So when is a swear word a swear word ?

ThisRegard

I've noticed an almost puritanical crack down on the use of swear words, or words perceived to be used in place of swear words in order to get around swear filters, in the Radio forum. For example I was carded for the use of the word Shoite, a word in common usgage all over the place, including other forums on this site without so much of an eyebrow raised, never mind a carding.

If it's felt this word offends peoples sensibilities either add it to the swear filter or implement a site wide carding offence for its use.

hullaballoo

Each forum is entitled to develop forum-unique policy to deal with problematic behavior.

Frankly, the overuse of vulgarity in the radio forum is a disgrace. It's totally unnecessary, adds nothing to discussion and lowers the overall standards of debate. Practically every post in one particular thread had some redundant swear word.

I accept that swearing is appropriate in certain circumstances but it's like that thread is just there for people to curse for no good reason.

Artful_Badger

Dealing with posts that add nothing to discussion is fair enough. To get a card simply for changing the spelling to get round the swear filter is crazy though.

The problem is the swear filter is meaningless and its not swearing that lowers standards. Given there is no consensus on acceptable language all that really happens is such stuff gets carded randomly depending on the sensitivities of the mods and it has exactly zero impact on the standard of posting.

ThisRegard

@Hullaballoo, so do you accept shoite is a word in regular use, Ross O'Carroll Kelly having a particular fondness for it, and it's no fault of mine or others that use it that it's not in the swear filter?

If so, who's moral compass do we abide by, is it all depending on the sensitivity of an individual mod on what words outside of the swear filter we can our cannot use?

P. Breathnach

hullaballoo wrote: »

... Frankly, the overuse of vulgarity in the radio forum is a disgrace....

I don't agree - and I write that as a participant who has not, at least so far as I can remember, tried to work around the filter.

If a post is nothing other than a brief and vulgar cheap shot, that's another matter. But I would be more troubled by the "brief cheap shot" rather than the "vulgar" component.

Mr Reese

Shoite should'nt invite a Card.

That's just Dumb.

Shouldn't even be an issue.

Overheal

Swearing in say, the Leaving Cert forum, I'd understand harsh rules on swearing.

Ranting and Raving? Swearing is a requirement of membership.

Skid X

This new policy seems to be over the top.

There was no change in the Radio Forum Charter and no announcement.

I can't think of anywhere else on Boards where mild swear words earn automatic yellow cards. It never troubled any of the Moderators before now.

SEPT 23 1989

I know the mod has a job to do but there is nobody posting in that thread who is a child who had never read such things before moderation in that thread has always been light touch because if someone acts the idiot they are usually ran out of it before a mod has to step in

Harry Angstrom

We're all adults in the Radio forum. It seems as if Boards posters are now being treated like kids by their puritanical overlords. Mary Whitehouse would be very proud of the mods if she were still around.

By the way, Ulysses is littered with swear words and it's considered a masterpiece of the 20th century......

Harry Angstrom

hullaballoo wrote: »

Each forum is entitled to develop forum-unique policy to deal with problematic behavior.

Frankly, the overuse of vulgarity in the radio forum is a disgrace. It's totally unnecessary, adds nothing to discussion and lowers the overall standards of debate. Practically every post in one particular thread had some redundant swear word.

I accept that swearing is appropriate in certain circumstances but it's like that thread is just there for people to curse for no good reason.

Just an aside, but do you think that mods should be appointed to forums where they had never actually posted a single comment either before or after becoming mods on that particular forum?
I had always found the existing Radio mods to be very fair as most of them had a very particular interest in radio as a powerful medium and they have plenty of empathy and understanding with the contributors, and they will readily call somebody up if they are out of order.

I mean, I ain't got a clue about cricket, so I'd never expect to be appointed as a mod to the Cricket Forum (if such a forum exists)

Cookie_Monster

Unless it's specifically directed at a poster in a hateful manner there is no justification for restricting 'swear' words IMO, it's childish in the extreme.

LoLth

Just a quick question here.

Existence of a swear filter aside:

why is there a need to swear? honest question.

Is there not a difference between posting "****" as an expletive and a variant deliberately bypass a filter? why do that? surely by posting the filtered version everyone knows you've posted a swear word so job done, expletive expressed. Why is there a need to have the word be printed in letters rather than asterisks? If there was no swear filter would you still post the variant ?

I can see the argument that a restriction on swearing is childish but is there not also an argument that being unable to follow a basic rule of social interaction (ie: don't be obnoxious when talking to someone you don't know personally) also a bit childish? Would you drop swear words into a job interview? would you go out of your way to ensure someone heard your swearing in a conversation? How is the swear word so important to the point being made that it must be printed no matter what?

