Author |
Swear words on forum posts |
|
|
20-Jun-2006 5:10:03 PM
|
Chockstone Mods are interested to know if you feel that swear words should be deleted from forum posts
by the moderators. Are you offended by these words and would like them removed by us?
Please let us know your thoughts on the subject as well...
|
20-Jun-2006 5:17:31 PM
|
I reluctantly turned on the profanity filter on qurank a while back after a few posts got well out of hand. For example, it turns the f-word into f^&k or something similar. I'm not really sure how much good this does anyway, although I have seen that posters tend to self-mod their own swearing to ensure it passes the filter in recognisable form. That being said, I don't think profanity should be manually removed by moderators via post editing.
Edit: I also don't think a vote is a particularly useful tool in this case, because few people would vote to have their posts tampered with. I am sure we'll see a vast free speech landslide. However, profanity filtering should be a decision for the site administrator, with consideration given to the purpose and main audience of Chockstone.
|
20-Jun-2006 5:19:28 PM
|
An in-between option would have been good for the poll.
I've never been offended by any language used on Chockstone but I would be happy enough with judicious removal of language that reasonable people might object to.
|
20-Jun-2006 5:22:27 PM
|
Defining that gray area is almost impossible billik! How do we work out what is 'reasonable' amongst 1828
users? It reminds me of that quote...
'the only people you think are normal are the people you don't know very well'
|
20-Jun-2006 5:24:20 PM
|
On 20/06/2006 manacubus wrote:
>I also don't think a vote is a particularly useful tool in this
>case, because few people would vote to have their posts tampered with.
>I am sure we'll see a vast free speech landslide. However, profanity filtering
>should be a decision for the site administrator, with consideration given
>to the purpose and main audience of Chockstone.
Profanity removal could be automatic (by filtering) or manually done by Mods. Either way the swear
words would be removed from peoples posts.
|
20-Jun-2006 5:39:12 PM
|
i think calling someone a "F#^KSTICK" in this medium is a bit rough but upon thinking on this issue a little further one can be just as demeaning (if not more so truth be told) to a fellow forum user using clever experssion and grammar.
It's a vexed question. I guess the balance may be tipped over if younger eyes are considered but hey if they're surfing the net they are exposed to a lot worse than C/S; by chance or design and parents would/should be cogniscient of this anyway
I guess I've come back to the status quo - let people post how they please. If it's way beyond the pale then may be a time for mods to deal with
|
20-Jun-2006 6:08:33 PM
|
I vote for free speech. Also have you considered that plenty of route names and guidebook descriptions include colourful language? So will the mods refer to climbs such as Too F#%*@d to Pump as 'the climb right of Veni Vidi Vici that we can no longer name on this forum'.
|
20-Jun-2006 6:30:37 PM
|
On 20/06/2006 robin wrote:
>So will the
>mods refer to climbs such as Too F#%*@d to Pump as 'the climb right of
>Veni Vidi Vici that we can no longer name on this forum'.
A search on the word F&*cked comes up with several informative posts about rebolting that particular
route!
|
20-Jun-2006 7:22:00 PM
|
I am completley insensitive. I think there should be no editing of posts unless they slander or denigrate an individual. But as The Bard observed (no not the route)
"Some men there are love not a gaping pig;
Some that are mad if they behold a cat;
And others, when the bagpipes i' the nose,
Cannot contain their urine."
In other words you can't make the site safe for all as some people are offended by almost anything. (But it will always be safe for me.)
|
20-Jun-2006 8:33:18 PM
|
All I said in the other thread was,
"I'm not even going to mention the time I gave the pope a blow job when I was 9".
Automatic filter would not block any of that but someone found it offencive.
|
20-Jun-2006 9:35:32 PM
|
On 20/06/2006 Zebedee wrote stuff.
Yeah. Let's keep the Chockstone bagpipe-free.
|
21-Jun-2006 9:22:56 AM
|
If the word appears in the dictionary then it is part of our language and it’s use should not be moderated.
You may not use the word, but that does not mean you can decide to remove it from our language.
Weather someone finds a word offensive would depend on his or her level of prudishness. Would you
stop people from reading the dictionary because it contains those words? Imagery can be far more
offensive than plain words.
|
21-Jun-2006 9:29:39 AM
|
Has anyone listended to the radio recently? JJJ plays back to back songs featuring the f-word at all
times of the day (occasionally with a disclaimer). This station would have literally tens of thousands of
'underage' listeners. Go to the movies or watch the TV after 8pm and its the same. If you have lived
around school kids you will also know they swear like (little) troopers when adults are not in earshot.
|
21-Jun-2006 9:56:30 AM
|
On 21/06/2006 nmonteith wrote:
>If you have lived
>around school kids you will also know they swear like (little) troopers
>when adults are not in earshot.
If you worked at my school, you will know the troopers don't give a f*&k if adults are in earshot...
|
21-Jun-2006 10:01:19 AM
|
I found this excellent quote!
"As long as there are doors on toilets, and as long as sex is essentially a private matter, there will be
taboo words surrounding these things," Professor Alain Thomas
If society becomes a place where there are no doors on toilets and sex is no longer a private matter,
swearing will just be based on something else, something that is still taboo.
|
21-Jun-2006 10:03:38 AM
|
1972 - Oxford English Dictionary includes the F and C words.
|
21-Jun-2006 10:15:36 AM
|
I wonder how many people just went and checked that, I bet it was more that just you Neil.
The funny thing is Chockstone is often seen as a more conservative forum, yet there is little moderating done on language, however, over on Crag-x with its "beer hall atmosphere" swearing IS censored automatically...
Let the people say what they want! I have a sneaking suspicion that many 13yr olds could teach the older generation a thing or two about colourful phrases.
|
21-Jun-2006 11:45:13 AM
|
On 20/06/2006 nmonteith wrote:
>Defining that gray area is almost impossible billik! How do we work out
>what is 'reasonable' amongst 1828
>users? It reminds me of that quote...
>
>'the only people you think are normal are the people you don't know very
>well'
Yes, it would defintely involve making judgements on particular occasions about how offensive the post was. But I think that's what is needed. You could have a rule that the C word is out and maybe even the F word is out. Most of the time, though, it's going to be particular combinations of words that could get me thinking "hope no one comes and looks over my shoulder while this is on the screen."
I guess the other thing I meant by "judicious censoring" was that moderators would only be doing it once in blue moon.
|
21-Jun-2006 11:45:59 AM
|
Stuff the swearing, I reckon you should moderate wrong spelling, bad grammar and inaccurate references, like "prolly" instead of "probably", "weather" instead of "whether" and using "slander" (which is verbal) when you should use "libel" (which is written).
It's enough to make a pedant swear. F#&k!
|
21-Jun-2006 11:49:08 AM
|
On 21/06/2006 tnd wrote:
>Stuff the swearing, I reckon you should moderate wrong spelling, bad grammar
>and inaccurate references, like "prolly" instead of "probably", "weather"
>instead of "whether" and using "slander" (which is verbal) when you should
>use "libel" (which is written).
I second the motion tnd. Spelling and grammer checking for all!!
|