jim was referred to as a ****** in the text, his name was not ****** Jim.
(The irony of my using two words incessantly during this thread that in normal life I wouldn't dream of typing.)

My main problem is that it affects other words that have no relation to the banned words except for containing it as a substring.
I mean, the poor people from S****horpe can't say where they are from on this board without jumping through hoops. It's ludicrously bad programming.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the decision. I am just more sympathetic to it that to much of the moaning about it.

The problem of other words being censored as a result of the filtering of the two words in question is rather troubling, but I still don't see it as a significant hamper to communication.

And added to that, there are tons of hoops people can jump through if they desperately want to use the words anyway.

Ever heard of a prophylactic measure? Like locking your windows decreases the chance of burglary, even if burglars could just break the window?

OK, who else picked up an infraction for posting here - I want to check if Adams has singled me out or not...

It may be that repetition of those words count as well, in which case a number of us should be careful? Or you picked it up for something you only think is related?

I wonder how long it will be before we get our own ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH.

Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker. Cracker.

It may be that repetition of those words count as well, in which case a number of us should be careful? Or you picked it up for something you only think is related?

I don't think that would be very fair. Such an indiscriminate system would target people who accidentally invoke the filter as well as people who actually say (type?) the words. Also, if you filter a word then what is the point in punishing those who use it? Since nobody can see the words, why the hell would it matter?

Note: I am aware that you are just taking a guess at it, and not actually making a statement. I am just responding as if that guess were true, just in case.

I don't think that would be very fair. Such an indiscriminate system would target people who accidentally invoke the filter as well as people who actually say the words. Also, if you filter a word then what is the point in punishing those who use it? Since nobody can see the words, why the hell would it matter?

Note: I am aware that you are just taking a guess at it, and not actually making a statement. I am just responding as if that guess were true, just in case.
Looking at it I'm thinking that's not the case, actually.

Indri, stop spamming.

Dai, are you sure you got an infraction for posting this? What was the text?

Test to see if people are joking.

s******


Edit: Ok, now this is a legitimate complaint. Oversensitive censoring has caused them to eliminate a word from use on the forums simple because of SIMILARITY between it and a racial slur. Is anyone else reminded of the hubbub over the use of the word niggardly? (wonder if that will be censored too).

It's like other forums that censor the word "grape" because it has the word "rape" in it.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the decision. I am just more sympathetic to it that to much of the moaning about it.

The problem of other words being censored as a result of the filtering of the two words in question is rather troubling, but I still don't see it as a significant hamper to communication.


It's incredibly easy to fix that anyways. Just make the filter exact instead of loose.

The problem of other words being censored as a result of the filtering of the two words in question is rather troubling, but I still don't see it as a significant hamper to communication.Yeah, I suppose you're right. I've never felt the need to snigerp on-board until today; and all in all merriam-webster online gives only 20 or so words they occur in, and none of them are frequently used words.
I suppose it bothers me more as programmer than as user of the forum. :tongue:

Ever heard of a prophylactic measure? Like locking your windows decreases the chance of burglary, even if burglars could just break the window?Yeah, but locking the windows while leaving the doors open or vice versa doesn't really help much. And painting your house an angry pink probably won't help at all. I doubt this kind of filtering is an effective measure. But I suppose that's an empirical question, so time will tell; if it helps it helps.

Dai, are you sure you got an infraction for posting this? What was the text?

Quite sure. Can't see the original message again, for some reason, but it's listing "Infraction Reason: Inappropriate Language 22-09-2008 02:50 by adams901 1 / 29-09-2008 02:50"

Agreed.

I'm no fan of censorship and wouldn't advocate those two words getting filtered, but I doubt discussion on these forums will be seriously hampered (let alone censored) because those two words get astericked.

It is also pretty amusing that some of those objecting to the filtering of these words are complaining that other words aren't being filtered as well. Is that really the point one wants to make? That more words should be filtered? Would that make you happy?

Add to that the some of the same complainers are making a slippery slope argument. Such ironic chutzpah.