To pre-empt the "heat of the moment" posting of swearwords.. I don't agree with that argument (its been made before). Heat of the moment = a reaction where you post without thinking in reaction to something you have read someone else post or an event that you have witnessed (live match threads would be an example where emotions and adrenaline run high and users post in the heat of the moment and there is some leeway given by moderators for the circumstances). However, that exception aside, this is a written medium. You don't just blurt out your words, you hit reply, you type them, you hit post. If you take the time to bypass a swear filter then you aren't swearing in the heat of the moment, you are calculating and thinking ahead about how the post will look on the page after you hit the post button.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have always been against swearing on threads. I have relaxed my opinion because I was perhaps too serious in the past about it so I let it be but when someone questions why they are being warned for deliberately bypassing a swear filter I have to wonder if the question needs to be asked: Why come on to a website and bypass a filter they have in place? Fine, debate the necessity of the filter or its existence in the first place but if its there, respect it. Why does a poster feel they have the right to circumvent a rule that has been put in place on a website they do not own or operate? If a thread says "no posting pictures" do you post pictures anyway?

If you don't like the swear filter then that's a separate conversation that we can have and I encourage a mature feedback thread on it.

If you want to appeal a card or ban, go to the DRP

I'd like to keep this thread on a general non-forum specific topic and discuss the need to swear and the need to ignore the obvious preferences of the people providing you with the platform to communicate rather than constructively making a suggestion that the preferences be reviewed. (I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly interested if there is a facet of this argument I have missed in the past)

LoLth

ps. when is a swear word a swear word?

context determines this and the mods are the arbiters of context when there is doubt or fuzziness.

Artful_Badger

LoLth wrote: »

Just a quick question here.

Existence of a swear filter aside:

why is there a need to swear? honest question.

Why use any word that is not actually completely necessary ? Because its how you talk, its the way you think and the way you want to get across your message or emphasise it. Swear words despite what some people think are not just unnecessary vulgarity. They add to what people want to get across.

Is there not a difference between posting "****" as an expletive and a variant deliberately bypass a filter? why do that? surely by posting the filtered version everyone knows you've posted a swear word so job done, expletive expressed. Why is there a need to have the word be printed in letters rather than asterisks? If there was no swear filter would you still post the variant ?

All four letter swear words don't mean the same thing, which is why people bypass the filter to avoid the asterisk. Also not everyone who swears simply wants to swear to get one in. And a lot of people also see the filter as unnecessary and somewhat antiquated. A relic of a simpler time that is no longer needed and the circumvention of which is tolerated.

I can see the argument that a restriction on swearing is childish but is there not also an argument that being unable to follow a basic rule of social interaction (ie: don't be obnoxious when talking to someone you don't know personally) also a bit childish? Would you drop swear words into a job interview? would you go out of your way to ensure someone heard your swearing in a conversation? How is the swear word so important to the point being made that it must be printed no matter what?

Its not always obnoxious to swear though and there are very few forums I've seen on boards that would demand the same level of social etiquette as a job interview, its just regular discussion and a lot of people myself included swear on occasion. Just because some find it obnoxious or offensive or whatever shouldn't matter. People shouldn't be censored to suit others sensitivities.

To pre-empt the "heat of the moment" posting of swearwords.. I don't agree with that argument (its been made before). Heat of the moment = a reaction where you post without thinking in reaction to something you have read someone else post or an event that you have witnessed (live match threads would be an example where emotions and adrenaline run high and users post in the heat of the moment and there is some leeway given by moderators for the circumstances). However, that exception aside, this is a written medium. You don't just blurt out your words, you hit reply, you type them, you hit post. If you take the time to bypass a swear filter then you aren't swearing in the heat of the moment, you are calculating and thinking ahead about how the post will look on the page after you hit the post button.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have always been against swearing on threads. I have relaxed my opinion because I was perhaps too serious in the past about it so I let it be but when someone questions why they are being warned for deliberately bypassing a swear filter I have to wonder if the question needs to be asked: Why come on to a website and bypass a filter they have in place? Fine, debate the necessity of the filter or its existence in the first place but if its there, respect it. Why does a poster feel they have the right to circumvent a rule that has been put in place on a website they do not own or operate? If a thread says "no posting pictures" do you post pictures anyway?

If you don't like the swear filter then that's a separate conversation that we can have and I encourage a mature feedback thread on it.

If you want to appeal a card or ban, go to the DRP

I'd like to keep this thread on a general non-forum specific topic and discuss the need to swear and the need to ignore the obvious preferences of the people providing you with the platform to communicate rather than constructively making a suggestion that the preferences be reviewed. (I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly interested if there is a facet of this argument I have missed in the past)

I think the problem is you're blaming swearing for stuff it isn't necessarily the cause of. There are countless ways to be obnoxious, offensive, ignorant, aggressive etc and the use of swear words is just one of them and so is the use of other words that are not on the filter. Some swear words unfiltered and others words that used in a certain context do the same job. The problem isn't the words its people being obnoxious, ignorant, offensive and using whatever way they can to accomplish it.

