Suggestion: swear censors

[Sydian]

I'm on a phone so if there's this huge debate on this, I'm not going to read it all. Basically, I like this idea a lot. I think all COPPA users should have the censor toggle on, since they're the main concern by law. I don't say that to undermine that age group, I say it to correlate with COPPA. I do think 17/18 is too high as well. Censors should be on for at least up to age 15, but that's pushing it a bit maybe. Obviously we have rules in place to deal with those that use profanity to harm others and they'd be dealt with accordingly.

Basically, I like this. Options are always nice.

Edit: Are we seriously discussing only staff being able to see swears? Really? That's not a perk at all. I don't want to see some dumb banned member's uncensored crap hole post lol.

 

[Yukari]

Well... I want to know something, why add this? I mean, how is being able to see profanity uncensored going to improve this site? If you want to see people throw around a bunch of F-bombs then how about reading some Youtube comments instead of trying to have this added to PC?

 

[Euphoric]

Well... I want to know something, why add this? I mean, how is being able to see profanity uncensored going to improve this site? If you want to see people throw around a bunch of F-bombs then how about reading some Youtube comments instead of trying to have it added to PC?

It's not about adding more stuff; it's about revealing the stuff already here.

 

[The Serious Table]

After carful analysis. This is a good idea XD

 

[Oryx]

Well... I want to know something, why add this? I mean, how is being able to see profanity uncensored going to improve this site? If you want to see people throw around a bunch of F-bombs then how about reading some Youtube comments instead of trying to have it added to PC?

It makes reading them less jarring, honestly, because those massive hearts break the flow of the post when I'm reading a post with swears in it. In addition, I pay closer attention to the swears, because I have to stop and think which swear fits in context.

Your comment doesn't seem like a sincere question considering your last sentence, but there's your sincere answer. It would legitimately improve my experience of PC not having to figure out what swear words belong and have my attention drawn to the swears in the posts.

Also, PC already isn't a place where people throw around f-bombs. Even on IRC, which allows swearing to the same extent of PC but without a censor, it's not an everyday occurrence for people to swear. The only people that swear in a way that would be aggressive towards someone else are people that were already on the verge of being banned for aggressive behavior as it is, so in a "trial run" of this so to speak it didn't encourage swearing. It would be logical to assume that based on that evidence, posts won't be laced with f-bombs just because they can be, and if they are they can be properly moderated because the mods know how to do their jobs and can discern the line between swearing as part of a conversation and aggressive swearing.

 

[Honest]

Thank you for your post, please find my thoughts as above. Ta.

I must also add, now that I recall... as the instigator of a certain thread, I'd have thought you'd have been a bit more understanding. I can assure you: that change would have had more impact than this one, and this only makes your stance even more bewildering to me.

I'm on my phone right now, so I'm going to be quick with this. I might be wrong with the whole "not a democracy thing". I'm just parroting sobering I vaguely remember someone saying. If I'm wrong on that account, my apologizes. That being said, that doesn't make PC a dictatorship. Obviously we listen to the members, because yea, it's about you guys. Actually, now that I think about it, I feel like what I said had to deal with moderator promotions, and thus has no place here. Oops.

Sexual threads and cussing, though, are two completely different things. The former is regarding actual content to discuss. The latter is a behavioural issue. And if I recall correctly, the reason so many people were against the sexual thread was in part of reception to content.

oh, and no, I'm not staff, that was a typo derp

 

[Yukari]

Your comment doesn't seem like a sincere question considering your last sentence, but there's your sincere answer. It would legitimately improve my experience of PC not having to figure out what swear words belong and have my attention drawn to the swears in the posts.

Well, that's not how I meant that, but in retrospect that's how it looks.

 

[Euphoric]

Here's a thought everyone: Just try it out and see what happens. Make a final decision after seeing how the community handles it.

I think this guy's got it.

 

[The Serious Table]

I think this guy's got it.

I completely agree with you.

 

[£]

I'm on my phone right now, so I'm going to be quick with this. I might be wrong with the whole "not a democracy thing". I'm just parroting sobering I vaguely remember someone saying. If I'm wrong on that account, my apologizes. That being said, that doesn't make PC a dictatorship. Obviously we listen to the members, because yea, it's about you guys. Actually, now that I think about it, I feel like what I said had to deal with moderator promotions, and thus has no place here. Oops.

Sexual threads and cussing, though, are two completely different things. The former is regarding actual content to discuss. The latter is a behavioural issue. And if I recall correctly, the reason so many people were against the sexual thread was in part of reception to content.

oh, and no, I'm not staff, that was a typo derp

Ohhh I see. Yeah, I perfectly understand why staff wouldn't be hand-picked by members themselves.

