Profanity filter gone wrong?

[Waldo]

[quote]Besides - they can always be circumvented[/quote]

They can indeed, very easily. I'd demonstrate but my post would be swiftly moderated anyway.

[tayste_2000]

[quote name='Waldo' post='16297' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:19 PM']They can indeed, very easily. I'd demonstrate but my post would be swiftly moderated anyway.[/quote]

But then you are trying to circumvent it and the idea of filters i to block a slip of the tongue or fingers in this case, if ya feel the NEED to swear then there is always a way

[Bassassin]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16252' date='Jun 12 2007, 02:28 PM']...this forum should be open for everyone including 12 year old kids (or younger). I think the language should be tempered accordingly.[/quote]

So that means we should also have a filter that translates everything into txt spk? an we shud rite evthin in lwr case n not acshly bothr 2 try n spel cus its 2 time cnsumin?



J.

[Waldo]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='16300' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:24 PM']So that means we should also have a filter that translates everything into txt spk? an we shud rite evthin in lwr case n not acshly bothr 2 try n spel cus its 2 time cnsumin?



J.[/quote]

Don't go there, I already have and have now been labelled 'a Guardian reader'.

Sad really, and rather pathetic.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Waldo

[tayste_2000]

[quote name='Waldo' post='16301' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:26 PM']Don't go there, I already have and have now been labelled 'a Guardian reader'.[/quote]

It's ok I know you only look at the pictures

[Bassassin]

[quote name='Hamster' post='16295' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:19 PM']Most posters seem to be able to express themselves without the use of sexual swear words....[/quote]
[i]Quod Erat[/i] funking [i]Demonstrandum[/i].

That's the entire [i]point[/i].

J.

[pete.young]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='16283' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:08 PM']No Pete, I don't want to do that. We'll deal with subjects concerning moderation offline thank you, as per the guidelines.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you've got to hide here, but it looks bad.

This subject concerns more than just moderation.

This is a discussion about censorship.

It's also a discussion about not presenting the right terms and conditions at sign-up. I contend that if you're going to
introduce a profanitiy filter you need add it to the terms and conditions, you need to require everyone to re-subscribe,
and you need to describe an acceptable use policy for people who circumvent the filter.

Personally I would prefer to see the existing conditions for acceptable use being enforced by the
moderators, as they volunteered to do when they signed up to be moderators. I think that a few warnings to
people that they need to be civil and respectful, and the eviction of persistent offenders should be the way
that the problem should be handled.

[Bassassin]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16309' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:36 PM']I'm fully aware of how some kids use language amongst theirselves. But there is a big, big difference between this and adults swearing in front of kids.[/quote]
Would you care to elaborate on the nature of the difference? I'm not challenging your opinion necessarily, just interested.

J.

[tayste_2000]

[quote name='pete.young' post='16310' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:38 PM']I'm not sure what you've got to hide here, but it looks bad.

This subject concerns more than just moderation.

This is a discussion about censorship.

It's also a discussion about not presenting the right terms and conditions at sign-up. I contend that if you're going to
introduce a profanitiy filter you need add it to the terms and conditions, you need to require everyone to re-subscribe,
and you need to describe an acceptable use policy for people who circumvent the filter.

Personally I would prefer to see the existing conditions for acceptable use being enforced by the
moderators, as they volunteered to do when they signed up to be moderators. I think that a few warnings to
people that they need to be civil and respectful, and the eviction of persistent offenders should be the way
that the problem should be handled.[/quote]

You read the terms and conditions?

Edited June 12, 2007 by tayste_2000

[Bassassin]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16322' date='Jun 12 2007, 03:57 PM']It's one thing for kids to be discovering the complexities and delights of adverbial epithets for theirselves. That's fine and expected although not all kids choose to use flowery language. It's another thing for it to be imposed on them from adults using a public forum. Think of it as an extension of real life... swearing is generally tolerated in an adults only situation, such as in a pub. You do it repeatedly in a shopping centre where families are walking past and you'll get a seat in white van with fluorescent detailing.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that all you appear to have done is re-state your original comment with added verbosity and thesaurus consultation, rather than actually hint at a reason [i]why[/i] you think it makes any actual difference - in what way then, do you consider that a piece of software on a forum, which substitutes "inoffensive" words and phrases for "bad" ones - while still allowing it to be [i]perfectly and abundantly goat-buggeringly obvious[/i] what the poster typed originally - offers any form of "protection" to a child's tiny, fragile developing sensibilities, from the crass vulgarity of adult communication?