Personally I dont think there is anything wrong with swearing itself as I think it has its uses in decent ever day discussion which is what most forums on boards cater for as far as I see. Granted it may not be necessary or may break convention in regards to certain topics in certain places. But as a site wide rule enforced by a filter this is the first case I recall of someone getting carded for swearing itself rather than just for a post that offers nothing or is a bit much. So its not that people come here to bypass it or ignore it, as I said previously it seems like an antiquated feature of this type of platform and it seems acceptable to bypass it. So people do.

P. Breathnach

LoLth, I'm not sure that you can "keep this thread on a general non-forum specific topic" when the carding of posts that work around the filter is happening a lot in the Radio forum and, so far as I can see, happens relatively little on other forums.

I also believe that the Radio mods are focusing their attention on a minor issue when there are more serious issues in the forum meriting attention - most particularly a tendency towards abusing broadcasters and participants in broadcasts (a lot of it is low-level abuse, but the cumulative effect creates a nasty overall tone).

But I'll try to meet your challenge on swearing.

First, some of what the filter catches is vulgarity, and not profanity. I know quite a few people who never use the word fuck, but are quite relaxed about the word shit. What I am saying is that the filter is a bit on the prissy side.

Second (and let me remind you that my own habit is to be quite economical with the use of strong language) a well-judged well-used expletive can be very effective. I think a lot of the uses of expletives on Boards do not amount to the very finest literary writig. But who am I (or you) to make a call on the literary merits of post on Boards?

Third, your job interview simile is not a clincher. Boards is an informal medium; a job interview is rarely informal.

Fourth, do you really want the DRP clogged up with people objecting to being carded or banned for typing "sh!t"?

P. Breathnach

Just heard a participant in a RTÉ programme use the word shit!

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

ps. when is a swear word a swear word?

context determines this and the mods are the arbiters of context when there is doubt or fuzziness.

So we're at the risk of being banned, carded, scolded like little school children, at the whim of an idividuals sensibilities ?

Because that's how it's appearing. Hey you guys, you can't be trusted to use correct grammer or big words, so I'm going to stand over you lot and the next one of you to step out of line are going to get rapped across the knuckles with the edge of this table.

It's actually worse than being in school, I don't think my English teacher would give detention for the use of a swear word in an English essay, within limits.

LoLth wrote: »

Is there not a difference between posting "****" as an expletive and a variant deliberately bypass a filter? why do that? surely by posting the filtered version everyone knows you've posted a swear word so job done, expletive expressed. Why is there a need to have the word be printed in letters rather than asterisks? If there was no swear filter would you still post the variant ?

How explicit is shoite ? Why stop there, why not card and ban for Jaysus and feic while you're at it ?

LoLth wrote: »

In the interest of full disclosure, I have always been against swearing on threads.

I would see that as your problem, and something you have to deal with. As much as you like, swearing appears everywhere, in literature, on tv, on radio, and as much as you admit to not liking it, on the internet.

We're adults here, we can decide for ourselves if we're offended, we don't need someone to decide for us.

LoLth

I'm going to reply to each post individually rather than multi-quote so I don't miss something relevant:

ThisRegard wrote: »

So we're at the risk of being banned, carded, scolded like little school children, at the whim of an idividuals sensibilities ?

no. there are rules that have to be followed by both sides. its not "just on a whim".

Because that's how it's appearing. Hey you guys, you can't be trusted to use correct grammer or big words, so I'm going to stand over you lot and the next one of you to step out of line are going to get rapped across the knuckles with the edge of this table.

It's actually worse than being in school, I don't think my English teacher would give detention for the use of a swear word in an Englis essay, within limits.

no-one, to my knowledge, has ever been banned or warned or carded for mis-use of grammar. Quite the opposite.

How explicit is shoite ? Why stop there, why not card and ban for Jaysus and feic while you're at it ?

I doubt the card was for the word itself, I would assume it was for bypassing the filter deliberately. That's a separate issue and should be discussed with the Radio forum mods through the appropriate channels (I'm not overturning any ban or infraction in a feedback thread and I wont allow any form of "mob justice" to bully a mod into reversing their opinion even if I agree with the point being made (and that's not me saying I do agree, that's a general statement!). This is feedback, not DRP.

ThisRegard

I'm not looking for the card to be overturned, I couldn't care less about as it's not a reflection of me. This is feedback.

Again, and I've asked this several times without a direct answer, do you accept the word shoite is a word in common usage ? Because it's not used to get around any filter.

What's the difference between bollox, bollocks and shoite ? Why can't I used the word shoite, just because someone thinks I'm using it to bypass a filter ?

