Your question concerning accomodating an age group was answered already in this topic a few times if you've read it.
As for "not seeing," there are plenty who've been here announcing their 13th birthdays (or based on when they've announced their 14th to 16th it's obvious they were under 13 when joining) along with THS saying he's been here since he was 11 or 12 just above. All age groups (up to about 60) are around whether you notice it or not.
But, it's not about age. If you really believe it's about age (or maturity), then you've missed the point entirely. 😉
Besides, even the "old guys" who are both mature and old enough may not want to see bad language. And as we've seen, just waiting for someone to speak up and say something doesn't seem to work if the staff isn't willing to back that up, as Wraith has pointed out.
Frankly, we should really just enforce the rules that we have more strongly. Or rather, as strongly as they were enforced years ago. It never was that unreasonable to begin with, it's just that we've let things slide so now people are going to whine if we try to enforce things like they used to be. If people are just willing to watch their own language, it'll make things much easier to begin with.
Besides the infamous word that ended up getting so much of the attention during Geo's latest ban, I don't think it's that necessary to add a whole slew of offensive words to the censor. "Crap" as an example, is one I personally don't find to be that offensive, though I surprised a bunch of chatters back years ago by using it once and have since removed it from my online vocabulary. It's just that whatever we decide as far as censored words go, we shouldn't let words that we do have a censor for go by so easily with a single * and that's it. There isn't a point to the censor if it's "legal" to bypass it that way.
I suggest that we remove the censor completely and try to be as profane as is linguistically possible.
We're not 4chan, though, regardless of how many fads we steal from them.
SH if you love 4Chan so much why don't you marry it
you @#%$ @#%$ @#%$
EDIT: See, this is why I'm fine with our current censor. I used three different swearwords, each having different suffixes and different amounts of letters, yet they all got changed to the same string of 4 characters. It pretty much leaves it to your imagination, since you don't know what I meant to say.
Yes, Deck, but that's still a lot of swear words for a single post even if they are censored. If someone uses a post which is mostly that, they could probably be cited for spamming at least, excessive swearing at most.
And currently there are ways to bypass the censor that are "allowed," which make the censor effectively useless. Allow me to submit Exhibit A. The way that people have interpreted the rules to the current point, this topic and similar ones are okay, but by the strict letter of the rules, this really should not be appropriate.
I propose the rule should be rewritten so that it reads:
"Cursing - Don't dodge the censor."
It is clear, it is direct, it avoids loopholes by people who desperately need to swear to show they are capable of earning a minimum of a "T-rated" warning slapped on their foreheads. One of the complaints was that the rule as it currently stands is ambiguous; this is not. This way is also very simple, because anyone dodging the censor will be clearly violating the rules and it won't take much effort for a Moderator to take action as necessary.
If someone can point out how anyone can reasonably misinterpret the rewritten rule I have proposed, then I'm certainly willing to go along with something that is clearer and more direct.
The lawyers will find a way. And those frivolous power abuse charges are really starting to piss me off.
~Tobe
Terg's revision, as far as I can see, can't be reasonably misinterpreted. It's still not completely vacuum-tight, but no statement of rules ever will be. Like Rico said, rules-lawyers will always find a way to creatively misinterpret any rule no matter how concise, precise or accurate you make it. There's no point trying too hard to ensure the rules are invulnerable to interpretation because it's simply impossible - and it's not the issue.
Yes, vague rules are a problem, but the problem is not that it gives trouble makers opportunities to bend the rules and exploit loopholes, because they will always find ways to do that no matter how hard you try: by the law of diminishing returns, it's not worth the effort to write a completely unambiguous set of rules as it can't be done unless you're moderating a forum full of robots. The problem with vague rules is that they hinder reasonable, well-meaning, average people's attempts to the follow the rules by being hard to understand. Expressing rules in a way that people who want to follow them can understand them is comparatively easy and this is what I believe should be the objective in writing a set of rules. To deal with rules-lawyers, you simply beat them about the head with a bat labelled "spirit, not letter" and serve them a nice, warm cup of stfu.
