General / Off-Topic Censorship

[Vlodec]

i feel that is a bit unwarranted, this thread has had 277 views in 2 hours so it is being read.

You're right. This whole subject makes my blood boil and I become intemperate. Another good excuse for censorship no doubt.

 

[Rog]

But is there a burning desire or reason to use the word on a gaming forum accessible by children and adults alike?

I would have thought that whatever concept a person is trying to communicate, an alternative term or wording could be used without resorting to that particular one with its unpleasant violent sexual connotations.

 

[Vlodec]

But is there a burning desire or reason to use the word on a gaming forum accessible by children and adults alike?

I would have thought that whatever concept a person is trying to communicate, an alternative term or wording could be used without resorting to that particular one with its unpleasant violent sexual connotations.

Why, exactly?

 

[Mazhurg]

My take - Don''t ban words as they are just that, words. Context is where the issues arise and where the moderation should apply.

 

[Hamerstein]

Kindly reflect on that argument and see where it leads to. Also, and as has been mentioned already, this particular term was not removed by the language filter. Which begs the question, why was it removed at all? Are we at the mercy of every moderator's particular predjudices? Well, yes.

I did reflect on it. Permitting colourful colloquialisms and profanity in a forum encourages posters to take short cuts rather than expressing themselves fully, which leads to confusion for other posters who aren't familiar with the terms used, or negativity motivated by the language used rather than the contents of the post.

So much as you are entitled to express your desire to use whatever language you deem appropriate, in my considered opinion it's not the best approach to use in a forum setting.

 

[Vlodec]

I did reflect on it. Permitting colourful colloquialisms and profanity in a forum encourages posters to take short cuts rather than expressing themselves fully, which leads to confusion for other posters who aren't familiar with the terms used, or negativity motivated by the language used rather than the contents of the post.

So much as you are entitled to express your desire to use whatever language you deem appropriate, in my considered opinion it's not the best approach to use in a forum setting.

Explain why all that is a justification for "<SNIP>"ing "<SNIP">.

Oh *afterthought*, and why "<SNIP>" isn't in the language filter, and if it isn't why is it "<SNIP>"ed?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why, exactly?

.... because, while the word is used colloquially in the gaming community, its main use refers to sexual violence - I would have thought that that alone would make a poster think twice about using the word.

While some may be under the false impression that we are all adults here, there are no age related barriers in the forums, therefore minors can access the forums.

 

[Vlodec]

.... because, while the word is used colloquially in the gaming community, its main use refers to sexual violence - I would have thought that that alone would make a poster think twice about using the word.

Then put it in the language filter. Fair?

While some may be under the false impression that we are all adults here, there are no age related barriers in the forums, therefore minors can access the forums.

Whereas if we ban this term they will never hear of it. You're not serious, right?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then put it in the language filter. Fair?

That would indeed seem to be the most appropriate course of action, yes.

Whereas if we ban this term they will never hear of it. You're not serious, right?

That's not what I said. My son is ten years old. The vocabulary that he uses in front of his friends is (I am fairly certain) a superset of that that we would expect him to use in polite company. Knowing what the words and concepts are is not at issue - appropriate use of same is.

Users should be able to express themselves adequately without recourse to the use of expletives and words that, while not specifically expletives, name or describe vulgar / violent / racist / bigoted acts.

 

[Vlodec]

Users should be able to express themselves adequately without recourse to the use of expletives and words that, while not specifically expletives, name or describe vulgar / violent / racist / bigoted acts.

Why not?

Are you seriously suggesting that we mustn't even refer to acts that we personally find unpleasant, reprehensible?

Please bear in mind here that reference to the act itself has not been censored. Just the word. I've no doubt you see the difference.

 

[Le-Betz]

Other, more eloquent people have put my point of view in better words than I could phrase:

George Carlin - 7 dirty words

Proper Use of English

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why not?

Are you seriously suggesting that we mustn't even refer to acts that we personally find unpleasant, reprehensible?