I mentioned puritanical in my inital post, this is the reason for the card, and quite amusingly, for the wrong reasons, worded too

Don't mispell words to get around the baords.ie vulgarity filter

It's not a mispelled word, nor is it 'vulgar', in my opinion.

LoLth

P. Breathnach wrote: »

LoLth, I'm not sure that you can "keep this thread on a general non-forum specific topic" when the carding of posts that work around the filter is happening a lot in the Radio forum and, so far as I can see, happens relatively little on other forums.

all we can do is try I used to warn for bypassing the swear filter when I modded the literature forum (long time ago)

I also believe that the Radio mods are focusing their attention on a minor issue when there are more serious issues in the forum meriting attention - most particularly a tendency towards abusing broadcasters and participants in broadcasts (a lot of it is low-level abuse, but the cumulative effect creates a nasty overall tone).

could well be true but that's a separate issue and possibly one worth discussing either in a feedback thread or by PM if you want to drop the radio mods / Arts cmod your opinion/thoughts.

But I'll try to meet your challenge on swearing.

just a question, not a challenge!

First, some of what the filter catches is vulgarity, and not profanity. What I am saying is that the filter is a bit on the prissy side.

got it. don't break the rule in question just to get a point across though. the point can be made equally well without the inclusion of the words in question. Now, in response, where do you draw the line between vulgarity and profanity? Where do you decide what swear words are acceptable in public? For example: bastard is not a swear word but can be used as one. It was an insult in the past to question the parentage of a man or woman (a woman can be a bastard too! it just gets assigned to males more often). If there is going to be any cut off, surely it is better to err on the side of civility?

Second (and let me remind you that my own habit is to be quite economical with the use of strong language) a well-judged well-used expletive can be very effective. I think a lot of the uses of expletives on Boards do not amount to the very finest literary writig. But who am I (or you) to make a call on the literary merits of post on Boards?

well, I'm an admin so I am tasked with looking after the interests of the site and community as a whole, I make judgement calls on the merits of a post every day. The Cmods are there to look after categories and provide support and oversight for the mods, they make calls on the merits, literary or otherwise, of a post, every day. The mods are there to look after specific communities within boards. They also make calls on the merits of posts every day, literary or otherwise. Motors recently had a discussion on the use of the term "cagers" . means nothing to most people but seemingly in Motors its a derogatory term for car drivers and so has been disallowed. To answer your question, based on the evidence at hand, the mods are there to make the call on the literary merits of a post in the forum that they are responsible for.

Third, your job interview simile is not a clincher. Boards is an informal medium; a job interview is rarely informal.

point taken. Job interview is possibly too far. Drinks with colleagues then? less formal, not completely informal. we have forums that are informal. we have had forums with "anything goes". We have forums that are quite formal. Guess which ones pop up on admin radar in a higher percentage? Guess which ones generate more issues for the mods based on number of issues as a percentage of posts/posters?

Fourth, do you really want the DRP clogged up with people objecting to being carded or banned for typing "sh!t"?

No. I really want people to stop bypassing the rules because they feel the rules don't apply to them because they know better. If you know better then educate the rule-makers so they can see your point of view, don't just assume you have a right to ignore their decision.

ThisRegard

LoLth wrote: »

No. I really want people to stop bypassing the rules because they feel the rules don't apply to them because they know better. If you know better then educate the rule-makers so they can see your point of view, don't just assume you have a right to ignore their decision.

I assume I fall under those 'people', and I'll assume that you didn't see my previous post while typing yours, but shoite, as I said, is a word in itself.

Artful_Badger

ThisRegard wrote: »

I assume I fall under those 'people', and I'll assume that you didn't see my previous post while typing yours, but shoite, as I said, is a word in itself.

Its not though its just a respelling of shíte which means shít. Its not like feck which is a different word to fúck. Feck can mean fúck but not always, for example, "I fecked yer mans crisps", "fúcking someones crisps" means an entirely different thing. Can you give me an example of shoite used in a way where it cannot be replaced by shít ?

LoLth

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Why use any word that is not actually completely necessary ? Because its how you talk, its the way you think and the way you want to get across your message or emphasise it. Swear words despite what some people think are not just unnecessary vulgarity. They add to what people want to get across.

how you talk is different from how you write. talk is stream of consciousness (mostly) at-the-time, spontaneous ideas that evolve as you say them. Text / posts are not that.

All four letter swear words don't mean the same thing, which is why people bypass the filter to avoid the asterisk. Also not everyone who swears simply wants to swear to get one in. And a lot of people also see the filter as unnecessary and somewhat antiquated. A relic of a simpler time that is no longer needed and the circumvention of which is tolerated.

but an expletive is an expletive if it is used as such. Otherwise its a deliberate choice of words. Are you saying that there is no alternative word or phrase that can convey the same meaning?