In that regard, Terg's revision is fine. It's unambiguous to a well-meaning person, so it does the job. I would argue, however, that it doesn't really add anything to or close any loopholes present in the current statement of the rule ("Cursing - Don't dodge the censor, for example by replacing 1 or 2 letters of a swear with symbols that represent the letters being replaced."), as it's exactly the same but with the example (which is, by definition, not an exhaustive list of offenses) removed. Then again, the current example is needlessly specific and could benefit by being generalised to help the well-meaning but ignorant who don't understand exactly what censor dodging is.
Also, if we're moving towards tighter enforcement of swearing/censor-dodging rules, why was that topic not edited to remove the censor-dodging earlier? I've taken the liberty of starring out all but the initial letter of every instance of the word bitch, but if you would rather the words in question be completely obfuscated, I have no objections.
EDIT: Getting back to the censorship debate. Lighty, today, suggested an awesome idea. Obviously we can't feasibly do this on ezBoard, but for the chat and EliteBoard (if we end up using it), how about this: we implement a system whereby users gain the ability to customise the censor. The easiest way would be a simple toggle that allows people to turn off the censor (for themselves only, not for the whole board as that would be silly), although conceivably a system could be set up to allow users to add and remove words from the censor as they see fit.
Personally, I believe this concept to be utterly perfect in theory. Disregarding fascist state-censorship, the whole idea behind censorship is to prevent easily offended people from seeing the content that offends them. Thus, why the hell not give the people the choice of what words they do and do not want to see? Provided that the system is well-publicised and easy to use, we need never worry about language again: those who want to swear can do so to their hearts' content and those who don't want to see bad words won't. It's perfect.
I can see but two potential downsides. The first depends on whether or not there exists an efficient algorithm to do this, but I'm sure it can be done to a reasonable time/space efficiency. Certainly the toggle censor is trivial. The second is kids turning off the censor because they thing swearing is cool and then parents complaining. The solution to this is to provide mods the facility to override people's censor choices, setting them back to the board default. This could be done actively (e.g. by only allowing people over a certain age to choose their censors) or passively (only overriding when someone actually complains).
Naturally, under this system, censor-dodging would still be an offense, as it undermines the effectiveness of the system. However, since people are free to choose what words they can and can't see, there's no need to make swearing itself an offense, so people will have no incentive to censor dodge.
Also, the actual subject matter and content of the message would still be important. Censoring language is easy. Censoring excessive sexuality, violence, bigotry, harrasment, etc. is much much harder to do automatically. Rules would still be required forbidding such postings and they would have to be moderated as they are now.
Thoughts?
I'd have to think about it. I don't really want anything beyond relatively mild swearing or innuendo even on my server. But I'll think about it.
May I ask why not?
Well TR, look at it like this; you can't stop cursing no matter what. With the censor it can censor everything, but for those that aren't for censorship, don't have to use it, and they can see the words. Its a best of both worlds thing.
I admit that this does sound like a good idea in theory. It might be interesting to see if it could be implemented on some sort of smaller scale to see it in action. I don't like how it encourages a lack of responsibility for one's language, though, even if it does censor it out for those who choose not to see it.
I have faith that the average population of MF will not swear any more than their own, current censored and self-censored extent, but will just fail to self-censor and allow whoever has their censor's running to see the censored version. There may be a transitional period where the novelty of swearing will take hold, but for the most part people seem mature enough to regulate.
Eh, granted, I tend to notice the people who swear more often more than the ones who don't. Which means I overemphasize the few who swear too much over the many who don't. Nevertheless, I'd like to see results before trusting a system that may or may not be truly feasible.
Quote:
May I ask why not?
Personal dislike of entertaining the things I can't stand, particularly when I'm paying for it.
Quote:
Well TR, look at it like this; you can't stop cursing no matter what. With the censor it can censor everything, but for those that aren't for censorship, don't have to use it, and they can see the words. Its a best of both worlds thing.