I think if you had much contact with or experience of kids, you'd actually discover that many of them don't so much "discover the complexities and delights of adverbial epithets" as use them as punctuation. Much like their parents do.

J.

[Dood]

My opinion: If all users refrained from using 'colourful' language in the first place, then we wouldn't even be *trying* to test these forum tools. A little restraint never hurt anyone. If you really must swear, use a little self moderation yourselves and use *** - at least then you wont have to worry about having your words replaced with the rhyming slang. Personally, I thought it'd be more fun to replace the words with meaningless jibberish, thus rendering the posts of those who swear on the forum meaningless. I would hope that would be a deterent and those who feel they really must make profanities would at least indeed use *** instead. (The filter wouldn't pick up what you were actually saying.)

The fact that the 'tool' requires a little fettling to work properly appears to have been missed, since it was brought up earlier in the thread. I am sure that if it really doesnt work, it wont be persued. But please at least give the admins a chance to try these tools out. Such tools can only be tested online I believe, so if you guys can be a wee bit patient, then that'd be cool.

[Kiwi]

Oxblood has suggested I post my reply to him here and I have decided that it might help explain things a little better as this conversation has been repeated with a number of members of Bassworld in the past and most recently on Basschat.

As far as a political principle is concerned, I share Ken's views on free speech, however the reality of running a forum is different. This is a view I have held consistently through BW. Some of you may find that politically offensive, I'm sorry about that, but we're managing with the community interests at heart, not political interests.

[quote][quote][i]I am trying to help you find the right balance - it's just that our respective concepts of what constitutes balance are at variance. Mine is rooted in the basic principle that it is the forum members themselves who should decide what they want to say and in what terms it should be expressed, with the moderators intervening only if threads degenerate into personal insult, if slanderous statements are made that could get the forum itself into legal hot water, or if prompted to do so by complaints of offence from fellow members.[/i]

Ken

In an ideal world I would concur with your principle if everyone was capable of acting in a responsible and mature manner. However I think you're assuming that everyone shares the same ability to take responsibility for their actions where the mods and I know for a fact that this isn't the case - particularly where members post under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

In our experience of running BW, many members are simply not interested in making a fuss about language use or other incidents even though they find it offensive because they simply wish to avoid confrontation. So no reaction by other members to an outburst does not equate with approval or acceptance.

On the positive side, you only have to look at the introductions forum to see people who have complimented the site on its friendliness and openness.

I don't believe that allowing a policy of self moderation would [list=1]
[*]be acceptable to everyone
[*]create an atmosphere of friendliness or openness
[*]encourage active membership growth
[/list]In fact I think self moderation would discourage posting by those who are less inclined to confront unacceptable behaviour. I think its important not to transpose a set of values an individual chooses for themselves and assume they're appropriate for a community. Thats why we have a team of mods to help run the forum.

It does permit a particularly vocal and confrontational minority to dominate the forums which is completely unacceptable to Ped and myself for a number of reasons, notwithstanding it makes managing a forum with any degree of perspective that much harder. That was what was starting to happen with Bassworld and I'm glad that the change in forum ownership has seen many of those problem individuals leave. Its improved the atmosphere palpably.

But getting back to the topic of the filter. I would like the filter to be more subtle than it originally started out so that those members that exercise moderation anyway will not notice anything. That's an evolutionary process.

I'm aware of your situation with SHG and to be honest I thought his action a little harsh so I think you will be able to use the word tosser without intervention in the future if its not used gratuitously.