Its not always obnoxious to swear though and there are very few forums I've seen on boards that would demand the same level of social etiquette as a job interview, its just regular discussion and a lot of people myself included swear on occasion. Just because some find it obnoxious or offensive or whatever shouldn't matter.

I've addressed the job interview analogy already.

People shouldn't be censored to suit others sensitivities.

I wold argue the exact opposite of that. In fact, I would argue that people shouldn't NEED to be censored to suit others sensitivities. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I think the problem is you're blaming swearing for stuff it isn't necessarily the cause of. There are countless ways to be obnoxious, offensive, ignorant, aggressive etc and the use of swear words is just one of them and so is the use of other words that are not on the filter. Some swear words unfiltered and others words that used in a certain context do the same job. The problem isn't the words its people being obnoxious, ignorant, offensive and using whatever way they can to accomplish it.

now that, to me is a much better argument and one worth pursuing. It is also why we have the , often controversial "don't be a dick" rule. It is also why we have mods instead of ban-bots or automated scripts. With a human, we allow for context and dual-use of language. Automation cannot do that....yet.

Personally I dont think there is anything wrong with swearing itself as I think it has its uses in decent ever day discussion which is what most forums on boards cater for as far as I see. Granted it may not be necessary or may break convention in regards to certain topics in certain places. But as a site wide rule enforced by a filter this is the first case I recall of someone getting carded for swearing itself rather than just for a post that offers nothing or is a bit much. So its not that people come here to bypass it or ignore it, as I said previously it seems like an antiquated feature of this type of platform and it seems acceptable to bypass it. So people do.

Its not the first case, I've been here longer and I remember many. I issued warnings myself in the past. I agree its quite an old system and I allow for the possibility that it may no longer be necessary. My question would be, some words are still not allowed due to racist / fascist / illegal overtones and association. I am assuming you are not advocating the usage of these terms. So where then is the line drawn on acceptable use? would relaxing the filter not just be a precursor to removing it altogether and the acceptance of ever perceived-lower language? In which case, is it better to allow a user be offended and take action afterwards - which may not be fast enough for the user being offended (we had a recent discussion on the use of the term "retard" in general as opposed to specifically as an insult that mirrors this discussion quite closely). I'd love there to be no swear filter and to trust users to behave in a socially acceptable manner. I fear though that the mods would find themselves editing posts full time and the DRP stuffed with "innocent" terms taken up wrong because of a mods sensitivities or prejudice- on both sides of the argument, users claiming the right to use a term and others claiming the right for a term to be banned with the mods having to argue both sides at once and compromise constantly.

I can think of one forum site that does not enforce censorship or filters of any description. I tend not to visit there much.

ThisRegard

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Feck can mean fúck but not always, for example, "I fecked yer mans crisps", "fúcking someones crisps" means an entirely different thing.

You're mispresenting things. You don't say "fúcking someones crisps" if trying to replace "I fecked yer mans crisps", you'd say "I fúcked yer mans crisps".

Artful_Badger

LoLth wrote: »

how you talk is different from how you write. talk is stream of consciousness (mostly) at-the-time, spontaneous ideas that evolve as you say them. Text / posts are not that.

I dont see how it matters, they are both conveying what you want to say. Its your personality and how you get across your meaning that typifies how you talk. In an informal discussion which most on this site are I express myself a bit more freely and express myself more akin to how I really talk. In some forums such as Radio or AH its almost like live commentary more often than not. When it calls for it I think people are well capable of discussing things in detail without being vulgar but a lot of the time its simply reacting to what you read and replying. Its like social media like that and you cant avoid that with such a popular site. And people post what they think and sometimes they swear just like people do in every day situations.

but an expletive is an expletive if it is used as such. Otherwise its a deliberate choice of words. Are you saying that there is no alternative word or phrase that can convey the same meaning?

I'm saying people have a certain vocabulary, some words they use more than others for conveying certain things. Expletives tend to be very commonly used words by a lot of people so it stands to reason that when speaking frankly a lot of people swear. Given they are not just vulgar for vulgarities sake but more akin to slang and regional terms then I don't see why they should be automatically censored because there are other words that can be used instead.

I wold argue the exact opposite of that. In fact, I would argue that people shouldn't NEED to be censored to suit others sensitivities. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

You cant avoid hurting others sensitivities though, there will always be someone saying something they don't necessarily have to say that negatively impacts on another person. The question is how do you deal with that. And in my opinion censoring people in relation to select sensitivities isn't the way to go. Because you cant protect everyone from being offended.

now that, to me is a much better argument and one worth pursuing. It is also why we have the , often controversial "don't be a dick" rule. It is also why we have mods instead of ban-bots or automated scripts. With a human, we allow for context and dual-use of language. Automation cannot do that....yet.