I don't want to see any words censored. I think its unecessary. We have other means to deal with people who violate the ToS. And as I pointed out, I think it's an odd word to single out.

Hello adams901.

One point (or maybe it's more than one point) I'd like to see some clarification on (particularly in light of possible disciplinary action):

Are the words merely being filtered or are they now verboten to use?

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

To me it is one thing to say the words have been abused and have few legitimate uses, so when they are used they will be astericked. And it is reasonable to flag people for deliberately evading the filter or using the astericked terms in a way that would otherwise violate the rules (flaming, etc).

In is an altogether different thing if we are no longer able to use the words without a violation of the rules. I wasn't overly concerned with the astericks being censorship, but banning the words altogether is unacceptable.

Yeah, but locking the windows while leaving the doors open or vice versa doesn't really help much. And painting your house an angry pink probably won't help at all. I doubt this kind of filtering is an effective measure. But I suppose that's an empirical question, so time will tell; if it helps it helps.

I have a feeling the use of those words is going to go up dramatically now that this measure is in place.

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

Such would seem to be the case, as I've garnered an infraction for using one of the words (not sure which one) in this discussion.

One point (or maybe it's more than one point) I'd like to see some clarification on (particularly in light of possible disciplinary action):

Are the words merely being filtered or are they now verboten to use?

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

A number of us have used the words many times already, and I for one have not been flagged for it.

A number of us have used the words many times already, and I for one have not been flagged for it.

A nasty case against my infraction... :D

So, Mr Adams, why was I singled out for an infraction and not the admited others using the "naughty words"?

I have it on good authority that going around the filter by playing with tags, and encouraging others to do so, is not advisable.

Nigra and Nigga sound better anyway.

Until the Political Correctness Patrol decides to force everyone to use the word "Afro-American"

And thus begins Newspeak...

Nigra and Nigga sound better anyway.

Until the Political Correctness Patrol decides to force everyone to use the word "Afro-American"

Yes. Because there really is a Political Correctness Patrol and they really would ignore the fact that 'Afro-American' isn't a particularly apt descriptor anyway.

Amusing.

Yes. Because there really is a Political Correctness Patrol and they really would ignore the fact that 'Afro-American' isn't a particularly apt descriptor anyway.
Especially since now some people refer to all persons of African descent as African-American, even when they are, oh, citizens of the UK or are actually Africans.

We can always use super-euphemisms.



"African-American Niggar"

"Male Sexual Cock"

"Female Mammary Boobs"

"Major Labial C---"

"Private Sexual Fuck"

Especially since now some people refer to all persons of African descent as African-American, even when they are, oh, citizens of the UK or are actually Africans.

My favourite is hearing "African-American" here in Canada, where a great many of 'our black people' are from the Caribbean, and Africa was a loooooooooooooong time ago on the journey.

Neesika, you of all people should know that ALL brown people are alike.

Middle Eastern, South East Asian, African, Caribbean, Latin American, what's the diff?

Neesika, you of all people should know that ALL brown people are alike.

Middle Eastern, South East Asian, African, Caribbean, Latin American, what's the diff?

Well, some smell like curry, some smell like soy sauce, some smell like woodsmoke...

Omg damn nsg i cantz say ******s anymore!!!!

I don't see what purpose it serves, honestly.

I wonder how much time will it take before some people with low self-esteem who see the State as a daddy to nanny their crippled morales begin to sue Internet forums because someone refused to use ridiculous euphemisms.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=323480

It's not really OMAC's fault, they just want to prevent potential trouble with the ever-growing "PC Patrol" and "This rhyme has racist undertones I'll sue you!" bullshit fad in Europe, and also in the rest of the world that is slowly turning the open disrespect and prejudice into veiled disrespect and prejudice, which is by far worse. Like that old thing of what word is said about the black man after he left the WASP bar.

Nigra and Nigga sound better anyway.

Until the Political Correctness Patrol decides to force everyone to use the word "Afro-American"

And thus begins Newspeak...

Oh hey another guy who's pissed at "political correctness" because flinging around racial slurs is now viewed as a negative action. What a surprise.