[i]a situation where the moderators are experimenting with blanket bowdlerization of our discourse - with inevitably farcical results. I can only repeat here what I said to him: it's a sad state of affairs indeed when Basschat forum policy is effectively being dictated by the corporate prudery of organizations with which we have no connection and to whom we owe no duty at all.[/i]

There's no hidden agenda with this forum, the filter is an experiment because we want to raise the standard of conduct to create a civilised place, not cater to the lowest common denominator.

Hope this clarifies things.

cheers
Steve[/quote]
[/quote]

Apart from tidying up of typos, this post has had one edit for the sake of clarity to remove a point of misunderstanding between Ken and myself.

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='dood' post='16366' date='Jun 12 2007, 05:37 PM']Personally, I thought it'd be more fun to replace the words with meaningless jibberish, thus rendering the posts of those who swear on the forum meaningless.[/quote]

+1... It does make life a bit more interesting when you have to look up your cockney rhyming dictionary. hehe...

[Waldo]

[quote]we want to raise the standard of conduct to create a civilised place[/quote]

See, I had an idea of how to raise the standard of conduct here and create a more civilised place but you chose to respond to that with a rather thinly veiled, UN-civilised insult.

[ped]

What happened to you Chris? So argumentative ;0)

[Bassassin]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16352' date='Jun 12 2007, 04:56 PM']Okay, I wasn't aware that you were that serious about it. I'll take you through it.

It is inappropriate to swear in front of children.

You swear loudly and repeatedly in public, particularly in front of kids, and you'll soon attract the attentions of the law. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 as ammended by POA 1994 and all that.

You can argue a defence based on reasonable use, or that your words were not intended in an abusive way, but that would involve a court appearance and most people go with the caution.

Do you consider internet forums a special case? That they shouldn't be subject to the same norms of communication as "real life"?

Replacing the words with thinly disguised euphemisms is another matter, one that I wasn't really touching on.[/quote]

"Inappropriate"? Why? Are you speaking strictly from a legal perspective or is that a personal moral standpoint? If the former, it's outwith what I'm really interested in discussing, if the latter, your personal values are your own concern & I won't argue with that - but it's always interesting to hear reasons, rather than unsupported absolutes.

Internet forums [i]aren't[/i] subject to the laws you mention - which is why they self-regulate, as this one is attempting to do.

"Replacing the words with thinly disguised euphemisms" is really the whole point of this discussion – remember your earlier point was this:

[quote name='dlloyd' post='16252' date='Jun 12 2007, 02:28 PM']I'd feel the same if we were talking about an adults only forum, but (and maybe I'm making assumptions) this forum should be open for everyone including 12 year old kids (or younger) who may have just taken up the bass. I think the language should be tempered accordingly.[/quote]
- Where you support the forum's censorship in order to make it suitable for younger users.

The examples & legal recourses you mention are extreme, and entirely inapplicable to an internet forum. As I mentioned before, the original BW had no profanity filter, yet I very seldom encountered any "offensive" language there, and when I did, it was at least contextually relevant.

The nature of self-expression via keyboard is entirely different to "real life" and hardly comparable - it's simply not possible to have the kind of spontaneous outburst of profanity you describe - on the contrary, everything you read is by comparison, very carefully considered. That makes it hard to see autocensors as doing anything useful, beyond imposing predetermined prudery upon users - often with the sort of idiotic results we've been seeing lately.

The other side of this is that for any remotely articulate person, it's incredibly easy to be massively insulting and offensive, without any recourse to profane language at all.

J.

[wmsheep]

personally speaking, not too fussed about having a profanity filter; I generally try not to swear on these forums as I know that they are read by a wide cross section in both age and moral/ethical viewpoint (err, once again sorry about that rude .mp3 the other day; not posted that one in a long while and honestly forgot to flag up NSFW (Not Safe For Work) or Not for Under 18`s.), but I also know that there ARE LOADS of ways around these things, should I feel the urge to use certain words to their full power.

Until then, I shall use alternative words, and maybe a couple of the old **** (where required) to get my message across..


