[answered]What's with all the ****ing *****'s ...

new filter in the works.

Frank- FYI - Here is the relevant part of the A2K Terms of Use to which we all agreed when we joined this site.

Phoenix

I've heard "vulagarisms" coming from lots of different people here in A2K, including Craven -- and nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever died from it.

I'm glad the rules ask us to be careful. But that is as far as they should go.

As for "ages and sensitivities"...

...hey, if kids want to come to this site, let 'em. But they have to understand that sometimes people say things in very emphatic ways.

...and for the "sensitive" adults -- well, **** 'em if they cannot be adult enough to encouter certain words and deal with them reasonably.

Really. Terms of use are still evolving, I suppose. I seem to recall discussion of this in the formative days of a2k (before "a2k" was in general use) and thought that while certain member names would not be used, specific words would not be banned. Is this getting like abuzz, or can we still call a certain type of vocal arrangement "Do Wop?"

My understanding is that it is a new thing, a super-short list, which was motivated mostly by a desire to keep the forum going. To wit -- advertisers don't like to see their ads next to vulgarity. And advertisers are A2K's lifeblood.

If this honestly is the reason -- I'd certainly like to hear more about it. I certainly understand the need for advertising -- and I wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize any revenues that A2K has going.

But I also would not want this to be a rationalization.

Have we lost advertisers -- or had threats of losses?

Is this prophylactic?

Why all of a sudden have the ****'s been showing up.

(I think terms like "the 'f' word" or "****" are infantile, but I understand that decent, intelligent people can strongly disagree with me on that!)

Craven or Jes will probably swing by later and explain more, but yeah, honestly the reason.

I mean, you know Craven pretty well -- what kind of "rationalization" do you think it would be? Rationalization for... annoying a lot of people for no particular reason? (Oh, wait, he would do that. )

Soz pretty much hits it on the head. As distasteful or inconvenient as it may be to some, deference must be paid to the "childish and lacking in intelligence" advertisers who pay for the website. Those folks are particular about putting their money where some folks' mouths have been.



Yes.

The TOS has not changed. Gratuitous vulgarity has never been welcome.

As the site grows it can't be addressed on a case by case basis and recently gratuitous vulgarity has increased.

The rules are the same, but the filter is going to supplement the case by case approach.

Re: [answered]What's with all the ****ing *****'s ...


The filter is not the only method that is used to enforce the rules.

Frank,

Are you sure that people aren't just typing asterisks?

I have not turned the filter on (it's planned). And it's not on right now (except to filter URLs that commonly are spammed on the boards).

Unless jespah turned it on and off, you are seeing typed asterisks.

Actually, I typed the asterisks in this thread myself.

But the thing that prompted the thread was that one of my words in another thread had been changed to asterisks -- either by a monitor or by the system.

That definitely was not me typing the asterisks in that other thread.

I used the f word Wednesday and today it was filled by asterisks.....I try to watch my nasty mouth (or fingers) on this site but sometimes it gets away from me.

I don't consider myself infantile stupid or anything else, but I do know I have a potty mouth. I don't care much who it offends, but from a practical standpoint if it causes advertisers to bolt then I certainly don't have a problem cutting it out.

To not do so , even though I consider it censorship, would be disrespectful to the work that Craven has done on this fine site, and I have no desire to disrespect him or others who like being here in that manner.

So as to the "F" word, if it causes problems......screw it!!!! :wink:

It shoudn't have been a mod as there is no moderator policy for editing an expletive (and there is a policy against editing posts in that case).

And it shouldn't have been the filter because it's not on (but will be).

If it was a mod I would be upset, as this would have been a breach of policy.

Well give us a George Carlin list of what we can't say, be specific, and we'll follow it. I'm sure we'd all rather do that than have to see the site in trouble. I would hope I could speak for the group in this instance.

But, because there is more than just the core group who post here and because even when we have the best intentions we still eventually go back to swearing..... because of those two things, there will be the filter.

To make one thing clear, we have lost advertisers because of vulgarity in the past. But I thought they were wrong in the case they mentioned (it was on a thread about sex) and for the most part the expletives that regular members have used were not objectionable.

But the gratuitous use has been rising (probably because the lack of a filter suggested to some that expletives were welcome, when they have never been and are merely tolerated) and teeny boppers are joining (no offense to teens but they are more prone to gratuitous vulgarity of the type we've always prohibited). Dealing with this on a case by case basis will soon not be an option.

So the filter will go on soon, and hopefully the gratuitous use of vulgarity will subside. I don't mind vulgarity, but avoiding gratuitous vulgarity is essential to the viability of this site.

Just as an aside, this is a CENSORED site. I tend to mention this ad nauseum because of some common misperceptions about it. Removing SPAM is censorship, for example. All US sites are required to censor some things and having a completely uncensored site is not possible on US soil.

Thing is, it's not specific words. What's prohibited is gratuitous use. The filter will cover specific words that are most commonly used gratuitously.

The criteria for the word filter (not what's forbidden) will be:

Frequent gratuitous use

AND

No legitimate non-expletive use

For example, roger's concern about Doo wop being censored will not be a reality. I think the list is at 5 words right now and they are selected not because they are the only objectionable ones but because they fit the above two criteria.

So the list will not be comprehensive. And it will not contain all the objectionable words.

Thing is, every expletive that exists has legitimate use and such legitimate use is allowed here. Gratuitous use (in a "we know it when we see it" definition) isn't.

To give an example, a member was banned (many times because he'd try to come back) for following female members around harassing them and referring to their bodies in a vulgar way.

A very good example was that he'd refer to their "meat curtains".

Neither word is forbidden but his use was such that he was banned.

The policy is the same, the only possible change to policy will be that no expletives will be allowed in topic titles at all (necause a cursory glance by guests at the titles could be misleading).

The policy remains that gratuitous and excessive use of vulgarity is forbidden. Legitimate uses aren't but since the case-by-case alone approach is becoming impossible technical means will supplement the continued case-by-case approach.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the policy isn't really changing, though the filter will inevitably not be able to detect context and function on a case by case basis.

I plan to create and implement a feature allowing each member to decide whether they want the filter on or off for the text they see. That would afford greater flexibility.

Edit: finished an incomplete sentence

ugh, that guy.