Oh hey another guy who's pissed at "political correctness" because flinging around racial slurs is now viewed as a negative action. What a surprise.

What an excellent argument!

As if it was only about clearly definable racial slurs rather than as a primary source for series of sheerly idiotic lawsuits and measures... and as if forbidding such words would discourage racism.

Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas.

I wonder how much time will it take for euphemisms for political corruption and blackmailing to be pushed too. After all, the word political correctness was coined by the Soviet Union as an euphemism for censorship.

I wonder how much time will it take before some people with low self-esteem who see the State as a daddy to nanny their crippled morales begin to sue Internet forums because someone refused to use ridiculous euphemisms.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=323480

It's not really OMAC's fault, they just want to prevent potential trouble with the ever-growing "PC Patrol" and "This rhyme has racist undertones I'll sue you!" bullshit fad in Europe, and also in the rest of the world that is slowly turning the open disrespect and prejudice into veiled disrespect and prejudice, which is by far worse. Like that old thing of what word is said about the black man after he left the WASP bar.
Because calling someone slang for female genitalia is not flaming, correct?
And calling someone a racial slur is not flaming, correct?

The use of those words are prohibited by the TOS anyway "malicious" and "obscene" and "flaming", remember?

You can always post abusively elsewhere -- no one's stopping you.

It depends upon the context, for example I have sparsely used some of these words In-character a few times, and as far as I remember, never used them in OOC discussions. I don't believe they are abusive or flaming in such context.

The use of those words are prohibited by the TOS anyway "malicious" and "obscene" and "flaming", remember?
As long as it's understood that the use of those words is not in and of itself an offense (even though the primary application of them is as an act of obscenity or aggression) then I'm fine with it. The thing is, the site terms and conditions (at least, the Nationstates.net T/Cs) don't explicitly forbid their use, so I would hope that Daistallia infraction is only for the bypass of forum filters and not for "inappropriate language".

Don't get me started on automatic censors. One board I used to be on censored a couple of words, dfferent words, but for much the same reason as this (one racial, one sexual). As a result, I couldn't talk about my wristwatch, nor could I talk about tyc00ns or rac00ns. I'll admit that I got a little, um, naughty over that one. :) Word censors aren't very effective, but they can be funny.

Because calling someone slang for female genitalia is not flaming, correct?
And calling someone a racial slur is not flaming, correct?

The use of those words are prohibited by the TOS anyway "malicious" and "obscene" and "flaming", remember?

You can always post abusively elsewhere -- no one's stopping you.

The use of those words abusively is prohibited by the TOS, that is very true. However, and this is the point I have just been making in the other thread, both of those words have legitimate uses. For example, there are plenty of literary works which might be discussed and include both phrases. I hadn't even thought about IC and OOC yet, which also have plenty of potential for the legitimate use of both phrases.

It's simply needless. Abusive behavior is already prohibited and punished as necessary, there is no need to restrict the realm of legitimate discourse as well.

It's not really OMAC's fault, they just want to prevent potential trouble with the ever-growing "PC Patrol" and "This rhyme has racist undertones I'll sue you!" bullshit fad in Europe, and also in the rest of the world that is slowly turning the open disrespect and prejudice into veiled disrespect and prejudice, which is by far worse. Like that old thing of what word is said about the black man after he left the WASP bar.That's a fad in Europe?

One point (or maybe it's more than one point) I'd like to see some clarification on (particularly in light of possible disciplinary action):

Are the words merely being filtered or are they now verboten to use?

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

To me it is one thing to say the words have been abused and have few legitimate uses, so when they are used they will be astericked. And it is reasonable to flag people for deliberately evading the filter or using the astericked terms in a way that would otherwise violate the rules (flaming, etc).

In is an altogether different thing if we are no longer able to use the words without a violation of the rules. I wasn't overly concerned with the astericks being censorship, but banning the words altogether is unacceptable.

This last possibility is what I was referring to in my posts decrying the asterisk invasion.

The use of those words abusively is prohibited by the TOS, that is very true. However, and this is the point I have just been making in the other thread, both of those words have legitimate uses. For example, there are plenty of literary works which might be discussed and include both phrases. I hadn't even thought about IC and OOC yet, which also have plenty of potential for the legitimate use of both phrases.