WMS

[Bassassin]

dlloyd - we're probably broadly singing from the same hymn sheet - my daughter (who's 14 now) started swearing like it was a "naughty" thing when she came into regular contact with a range of children from various backgrounds, once she started school. Prior to that, I'd not really attempted to shield her from bad language - but she would really only hear it in context, so it wasn't something she was any more likely to repeat than stuff about basses!

However it was important to contextualise it once she actually started using it - telling her that random swearing just made you look a bit dim, rather than it being shocking, was effective - but the fact she'd heard these words in context and attached little importance to them, made it probably quite a lot easier.

I'd still maintain UK based web forums won't be subject to the Public Order Act, any legislation is a lot more likely to be comparable to the kinds of laws that govern print publication or broadcasting.

Any language filter is going to leave the original point /intent of the word concerned plainly apparent - which is really why they're little more than prudish irritations, in my opinion. I was particularly irked by the new one here when it suddenly started making PM correspondences unreadable - I'm sometimes apt to express myself with a bit more colour in a private correspondence - but evidently not private enough.

And the last bit proves my point - pretending people aren't swearing ain't gonna make 'em play nice!

J.

[Muppet]

I'm all in favour of this. The mods are trying stuff out and if nothing else it's making us think a little more carefully about what we write and how we write it. Seeing as we are a 'family' forum then I feel we should do our best to set a good example. There are young people on here, just as there were on BW.

[funkysimon]

I don't mind the swearing filter - if it means people can keep reading the site while at work i'm all for it (UK productivity levels be damned!) just to keep the place interesting. Some people might not give a flying... errr... two hoots about their job and prefer to muck about online instead.
Plus I remember when b3ta.com brought in a swearing filter. They replaced swear words with fruit. It was cranberrying hilarious. And after some initial "You shouldn't censor me!" complaints everyone quickly got on with life, and even incorporated the replacements into the community "folk-lore".

Edited June 12, 2007 by funkysimon

[slaphappygarry]

At the end of the day, this came about as a request from a user to me as he is unable to access certain pages due to these words being flagged up on his works computer.

We are helping a user out (i suspect a handful actually) so i dont see why its got such a bad reaction...

G

[elom]

The point right at the start about fine-tuning is important I think.

If the filter had just affected f*** and c*** then I don't think that people would have been too concerned. Having it set to affect incredibly mild words was always going to provoke a reaction. The balance needs to be found but it would be very positive if we could feel involved in finding that balance. An announcement on this board beforehand would have eased the way too.

I think there is a lot of support for the mods and appreciation of the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes. It would be a shame if this started a 'them and us' vibe but if the fine-tuning can happen soon then hopefully we need never mention Mylene Klass again!

[andy_$$]

I'm quite happy to go along with anything, as long as, as I said in an earlier post, it is able to take the words in context.
And while the "F" and "C" words are pretty much offensive to everyone, I think terms such as "rim" would not be used in a lurid manner on here, and would be more likely to cause offence were they to be changed.
Maybe.
I don't know.

[finnbass]

[quote name='slaphappygarry' post='16577' date='Jun 12 2007, 10:42 PM']At the end of the day, this came about as a request from a user to me as he is unable to access certain pages due to these words being flagged up on his works computer.

We are helping a user out (i suspect a handful actually) so i dont see why its got such a bad reaction...

G[/quote]

Assisting people to defraud their employers and encourage the possibly illegal misuse of company equipment.... get a bad reaction....?

[slaphappygarry]

[quote][quote name='slaphappygarry' post='16577' date='Jun 12 2007, 10:42 PM']At the end of the day, this came about as a request from a user to me as he is unable to access certain pages due to these words being flagged up on his works computer.

We are helping a user out (i suspect a handful actually) so i dont see why its got such a bad reaction...

G[/quote]

Assisting people to defraud their employers and encourage the possibly illegal misuse of company equipment.... get a bad reaction....?[/quote]

Thats not really what we are discussing though. Each company has its own internet browsing rules. My work are fine with me browsing this forum for example as long as its in my own time and my work is done.

G