I don't think automation ever will be able to take context into account, a lot of humans unfamiliar with the subtle nuances of the language spoken in certain regions struggle with it. Which is why I also think the swear filter is avoiding the actual problem of people being dicks and making it harder to deal with that type of behaviour. Many a person can swear without being a dick and dicks that swear are easily spotted, the dicks that don't swear are the hardest ones to deal with imo.

Its not the first case, I've been here longer and I remember many. I issued warnings myself in the past. I agree its quite an old system and I allow for the possibility that it may no longer be necessary. My question would be, some words are still not allowed due to racist / fascist / illegal overtones and association. I am assuming you are not advocating the usage of these terms. So where then is the line drawn on acceptable use? would relaxing the filter not just be a precursor to removing it altogether and the acceptance of ever perceived-lower language? In which case, is it better to allow a user be offended and take action afterwards - which may not be fast enough for the user being offended (we had a recent discussion on the use of the term "retard" in general as opposed to specifically as an insult that mirrors this discussion quite closely). I'd love there to be no swear filter and to trust users to behave in a socially acceptable manner. I fear though that the mods would find themselves editing posts full time and the DRP stuffed with "innocent" terms taken up wrong because of a mods sensitivities or prejudice- on both sides of the argument, users claiming the right to use a term and others claiming the right for a term to be banned with the mods having to argue both sides at once and compromise constantly.

The words with racist or offensive overtones I think is dealt with well. You dont add them to a filter, you simply trust people not to use such words in any context with which they can be racist/offensive. And deal with that if it arises. I cant imagine there is that many people who use them like that.

Removing the filter imo would only result in maybe a small rise in the use of those "banned" words in forums where you deem them acceptable to use. I dont believe it would result in any more hassle than the mods already get. "Thats shíte" is no different than "Thats crap/rubbish/dirt/cringe/stupid/useless" etc. The problem isnt the use of expletives on conveying a point, its with the message being conveyed and the fact it offers nothing but aggressiveness/ignorance/offensiveness towards someone or some thing. That problem is still there and in part ignored a lot of the time probably because bad language was deemed to be the culprit in such things rather than dismissive posts that contribute nothing to discussions themselves.

I can think of one forum site that does not enforce censorship or filters of any description. I tend not to visit there much.

I'd argue that language is not the problem in those types of forums. The problems come from the lack of posting standards. Which I guess goes hand in hand with freedom of expression and what makes those forums the most popular.

Artful_Badger

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're mispresenting things. You don't say "fúcking someones crisps" if trying to replace "I fecked yer mans crisps", you'd say "I fúcked yer mans crisps".

"I fúcked yer mans crips" means I had sex with or destroyed them. "I fecked yer mans crisps" means I destroyed or took them. Feck can mean take, I've never heard anyone use fúck to mean take. So to me feck and fúck are two different words that sometimes mean the same thing but not always.

As far as I know Shoite IS Shít and the two can be used interchangeably in every usage. Unless you can show me a usage I'm not aware of.

Artful_Badger

To add though. I'm not pushed on the swear filter being left there. I don't think it makes that much of a difference to anyone who'd swear.

But I think carding people who bypass it is a bit heavy handed. I think that mods should issue warnings where they feel it was being overdone or not in line with the forum etiquette. But not necessarily have it a cardable/banable offence itself to bypass the filter. Best of both worlds as it were.

ThisRegard

Artful_Badger wrote: »

"I fúcked yer mans crips" means I had sex with or destroyed them. "I fecked yer mans crisps" means I destroyed or took them. Feck can mean take, I've never heard anyone use fúck to mean take. So to me feck and fúck are two different words that sometimes mean the same thing but not always.

As far as I know Shoite IS Shít and the two can be used interchangeably in every usage. Unless you can show me a usage I'm not aware of.

I was coming form a different interpretation altogether, as in to throw. I fecked/fúcked the crisps over the wall.

Shoite implies how it's said, be it in a thick Dub accent, or a haughty D4 rugger bugger accent.

RopeDrink wrote: »

This is the third feedback thread on Radio alone in as many months (or thereabouts) with the first one being an opposite to this... Initially, it was 'Mods aren't putting the foot down', with another in-between likely more to do with the DRP or nitty gritty issues... And here we are with a third that, as I expected (maybe even encouraged) gone full circle and is on about the tough love.

I would guess the others were about abusing presenters, mainly due to a certain morning radio program, rather than the use of bad language ?