It's simply needless. Abusive behavior is already prohibited and punished as necessary, there is no need to restrict the realm of legitimate discourse as well.

Agreed. If posting abusively is already infraction-worthy, what is the point of censorship? If someone uses the word ****** in an abusive, flaming, flamebaiting or otherwise anti-ToS way, they get an infraction or a ban or what have you.

This is what Jolt said about the remit of the NS mods during the recent paedophilia thread flareup:

Jolt, or rather OMAC, is ultimately responsible for what content is permitted on the NationStates boards as they are hosted by us. That said the NationStates team have managed their forums without inteference and to great success for a number of years now and they believe the content of the thread to be appropriate for their forums.
Until such time as it breaks any UK laws or I'm instructed by the owners of these forums to take action their word is final on this matter.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13906940&postcount=19

The bits I've bolded suggest (to me, anyway) that the day-to-day application of forum rules is still up to the NS mods.

You've seen us all in action for long enough to know that we can (well, most of the time) tell the difference between flaming and legitimate discussion. Can you really see any of us giving an infraction for, say, an enthusiast writing, "You really should read this book called All Politicians Are ****s, by Provocative Writer, which has as its premise ... "?

But no-one's going to get away with writing, "Named Poster is a fucking asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk who (further insult)" -- even if they do actually write "asterisk" (and of course we can see what was originally written). Nor do we treat "GTFO" as just a simple collection of innocent letters.

Trying to get around the forum rules has always been an offence; a flame dressed up in polysyllables or disguised in another language still gets treated as a flame.

I can see what you're getting at, TCT and Intangelon, and if Adams doesn't drop back in and notice your query I'll raise it with him. (He has said they're seeing how this goes; he may not actually be able to make a definitive ruling at this stage.)

Daistallia, you should be able to see what post your infraction relates to, but the explanation comes as a PM. If you've got "receive private messages" turned off you may not see it.

It may also be possible to give an infraction without relating to a specific post. I'm still learning the details; I'll check that, too.

I am horribly insulted by the term "cracker" and I demand that OMAC bans anyone who is degenerate enough to use it, honkies.

Maybe we should just all change to the SA filter?

All of a sudden, "Fuck" becomes "gently caress", etc.

Maybe we should just all change to the SA filter?

All of a sudden, "Fuck" becomes "gently caress", etc.

I've actually nearly typed out "gently caress" before. I think I spend too much time there.
What's worse is that I don't even have an account.

One point (or maybe it's more than one point) I'd like to see some clarification on (particularly in light of possible disciplinary action):

Are the words merely being filtered or are they now verboten to use?

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

To me it is one thing to say the words have been abused and have few legitimate uses, so when they are used they will be astericked. And it is reasonable to flag people for deliberately evading the filter or using the astericked terms in a way that would otherwise violate the rules (flaming, etc).

In is an altogether different thing if we are no longer able to use the words without a violation of the rules. I wasn't overly concerned with the astericks being censorship, but banning the words altogether is unacceptable.
I happen to agree I am not one to normally use such and with a simple astrix filter being pretty much SOP for many forums I was not prepared to be overly worked up

But getting in trouble for using them is a COMPLETELY different matter

cocksucker

Thank you for your witty contribution. Truly, none of us could have survived another moment without your originality and elegance.

Thank you for your witty contribution. Truly, none of us could have survived another moment without your originality and elegance.

I know I wouldn't have survived

If someone really wants to violate censoring and word filters they'll find a way.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
****
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
******
Ass
Bitch
Twat

C-u-n-t
N-i-g-g-e-r

Look at that, I broke it. If you really want to stop this sort of thing you're going to have to get creative you free speech hating internet dictators.

I've actually nearly typed out "gently caress" before. I think I spend too much time there.
What's worse is that I don't even have an account.

Neither do I.