I did not infer that users should not use the words, only that they *should* be able to get their point across without requiring to use them. Being able to get a point across without using such words would make any use of them a conscious decision rather than simply condition normal. I tend to switch off to someones points when they can't (or won't) try to make them in a civilised manner.

 

[Frank]

My take - Don''t ban words as they are just that, words. Context is where the issues arise and where the moderation should apply.

As Kipper pointed out, the moderators are volunteers. It would be unfair to ask them to police the threads to such a high degree.

I have no problem with the swear filter but I do wish it had a courser setting. The job of the filter is to stop people thinking about naughty words, and that's doubleplus good. The thing I object to is when I type a perfectly clean post which is then censored because a good British word has been mangled by the Yanks.

There's nothing that draws your attention to the naughty connotations of a perfectly innocent word than a system that crosses a big red line through it.

There are different meanings to the word in question but they aren't used that often and the word is quite objectionable. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I'm voting for a resounding "I Don't Know"

 

[Vlodec]

I did not infer that users should not use the words, only that they *should* be able to get their point across without requiring to use them.

Why, exactly? And, more importantly, why does this mean the word in question should be censored? That's what this poll is about after all.

 

[Hamerstein]

Explain why all that is a justification for "<SNIP>"ing "<SNIP">.

Oh *afterthought*, and why "<SNIP>" isn't in the language filter, and if it isn't why is it "<SNIP>"ed?

Twofold, to reduce the impact of offensive language for those who might not want to read it and to discourage the poster from using the words in the first place.

I accept that replacing the word(s) in question perhaps obfuscates the purpose of the post as much as leaving the word there in the first place would. The idea though is primarily the second reason, even the most fervent, intelligent free-speaker may concede that it's better for their post to be understood than for it to contain all the language they desire.

As to why it isn't in the filter, a moderator can wield a scalpel, whereas the filter is a bludgeon. It would be difficult for me to say "crapes" or "drapes" in a post.

I'll concede though, that the language filter here is better than most, it passes the Scunthorpe test.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why, exactly? And, more importantly, why does this mean the word in question should be censored? That's what this poll is about after all.

I am questioning the need to use the word in the first instance - is there really a need?

 

[noodle]

.... because, while the word is used colloquially in the gaming community, its main use refers to sexual violence - I would have thought that that alone would make a poster think twice about using the word.

While some may be under the false impression that we are all adults here, there are no age related barriers in the forums, therefore minors can access the forums.

Just a reminder, but the quoted passage was NOT using the word out of context, and was specifically discussing whether it was acceptable to use it casually. Regardless though, if the word isn't permitted, it should be in the language filter. If it's not, then removing it seems a little.... arbitrary?

 

[Vlodec]

I am questioning the need to use the word in the first instance - is there really a need?

Yes. It describes, perfectly and precisely, the act under discussion. Are you suggesting the act itself should not be discussed? I remind you that the discussion wasn't censored, just the word.

P.S. you mentioned your 10 year old son. How you bring him up is entirely your own business. Perhaps for this reason you should leave him out of this conversation. Unless of course you feel your methods should be open to public discussion.

 

[Rog]

If you want an easy, simple reason, it's because you agreed to the forum rules when you signed up.

You will not:

c. transmit content Frontier considers in its sole discretion to be disruptive, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

T&C 6.c

At the very least, plenty here would find your term objectionable.

There's simply no need to use the term in the context of a game. Just because people often use unpleasant or inappropriate language doesn't mean we all want to read it here.

 

[Cosmo Bozo]

Online gamers already have a bit of a reputation in certain areas for being misogynistic and unfriendly to women, casually tossing around words that refer to sexual violence when another word would do isn't helping things, and you don't know who is reading the forum or what they have experienced.

I can't say I'm a big fan of censorship, and I'm not particularly sensitive, but I do acknowledge that some people are.
And there would be no need for it if people showed a bit of consideration and thought about what they say.

Edit: also...what Rog said.