Czarcasm

LoLth wrote: »

My question would be, some words are still not allowed due to racist / fascist / illegal overtones and association. I am assuming you are not advocating the usage of these terms. So where then is the line drawn on acceptable use? would relaxing the filter not just be a precursor to removing it altogether and the acceptance of ever perceived-lower language? In which case, is it better to allow a user be offended and take action afterwards - which may not be fast enough for the user being offended (we had a recent discussion on the use of the term "retard" in general as opposed to specifically as an insult that mirrors this discussion quite closely). I'd love there to be no swear filter and to trust users to behave in a socially acceptable manner. I fear though that the mods would find themselves editing posts full time and the DRP stuffed with "innocent" terms taken up wrong because of a mods sensitivities or prejudice- on both sides of the argument, users claiming the right to use a term and others claiming the right for a term to be banned with the mods having to argue both sides at once and compromise constantly.

I may be liable to hoist myself upon my own petard here, but this forum is for Feedback, so I thought I might give some feedback on the outcome of that particular thread, seeing as it was I who started that thread requesting the word "retard" be added to the swear filter. I'm actually glad now it wasn't! I took your advice Lolth from that thread to address posters directly, and although you advised to PM them and politely inform them, I'm all for transparency and awareness in my dealings with people -

LoLth wrote: »

I would suggest that, in future, if you feel strongly about the misuse of the term retard you should, politely and as part of the discussion, point out to the person using it that they are mistaken and should use the correct terminology in future, unless its being used to insult another user, in which case report it as personal abuse and let the mod deal with it. If they arent using it in a professional capacity or to insult another user, PM them with the correct use of the term (again, politely!!!) so that they can be better informed and use the correct term in future should the need arise. Some people wont appreciate it but I, for one, am not averse to having the correct answer pointed out to me and I would take it as a user being considerate if the correction were made privately instead of in public. I'm sure there are many posters who would feel the same way I do about that.

And so I addressed them on thread, albeit if not politely, at least in the spirit of their own use of the word. It's been an interesting couple of months since that thread, as I haven't gone out of my way to spot the word. It usually pops up among threads filled with socially conscious people who are claiming discrimination, yet use the word to denigrate people who disagree with them! The irony of course should be obvious, as in this most recent exchange -

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

Do we really think obese people need to be told they're obese ? Are we under the impression they don't know they're obese? Seriously they're fat, not retarded. I'm sure they know what they're doing to themselves and the effects it's having on them. I would imagine obesity slaps you in the face several times a day reminding you of your stature. Some people genuinely don't care about their size, and would rather live large, others are stuck in a cycle of eating for comfort, others have medical or psychological conditions. But I would imagine most have friends or family members who will talk to them about their health problems, from a genuine caring perspective. What we don't need is dogooders, going round informing strangers of something they probably already know.

TL:DR - see a fatty ? STFU and mind ya own business.

Czarcasm wrote: »

And an intellectually disabled person might well tell you STFU for your use of a word that causes them great offence.


I wouldn't though, because I'm not a "do-gooder". I think it's nice that you'll defend fat fcuks while making little of intellectually disabled people.

or indeed this one -

Drakares wrote: »

This knacker is working for a European Space Agency, in a foreign lanugaue (German) and earning probably double what you earn there, kid. Fairly certain with your utterly retarded post that my IQ standing to yours is similar to that of my wages in comparison. :rolleyes:

Czarcasm wrote: »

Far be it for me to interrupt your pissing contest, but it doesn't make you sound very intelligent when you use the word "retarded" in reference to another person's IQ. In fact it makes you sound quite the opposite.

Anyway, I could go on to list numerous examples, but you get the idea. I also find it somewhat ironic that the word "cagers" was banned from usage in the Motors forum, when it was pointed out in the thread I started, the legitimate use of the word "retarded", as in the context of engine performance. I thought it was a rather facetious example then, and I still do, as the word "retarded" is in far more common language usage than the word "cagers".

I think when it comes to forums like Literature and Radio, that posters should be more conscious of being able to express their opinions without the use of swear words. Both forums are examples where communication and the use of language would be of paramount importance. The example of James Joyce' Ulysses held up as an example of literary brilliance containing swear words is the same facetiousness as using the Motors forum as an example of legitimate use of the word "retarded" amongst 1,000+ forums.


In short - I think the swear filter is a redundant idea, and instead of infracting posters for their use of language, perhaps it might be an idea to encourage posters to politely inform other posters when they are offended by their use of language. I'm actively trying to work on cutting down on my use of swear words in my natural speech myself -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Knowing **** and getting control over it is what I'm struggling with right now. Also cursing like a sailor - it's vulgar, uncouth, unnecessary, and I'm struggling with cutting it out of my vocabulary.

wnolan1992

Note: I don't know the context of the posts which were carded in Radio, so this is more of a general musing.

Surely it should just be done on a case-by-case basis?

Example:

"Ah for f**k sake Ray, another dating slot!"
"That segment was f**king hilarious."
"Ray D'Arcy, what an awful c**t."