If someone really wants to violate censoring and word filters they'll find a way.

snip

Look at that, I broke it. If you really want to stop this sort of thing you're going to have to get creative you free speech hating internet dictators.
Now while I am on your side they do make large subscribed lists of such for both forums and email filtering lists

While I think a good creative mind can over come them one by one these lists with large amounts of contributors can get a LARGE and changing lists of words and variants

They CAN make a semi-effective and easy (on their part) battle for it if they care to

If someone really wants to violate censoring and word filters they'll find a way.

Shit
Piss
Fuck
****
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
******
Ass
Bitch
Twat

C-u-n-t
N-i-g-g-e-r

Look at that, I broke it. If you really want to stop this sort of thing you're going to have to get creative you free speech hating internet dictators.

Congratulations. You sure showed them.

Are you really any worse off not being able to say ****** and **** in your posts? Are those two words really so essential to your voice that you absolutely cannot be without them? Or do you fear this is some slippery slope, where because they censor ****** and ****, they may censor poop or heck next? I suspect that you really don't NEED to use these two words, and you're just angry for the sake of being angry.

They don't hate free speech. They love money. In all likelihood, every single one of the people deciding to ban these words has used them at least once in their lifetime. But, they understand and respect that they are, in fact, impolite, offensive words. OMAC is a business. It may not seem it to you because you're here on the free NSG playground, but these people make money with this forum. It is people's jobs; their livelihoods. And they understand that those words hurt their bottom line. They understand that a forum where ****** and **** get thrown around in every other post might get blocked at other companies who don't want to be associated with them, and they understand that a forum where those two words are prominent might not get as much ad revenue.

But go ahead. Call them dictators because they chose to ban a few words you probably never used in a post anyway because of the fear of getting in trouble. Act like this is the breaking point and that NSG is suddenly this oppressive, Big Brotheresque community because you can't fling around offensive terms to your liking anymore. But the people who own and operate this forum have every right to want to make money here, and I suspect that they figured banning a few offensive words would get them more ads.

There is an alternative, of course. Voice your displeasure with your wallet. Make their decision have negative consequences to their bottom line. Show them that, if they hold this ban, that their daily hits will go down. That'll get potential advertisers' attentions, too. Make your own forum, where you're free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The phpBB code is out there.

My primary objection to this word filter is that it appears to be unable to differentiate between the words on their own and the letters as a component of a perfectly innocent word like s******

*edit* I'm still trying to think of an innocuous word that I might use that contains the letters of the other apparently censored term.

-nothing to see here but the rant of a dirty, dirty shisno-
Shisno.

At least they haven't gone totally batshit insane yet and b& niggardly.

"Got Issues?
A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, s****** at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.":gas:

Congratulations. You sure showed them.

Are you really any worse off not being able to say ****** and **** in your posts? Are those two words really so essential to your voice that you absolutely cannot be without them? Or do you fear this is some slippery slope, where because they censor ****** and ****, they may censor poop or heck next? I suspect that you really don't NEED to use these two words, and you're just angry for the sake of being angry.

They don't hate free speech. They love money. In all likelihood, every single one of the people deciding to ban these words has used them at least once in their lifetime. But, they understand and respect that they are, in fact, impolite, offensive words. OMAC is a business. It may not seem it to you because you're here on the free NSG playground, but these people make money with this forum. It is people's jobs; their livelihoods. And they understand that those words hurt their bottom line. They understand that a forum where ****** and **** get thrown around in every other post might get blocked at other companies who don't want to be associated with them, and they understand that a forum where those two words are prominent might not get as much ad revenue.

But go ahead. Call them dictators because they chose to ban a few words you probably never used in a post anyway because of the fear of getting in trouble. Act like this is the breaking point and that NSG is suddenly this oppressive, Big Brotheresque community because you can't fling around offensive terms to your liking anymore. But the people who own and operate this forum have every right to want to make money here, and I suspect that they figured banning a few offensive words would get them more ads.

There is an alternative, of course. Voice your displeasure with your wallet. Make their decision have negative consequences to their bottom line. Show them that, if they hold this ban, that their daily hits will go down. That'll get potential advertisers' attentions, too. Make your own forum, where you're free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The phpBB code is out there.

