• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Official Suggestions Thread

Dio

~ ZD's Pug Dealer ~
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Location
England
Gender
Gingerblackmexicanjew
I don't see why we should have a profanity filter at all. If words are really so horrible to people they should not access any media or even go outside for these words are encountered in society on a daily basis. Things shouldn't be cotton wooled up for them on this site.
 

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
I don't see why we should have a profanity filter at all. If words are really so horrible to people they should not access any media or even go outside for these words are encountered in society on a daily basis. Things shouldn't be cotton wooled up for them on this site.
It's optional...
 

HeroOfTime

Challenger Approaching!
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Location
Hyrule
Gender
Mail
I don't see why we should have a profanity filter at all. If words are really so horrible to people they should not access any media or even go outside for these words are encountered in society on a daily basis. Things shouldn't be cotton wooled up for them on this site.
Why not have the members just not post words that others may find offensive in the first place? I mean, that's just being considerate to others. I'd personally leave most likely if the words weren't filtered, just because I don't need that crap in my life all the time.

What words should be added?
I personally don't think that any should be added per se. There words that I don't like reading, but I can still cope with. I'd put them in if I were making my own custom filter, but I wouldn't really want them added if they would be added for everyone's filter.
 

HeroOfTime

Challenger Approaching!
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Location
Hyrule
Gender
Mail
I mean, it says in the rules that:

Keep It Clean: We want this to be an open and welcoming environment for people of all ages, nationalities, and beliefs. This can easily be accomplished by "keeping it clean" and having little to no cursing or foul language within posts. There is a word filter in place, and bypassing it is not allowed. Members shall also refrain from posting any messages, images, or other media that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented (except in appropriate Mature Discussions), hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws (including piracy, e.g. ROMs, warez). (Infraction: 3 (language), 6 (other), or 20 (extreme) points)
I'm honestly not sure why this should be happening in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
I mean, it says in the rules that:
Keep It Clean: We want this to be an open and welcoming environment for people of all ages, nationalities, and beliefs. This can easily be accomplished by "keeping it clean" and having little to no cursing or foul language within posts. There is a word filter in place, and bypassing it is not allowed. Members shall also refrain from posting any messages, images, or other media that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented (except in appropriate Mature Discussions), hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws (including piracy, e.g. ROMs, warez). (Infraction: 3 (language), 6 (other), or 20 (extreme) points)
I'm not sure why this should be happening in the first place.
Those are kind of old. Held over from before on the old forum software where it wasn't optional to have a censor. Swearing wasn't really an issue because it was all censored. So... Some of the staff around then choose to view trying to anyway as defying their authority and that was the real purpose of that rule. It was always kind of silly and the staff we had when we made the forum switch seemed to agree it was silly. Ever since we switched to XenForo though it has not been enforced and it really should just be removed from the rules now so people are not confused. The rest of that section is more or less still how it's been treated. But the underlined part isn't. In any use that would be a real, actual problem... it'll almost certainly fall more appropriately in another rule. If it's used in an insult, the problem isn't that they used a naughty word, it's that they insulted someone. Focus should be put on actual intended harm and not on people choosing to be offended when none was meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dio

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Location
NZ
Gender
Shewhale
I've never seen the problem with cursing, especially the off time in a post or conversation. I remember having this discussion when we're debating changing the rules a while back. The general consensus was that swearing is fine as long as it's not used to insult/hurt anyone and not overly used to the point where it becomes outright foul.

On the topic of swearing though, I think it's a taboo more than anything else. Ok maybe I can get someone who overly swears to the point where you can't even see the formulation of a sentence, but the odd swear here and there I see as a genuine from of expression - a stronger expression - but an expression nonetheless.
 

Garo

Boy Wonder
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Location
Behind you
So... Some of the staff around then choose to view trying to anyway as defying their authority and that was the real purpose of that rule.
As a member of the staff when the rules were rewritten and that rule put into place, this is not even remotely the context of the rule.

I specifically recall arguing for the rule against swearing even with the filter, and my argument was - and remains - that even filtered swears (!%@$, ****, all other manner of textual censor filtering) are easily recognizable as swears, even if the specific word is not explicitly shown. Not having swears on the forum is not a case of Puritanical moral guardianship, but one of inclusiveness and welcoming. We wanted the forum to be a place open to any and all prospective members of any and all ages; not having swears, even filtered ones, plastered everywhere goes a long way to making that environment more open and welcome to the significant number of people who have issues with it.

You'll note it was a rule that was rarely enforced with much fervor. An odd swear here and there was hardly the sort of thing that would impinge upon the welcoming quality of the forums. I personally do not believe I ever warned or infracted anyone for violating that rule (with the exception of people who would use the word "rape" in casual contexts, which I would frequently give informal verbal warnings for).

You can conjure imaginary authoritarian reasonings for rules all you'd like; that's not why that rule was put into effect.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
As a member of the staff when the rules were rewritten and that rule put into place, this is not even remotely the context of the rule.

I specifically recall arguing for the rule against swearing even with the filter, and my argument was - and remains - that even filtered swears (!%@$, ****, all other manner of textual censor filtering) are easily recognizable as swears, even if the specific word is not explicitly shown. Not having swears on the forum is not a case of Puritanical moral guardianship, but one of inclusiveness and welcoming. We wanted the forum to be a place open to any and all prospective members of any and all ages; not having swears, even filtered ones, plastered everywhere goes a long way to making that environment more open and welcome to the significant number of people who have issues with it.

You'll note it was a rule that was rarely enforced with much fervor. An odd swear here and there was hardly the sort of thing that would impinge upon the welcoming quality of the forums. I personally do not believe I ever warned or infracted anyone for violating that rule (with the exception of people who would use the word "rape" in casual contexts, which I would frequently give informal verbal warnings for).