If I was trying to stop cursing, then I would make the idea of forcing people to change their words on submission a massive priority (which just like Nuchtos idea isn't all that difficult to do; unless I take a summer job I know I'll definitely have time to code if I must) instead of the fact that I think it's silly to replace censored words with anything other than either random meaningless symbols (like Ezboard) or dashes (like most printed media).
And no, I don't see it as a best of both worlds thing because I mean it when I say that I don't want the stuff on my server. In other words, I don't want the words (beyond obviously being in the censor) even saved (which would have to happen for it to be visible for some). I don't care what people say/do at other places. On my stuff, I do have a problem though. I'm being extremely honest and I do believe people should know now instead of later, particularly because it shouldn't be a surprise if/when I get annoyed and say "no more" if I find certain things being said or done. I also am a lot less lenient about things with little to no warning.
Quote:
I have faith that the average population of MF will not swear any more than their own, current censored and self-censored extent
With this I totally agree. That's why I see no reason to do anything really other than stop the practice of replacing words with "other words."
I like the reject the message idea, but it may not work because of the coding needed as deck said.
But that won't stop people. They'll find ways around censors like they always do.
And we'll find ways to ban them, like we always do. 😛
And then they create new accounts.
And troll and troll and troll.
So we IP ban them. Same ol' story, really.
So then they use proxies 
:
Ban the proxies one at a time.
Asssuming the banned one is smart. Which rarely happens.
There are literally thousands of proxies out there. The amount of ip bans that would have to take place would be,
O________________________________________________O
I have a question, and I don't want to get an implied answer from any number of walls of text;
TR, what about words that aren't currently considered "heavy" enough to be censored, such as damn, or hell (neither of which I consider cuss words, especially in a religious context, but even as an exclamation)? I know I've seen plenty of E-rated games, or PG-rated movies, that use both words. The first example off the top of my head is Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies, rated E but uses "Damnit!" a lot.
Hell, doesn't one of the lyrics in SA2 say one? It's rated for mild lyrics.
Quote:
I don't really want anything beyond relatively mild swearing or innuendo even on my server.
Where's that DAMN fourth chaos emerald!?
PSX, I've gotten in trouble before for misunderstanding what
"mild swearing" is. I just want a straight, yes/no answer.
Aeva, you have presented what would be a logical conclusion if someone was truly determined enough to continue trying to swear on this board even after being warned, banned, IP banned, and etcetera. However, I have yet to see someone with a combination of the intelligence to use such methods while being dumb enough to want to keep on swearing inappropriately on the board. They tend to give up after a few times and either shape up or go away.
Bottom line is, it doesn't make the effort futile just because there will always be idiots in the world. It's the same principle as washing your clothes, you wash your clothes even though you know they'll get dirty again.
SX, I certainly can't speak for True Red and I'll default to what she says, but as far as I'd say, if you have a post that has more than one "damn" or "hell" or any other "light" swear words, it's probably more than enough (heck, that really could apply to posts here on EZboard as far as I'm concerned). Maybe two if it's a really long post with several wall-of-text paragraphs. And this is assuming that you aren't going to swear in every post, either. 😛
I'd have to see each and every "light" word to see if they really aren't that hefty. I can't just assume that you and I and TR agree on which words are "light" and which ones are "heavier."
Well that seems a bit overly excessive. One per post and not every post? Isn't that far beyond the official MPAA definition of PG (Which, I might point out for no real reason; goes so far as to allow "brief nudity" and "some" explicit content - not that I intend to post nudity around anytime soon.)
Not trying to be a rules lawyer, or whatever you prefer to call them, here, but have you looked at MPAA's official definition of PG lately? "some explicit content," or even "brief nudity," and content that "clearly needs to be examined by parents."
I'm sure "Damn" twice doesn't mean a post is PG-13 (which involves "some drug use," and, one of the "harsher sexually oriented words" used in an exclamatory context. ...Hell, jsut go watch any James Bond film since License to Kill.)
Particularly not when everything is context-dependent anyway.
Where I come from, "damn" and "Hell" are barely more than strong slang - but we also view "f*ck" as 15+, when I know that it's PG-13 over there. The US makes more of a fuss over blasphemy than sex, whilst the UK's the reverse.