Well put, and I agree with you. My point in raising the whole mess earlier was not that the "potty-mouthed" will have to look at asterisks instead of their verbal feces. Rather it was merely that singling out one epithet for censorship could give the impression that others are "acceptable". Not a favorable impression, were you to ask me.

That said, I'm all in favor of just everyone shutting up about it and seeing what happens as a result rather than bitching, moaning and merely theorizing about what will happen. AND YES, I know that this will infringe upon what most NSGers see as their spammy birthright, but it makes more sense and saves more time than havin' a full-on hissy-fit.

Shisno.

At least they haven't gone totally batshit insane yet and b& niggardly.

Name calling. Cute. Go back to /b/.

Name calling. Cute. Go back to /b/.

Not cute. He's got a red card.

Well put, and I agree with you. My point in raising the whole mess earlier was not that the "potty-mouthed" will have to look at asterisks instead of their verbal feces. Rather it was merely that singling out one epithet for censorship could give the impression that others are "acceptable". Not a favorable impression, were you to ask me.

I get what you're saying. But some people have expressed ridiculous moral outrage at being "censored". People were ALREADY not using these words, because they usually got you a warning. This just formalizes the status quo.

I get what you're saying. But some people have expressed ridiculous moral outrage at being "censored". People were ALREADY not using these words, because they usually got you a warning. This just formalizes the status quo.Not necessarily a good excuse. For instance, not being allowed to marry another man doesn't affect me in any way since I never wanted to in the first place. Yet I'm still against it being banned.

Not necessarily a good excuse. For instance, not being allowed to marry another man doesn't affect me in any way since I never wanted to in the first place. Yet I'm still against it being banned.

Right, if we place NSG on an equal level of importance as real life.

Real life, I would make a big deal about censorship like this. On a stupid internet forum, it's a minor inconvenience at very most.

Right, if we place NSG on an equal level of importance as real life.

Real life, I would make a big deal about censorship like this. On a stupid internet forum, it's a minor inconvenience at very most.They're not equatablee, correct. There's a different motivation behind the two. However the argument that we never lost anything in the first place so we shouldn't complain is bogus on both counts.

I get what you're saying. But some people have expressed ridiculous moral outrage at being "censored". People were ALREADY not using these words, because they usually got you a warning. This just formalizes the status quo.

Choosing not to do something based on personal preference is different from it not being allowed to do so ...

Word from the front, Daistallia: the reason for your infraction, as I think you surmised, was for deliberately going around the word filter. The reason it didn't link you to a post was that Adams901 gave it from your profile, not from the thread. When it's linked to a post in a thread a message is generated automatically, with space for a mod to add details if necessary.

Intangelon, The Cat Tribe et al, they're still looking at the details, but, the way I understand it, simply causing the filter to operate doesn't automatically get you an infraction. For infractions to be given, a mod has to be involved. Which would mean rule-breaking would have to be involved.

If you want more detail on the actual mechanism, afraid you'll have to wait.

Considering that it was first noticed in NSG on September 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13973750#post13973750), and that there weren't any infractions given until people started being clever-clever three weeks later, it seems to be working on NS as pretty much business as usual.

Word from the front, Daistallia: the reason for your infraction, as I think you surmised, was for deliberately going around the word filter. The reason it didn't link you to a post was that Adams901 gave it from your profile, not from the thread. When it's linked to a post in a thread a message is generated automatically, with space for a mod to add details if necessary.

Intangelon, The Cat Tribe et al, they're still looking at the details, but, the way I understand it, simply causing the filter to operate doesn't automatically get you an infraction. For infractions to be given, a mod has to be involved. Which would mean rule-breaking would have to be involved.

If you want more detail on the actual mechanism, afraid you'll have to wait.

Considering that it was first noticed in NSG on September 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13973750#post13973750), and that there weren't any infractions given until people started being clever-clever three weeks later, it seems to be working on NS as pretty much business as usual.

Thank you for your timely, patient, and helpful response.

It sounds like this policy (although perhaps foolish) is, as I originally thought, relatively harmless and not worth the fuss. Good to hear.