You can conjure imaginary authoritarian reasonings for rules all you'd like; that's not why that rule was put into effect.
What part of "defy authority" was hard to understand? That is absolutely not a reason that is just going to be announced as the reason. "Yeah, this act here is going to be banned because we feel it defies our authority." Don't be silly. Instead it'd be an excuse such as the rather ridiculous excuse you just typed out there, but the real reason was about circumventing authority. That's what it's been for. I've been around for a bit longer than you, much longer than you've been staff. It was way worse before you got in staff. There were quite a few rules that were purely about, or had passages referring to, defying authority. Notable ones are this one and mini-modding. Both of which I argued against long before you were a mod and the reasons I was given privately before you came around defending it this last time were very, very clear that they were all about authority. Not in direct words but obvious enough between the lines. You can probably guess who exactly pushed for it the most. He was pretty much alone in it. Once he resigned, most of the staff didn't care about it so much. The swearing one wasn't enforced as much, mini-modding and thread necromancy dropped.
You have got to take these things less personally. It's not all about you and most of this has been going on for a very long time and your reasons are not necessarily everyone else's. And your reason is pretty damn silly to be honest. If someone is insulting you, WHO THE HELL CARES if there are swears it in? Because it's going to be pretty hurtful with or without them so really it doesn't matter. Quibbling of the words used to insult is hardly worth anyone's time. As for any other use, people shouldn't be encouraged to be offended by those and they'll be censored by those who have the optional censor on anyway. The people who believed in this authority nonsense are not even here anymore so it's not even an issue. That sentence should be completely removed from the rules page as is because it doesn't reflect how things are currently being enforced and you're not going to be able go back from how things are treated now without a lot of people feeling too reigned in so there's no going back might as well roll with it.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Location
NZ
Gender
Shewhale
Garo isn't disagreeing with the rule, he's just disagreeing at the jab you aimed towards the staff at the rule
being purely enforced to show off their authority. I don't know whether that's true or not, I wasn't a mod when it was it actively enforced and I don't think it's been ever actively enforced apart from the odd occasion when some staff members where more sensitive to that kind of language.

If it was enforced just to have a reason to tell someone off then I guess cool or whatever, but that hasn't been the case for ages and mods haven't really batted an eye at it for a while. The only real reason we didn't get rid of the rule is because it's hard to exactly state the lines between overly excessive bad language and the odd swear here and there. So, when expressing the rules in the form of a sentence, it's not exactly easy, but it's much more easier to judge each situation on a case-by-case basis which is what we did. If the rule was gone altogether and someone was warned/infracted for excessive foul language, then we have no rule in which to reference. This causes confusion and dispute about the punishment - not a good thing really. Plus you really have to offer a middle ground for free expression of swearing and the people (maybe younger members) who are more sensitive to that kind of language. You can't just please one side even if you have no problem with swearing whatsoever (like myself). So that rule serves as a middle ground in that debate.
 

All Might

You are your own destiny
Forum Volunteer
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Location
The Avatar State
Just what is the big deal? The offer was to make it optional so that those who enjoy cursing can indulge in it to their hearts content, and so that those who don't enjoy it will not have to put up with it. Nobody should be saying that the other side is "a bunch of wussies!" or that "they're so inconsiderate!", because there will be an option in place. No filter amounts to more problems than there ought to be.

On that note, apart from excessive swearing, bypassing the censor was the only time it was ever enforced. It was unbelievable how many times variations such as "d1ck" (as if phrasing it like that made it any less severe) sprung up in the Shoutbox several months back.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Location
Vegas
Garo isn't disagreeing with the rule, he's just disagreeing at the jab you aimed towards the staff at the rule
being purely enforced to show off their authority. I don't know whether that's true or not, I wasn't a mod when it was it actively enforced and I don't think it's been ever actively enforced apart from the odd occasion when some staff members where more sensitive to that kind of language.

If it was enforced just to have a reason to tell someone off then I guess cool or whatever, but that hasn't been the case for ages and mods haven't really batted an eye at it for a while. The only real reason we didn't get rid of the rule is because it's hard to exactly state the lines between overly excessive bad language and the odd swear here and there. So, when expressing the rules in the form of a sentence, it's not exactly easy, but it's much more easier to judge each situation on a case-by-case basis which is what we did. If the rule was gone altogether and someone was warned/infracted for excessive foul language, then we have no rule in which to reference. This causes confusion and dispute about the punishment - not a good thing really. Plus you really have to offer a middle ground for free expression of swearing and the people (maybe younger members) who are more sensitive to that kind of language. You can't just please one side even if you have no problem with swearing whatsoever (like myself). So that rule serves as a middle ground in that debate.
Wow... yeah. I just got done saying this was before Garo's time and you got here a year after him. And later for mod. Of course you didn't notice this when you were in there. It was done and gone way before then. It just got a little more gone on the forum switch, but even before then it was not really a big deal. By the time both of you were in, everyone had a pretty bitter taste of the whole "obey me" thing so it wasn't something they were so enthusiastic about. But that doesn't change how it was originally treated. Regardless of what either of you wanted done with it, it's what it was put in place to do in the first place. It had nothing do with "well they still know you're using swears" or anything like that. But this is beside the point.

It shouldn't be a concern now. That sentence should be taken out of the rules and the censor list should be double checked to make sure it's not missing anything. Anyone who sees some trouble words should just say so instead of being afraid to. As long as it's within reason there can't be a huge problem adding another word to an optional list.
 

DARK MASTER

The Emperor
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
I'm sure that previous rule had lots of nuance. Let's not get into a huge argument about old, basically, irrelevant stuff. Thanks.
 

Jamie

Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Gender
trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
so will there ever be tech updates now or nah
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top Bottom