Whenever I see someone effing and blinding on the board, I always have to take a good long think about the post context before I do anything, since I know that my first instinct is to judge by my own local standards, when I'm actually one of the minority.
Yet the UK is the last country in Europe where porn isn't legal, so there're countries where my stance'd still be considered excessive.
Trying to come up with blanket legislation in a multi-national environment always has to leave some flexibility.
Porn is illegal here? This is news to me.
If it's considered mild, SX, then your question is already answered. Psx already answered the question, but I'm posting since it was "requested."
'Kay. I'll just assume what I think is mild is what you think is mild.
I consider permutations of each of the following non-exhaustive list of words to be considered mild*:
- Dang
- Heck
- Sod
- Twit
- Twerp
- Hell
- Balls**
- Tit**
- Damn
- Git
- Bugger**
- Ass/Arse
- Crap
- Bastard
- Tosser**
- Wanker**
- Twat**
*There is a reason for this convoluted wording, namely that I don't consider any words except possibly discriminatory slurs inherently offensive; rather, it depends entirely on the context, the way the word is used what is meant by the word in that context. However, I won't digress further into this except to say that society at large disagrees with me, so it is a moot point.
**These words are subject to all the usual restrictions on sexual content when used in such a context, although note that all of them can be used completely non-sexually.
EDIT: Cock and Pussy are censored? Well bugger me sideways and call me a wanker. I would've rated them as mild** words.
'Kay, thanks.
Quote:
Where I come from, "damn" and "Hell" are barely more than strong slang - but we also view "f*ck" as 15+, when I know that it's PG-13 over there.
Nah, saying the f-bomb an awful lot in a movie tends to make it R-rated. You can only get away with saying it so much before the MPAA removes the PG-13 rating. That the BBFC would rate such movies as 15 makes perfect sense to me.
Actually bbfc say that "The use of strong language (eg 'f**k') must be infrequent."
For 15 it's "There may be frequent use of strong language (eg 'f**k'). But the strongest terms (eg 'c**t') will be acceptable only where justified by the context. Continued aggressive use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
You can say it once or twice in PG-13, and only non-sexual in context (that is, an excalmatory, "Oh, F**K!"). the record for the word in a PG-13 movie is nine.
What movie was that?
Argue the finer points yourself from here.
Just click any of the classification symbols along the top for a breakdown - and you may find the links on the main page interesting, too.
As for my recommendation on swearing to SX: Yes, it probably is way beyond the MPAA. But this isn't a movie, this is a Sonic the Hedgehog board. There is rarely, if ever, a reason for anyone to be using even a light swear word in every single post or even every other post. Heck, I've probably done more swearing in this topic than in any other topic ever. 😛
I don't think we should let exceptions to the rule or specific instances guide the general spirit behind our rules. Yes, the rating people are kinda stupid sometimes, to be blunt; they'll rate a game that really wasn't that bad as M, or rate a game with some bad language and a little blood as E. But for the most part they do a fair enough job where you at least get the idea for the intended audience.
Also bear in mind that something that was completely R-rated ten or even five years ago could probably pass as PG-13 today, or even PG. Times change, and unfortunately society in general is getting more permissive as far as standards of rating go. As much as I think it is good to adapt to the times, this is one thing we need to make sure we don't slip up on.
I realize though that everyone is bringing this all in to state these instances and bringing the context of what PG and the equivalent in the UK mean to the topic at hand. Thanks for bringing that all here.
As for some of the words Nuchtos mentioned...stuff like "wank" really bothers me because it and masturbation are synonymous as far as I'm aware, and I'd definitely not want my kids to see that stuff if I let them come here. I will tell people to knock it off if they are using "wank," just like I would if they were using "masturbate." "Damn" and "hell" aren't as bad and while I'd rather not see them at all, I've never been opposed to the way the rules have been handled as far as those words are concerned. As far as other slang for genitalia and/or other body parts that are typically covered by swimsuits on a family beach, there is rarely a serious discussion here requiring even the correct anatomical terms of these, much less the slang.