And yeah, I cited that topic you made because they are completely different; and the change involved with censors is minimal at best. The thing that struck me is that "loosening the noose" on sexual threads would be the actual shift involved in doing so, and there would be a lot more for staff to think about with such a change, what goes over the line and what does not. In comparison, some people being able to remove censors because they want to see what people are saying will result in uh, people seeing the same post. I wouldn't expect a drastic hike in profanity. Perhaps I am wrong though.

I fully agree with Virgo though, I think this is a feature that should be given a go. I think it would make next to no difference, but if people suddenly got really aggressive with other people and began launching volleys of swear ridden assaults upon other people, then I suppose I'd have to eat my own words. I don't see it making an impact though, people are going to cross lines at times, censors or no.

If disciplinary concerns are really so great, what if it was a feature that wasn't usable if you were carrying infractions? I'm not sure if that would be an effective deterrent or if it's even necessary, it's more of a proposition for the sake of offering a solution for that situation a couple of people are concerned about.

 

[Shining Raichu]

I think this guy's got it.

She's a girl, but she has, indeed, got it.

 

[Altairis]

I would just like to point out that although excessive swearing isn't allowed on the battle server, we allow swearing in general. It is rarely abused like on the IRC, and anyone who does swear excessively gets a warning+. So I don't think that un-censoring swear words will cause people to start throwing them around.

I realize that I might be a bit late on this but I thought maybe I should point it out.

 

[The Serious Table]

Here's the scoop

I was against this idea earlier and I believe I was an idiot. This is a good idea, because nothing changes if you don't want it to. So after re reading it, nobody needs to change anything at all if they don't want to, and also I'd like to see what people say instead if guessing.


I say Let's Get it Done

 

[Neil Peart]

We've talked about an age-related opt of of the censor, like, if you're an older member over the age of 17-18, then you could toggle the censor off. But anyone else below the age cutoff would still be bound to the censor and any swear words would still come up filtered on their end. I actually really like that idea and it would be great to have that implemented, although I'm not sure how feasible that would be - sounds more like a custom bit of code we'd have to whip up, more so than a VB plugin or something like that.

17-18?

Seriously? 17 AND 18?! Hell, you can get into an R-rated movie at 17!

I think overall, of all the disgusting ♥♥♥♥ people under 17 could be exposed to, swear words are pretty innocuous. If there is a 16 year old out there who IS offended by swearing (good luck finding one), then he can toggle it off. Simple. This is a great idea, but like most good ideas, I'm sure this one won't be implemented.

 

[maccrash]

the silence that I've gotten from the actual administration about this idea is disconcerting to say the least. like I've said before, if I've got no shot, please just tell me now.

 

[The Serious Table]

the silence that I've gotten from the actual administration about this idea is disconcerting to say the least. like I've said before, if I've got no shot, please just tell me now.

I don't think they actually look here. Xc they should pay more attention.

LETS GET ON TOP OF IT

 

[£]

17-18?
If there is a 16 year old out there who IS offended by swearing (good luck finding one), then he can toggle it off.

Just a little note - filters would be on (or should be if we're concerned about seeing words) in the first place, so said 16yo wouldn't have to change a thing.

Also:
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=253026
There seem to be a few things floating about already. Not sure what's compatible/isn't compatible, but it'd be a lot easier to simply take someone else's work and remodel it/use it rather than starting from scratch, amirite?

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

the silence that I've gotten from the actual administration about this idea is disconcerting to say the least. like I've said before, if I've got no shot, please just tell me now.

I know you might be getting a little bit impatient with the response, but I'm sure there's good justification as to why they haven't responded back yet. Not speaking on their behalf and by all means not knowing the information behind this current situation, it's quite possible that they're talking about it collectively as a group to make sure that the right answer is given, as that's usually the case what h-staff does when making big decisions for the site.

Just my two cents.

 

[maccrash]

I know you might be getting a little bit impatient with the response, but I'm sure there's good justification as to why they haven't responded back yet. Not speaking on their behalf and by all means not knowing the information behind this current situation, it's quite possible that they're talking about it collectively as a group to make sure that the right answer is given, as that's usually the case what h-staff does when making big decisions for the site.

Just my two cents.

they could at least say "we can't really handle this issue right now but we'll take a look at it later," I haven't even gotten that. it's kind of frustrating. it feels like they're ignoring the problem. and I know they're not; I'd just like some sort of verification. I'm not angry, I'd just like to see something get done.

 

[Sydian]

Go poke an admin. They won't bite. I promise. I wish I was able to say whether or not this is possible to at least satisfy you, because I completely understand that you've been waiting a while and I would be tired of waiting too. I will at least bring it up to HQ though. Can't make promises, but at least it will get noticed sooner. Hopefully that will help. Sorry you're waiting so long. Again, I wish I knew the answer so I could let you know.