When I call someone a wanker for pissing me off I'm no more saying that they masturbate frequently than I'm saying that someone is a literal vagina when I call them a pussy for being afraid of the dark. It's the same as calling someone a bastard or a bitch: I'm not implying anything about their species or the legitimacy of their birth, I'm just using a generic insult*. The only difference with the words I've marked with double asterisks is that while words like bastard have family-friendly original meanings, the double-star words have sexual original meanings, making them inappropriate when they are used in that sense.
To use two recent examples, consider my calling Creo a tosser earlier in the thread and Deckman's "wanking over PSX". In the case of latter, although he is probably not intending it entirely literally, he's still alluding to masturbation. In the case of the former, not even the allusion is there - I could have called him a bastard, a twat (which, thinking about it, should probably be double-starred itself, but nevermind), a ninny, a nincompoop, a git, awkward, obnoxious, any number of other words and have meant the exam same thing. That's the whole point of the double-star in my list: while those words can be sexual, they don't have to be (although some may argue that the words are sufficiently offensive in their non-sexual sense to warrant censoring - I could see such an argument being made for e.g. wanker or twat - that's why I put them near the top of the list - but not e.g. tit or balls). Hence I consider the double-starred words on my list acceptable when used in a sense devoid of sexuality, but when sex is alluded to or referred to with those words the post should be evaluated in terms of the sexual content rules rather than the swearing rules, as with any other sexual terms or phrases.
That said, if I was going to admonish Deck for his "wanking over PSX" commented, I'd have to get all up in HPA's face just about every time he posts.
*Which is the actual problem - i.e. that I'm insulting someone - rather than the particular language I used. Calling someone a bitch, for example, really should be no worse than calling someone a low-life scumbag, since both are attacks on someone's character. However, I'd probably get away with the latter on a kid's TV show, but not the former. However, this is straying over into a whole other debate about why swearing is a problem in the first place, which I could say a hell of a lot on (I could write a whole god-damned essay on it if I wanted to), but it would take me a while to collect my thoughts so I'm not going to go into it here.
YIFF IS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Terg, under that kind of logic, we couldn't discuss Shadow the Hedgehog, a Sonic the Hedgehog video game.
You are aware of that, right? And by saying it's way beyond the MPAA, you're saying you're moderating way beyond what's been offical MF policy for at LEAST as long as I've been here, and probably much longer?
And Terg, I have a lot to say on your thoughts of the MPAA's standards, but I'm going to keep that to myself. IM me if you want to argue it; it really doesn't have anything to do with this topic.
As for HPA, I can't believe he hasn't been told to stop, honestly.
Aeva, the movie was Guilty by Suspicion. Source (LANGUAGE WARNING)
You can discuss Shadow the Hedgehog without referring to the fact that he keeps saying "damn" every five seconds.
If it wasn't clear, my suggestion about cussing with only one light word every other post was what I was referring to with this MPAA business. It was not intended to be an overall reflection on how I moderate. Believe me, I have stuck to MF policy for as long as I've been here, and while I am one of the strictest Mods in some senses, I have only followed the rules that we have set up here; if I were being a vigilante and going way way beyond it, I'd have been decommissioned a long time ago.
And maybe we do need to get onto people like HPA about this, Nuch. I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.
Perhaps we could let the flash chat be the kid friendly mofo chat. I am op on an unregistered irc room for the mofo. Since it isn't on true reds server she wouldn't have to worry about the filthy smut of cusses.
Stair, this thread is about straightening out what's acceptable and what's not acceptable to post around here. If you want to cuss till your heart's content, then take it elsewhere. Keep it off the board.
Guys. Just because it says "PG" does not mean the entire board is subject to the strict guidelines for a PG-rated movie as outlined by the MPAA. It's a general rule that means "please avoid posting anything you wouldn't want a child to see" and is enforced case-by-case based on tone and context. It doesn't mean "don't use word x more than y times in each post OR ELSE" Nobody needs to have it spelled out. Just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.
It doesn't matter anyway Cyke, they're just blowing in the proverbial wind. Kat already said her peace and I agree.
~Tobe