Surely it's pretty obvious there that two are natural language expressions which create an atmosphere of a bunch of people hanging out having a discussion, and one is blatant abuse?

I dunno, I've never been one to have a problems with people swearing unless it's deliberately abusive. I bypass the filter myself half the time because I like to type posts the way I talk in real life and sometimes I like to make it clear which of the big 4 I'm saying. I mean, maybe I'm mistaken here, but isn't that the sort of thing we should be trying to foster on Boards as opposed to arbitrarily saying "Oh, you said a bad word! Naughty, naughty!".


Sure, you could argue that posters should be able to express themselves better, but why force it? Boards is recreation for people. People shouldn't feel like they're doing homework when they're writing a post. They should feel like they're having a chat with friends.

Obviously there're exceptions where a higher standard should be set (off the top of my head Literature, Legal Issues, Politics maybe come to mind) but, IMO, these should be the exception as opposed to a sitewide thing.

My 2c anyway FWIW.

OldGoat

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Note: I don't know the context of the posts which were carded in Radio, so this is more of a general musing.

Surely it should just be done on a case-by-case basis?

Example:

"Ah for f**k sake Ray, another dating slot!"
"That segment was f**king hilarious."
"Ray D'Arcy, what an awful c**t."

Surely it's pretty obvious there that two are natural language expressions which create an atmosphere of a bunch of people hanging out having a discussion, and one is blatant abuse?

I dunno, I've never been one to have a problems with people swearing unless it's deliberately abusive. I bypass the filter myself half the time because I like to type posts the way I talk in real life and sometimes I like to make it clear which of the big 4 I'm saying. I mean, maybe I'm mistaken here, but isn't that the sort of thing we should be trying to foster on Boards as opposed to arbitrarily saying "Oh, you said a bad word! Naughty, naughty!".


Sure, you could argue that posters should be able to express themselves better, but why force it? Boards is recreation for people. People shouldn't feel like they're doing homework when they're writing a post. They should feel like they're having a chat with friends.

Obviously there're exceptions where a higher standard should be set (off the top of my head Literature, Legal Issues, Politics maybe come to mind) but, IMO, these should be the exception as opposed to a sitewide thing.

My 2c anyway FWIW.

Of your three examples I see one as a common usage phrase, one as a superfluous use of profanity and one as a personal insult at a personality. So there is clearly a difference between your and my take on even such a simple selection.
I don't see how having searing in one forum to be acceptable but not in another could ever work. It's down to the tone set by the forum moderators and users which is why it's more acceptable in some forums than others.

I do enjoy a good **** when it's used effectively but if it's in every ****ing line of text in every ****ing post I walk away from the thread. Having people walk away from threads is what the mods of forums try to prevent.

You say that Boards is recreation and I agree with you on that but it's not just you having a chat with your friends. You are putting out posts for everyone to see, friends, acquaintances, adults, children, strangers, tourists, dignitaries, journalists, lawyers, farmers, firemen ...everyone. That is a whole gamut of personality types. What you say to your friends is not necessarily what you would say to everyone else so I for one would appreciate it if posts were not needlessly littered with swearing.

ThisRegard

Just for reference and context, this is the post that was carded and what it was in reply to.

ThisRegard wrote: »

An Claidheamh wrote: »

The same way it was Swedish House Mafia's fault and Tine Tempah's fault?

Because they're shoite ?

P. Breathnach

RopeDrink wrote: »

Mostly yes, as said - And is the main focus of my self-proclaimed 'crusade', not the swearing itself - Though there are definitely times where certain words and the uses of them have really been cringe-worthy.

Might I suggest a guideline: that sanctions not be employed for working around the language-control bot, but for working around the bot for the purpose of being abusive or provocative? Examples of what I mean:
- "X is a sh!t" is just about always abusive.
- "X is being a bit of a sh!t" is usually not abusive, because it is a comment on behaviour rather than on a person.

It would help mod credibility if warnings were not given simply for working around the filter, but for something more substantive.

The presenter issue will be getting stamped on the fingers by a big boot by the time I'm done, though the swearing side of things can be improved both ways so we'll work on that as we go and come to a nice middle ground for all.

I'm very pleased with your ambition, and will be applauding enthusiastically from the sidelines.

It's not just presenters, as you well know. Guests on programmes are also subjected to rough treatment.

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Each forum is entitled to develop forum-unique policy to deal with problematic behavior.

Seemingly, I need to clarify what I meant by the above.

In the OP, there was a query on a general basis about what constitutes a swear on this site. That is not for me to decide. However, individual forums can adopt a policy that goes beyond the site-wide minimum requirements in order to deal with problematic behaviour.

I believe, though I could be wrong, that it is for the forum moderators to decide whether problematic behaviour exists and how that is dealt with. In the Radio charter, it is specifically provided for that:

Nouns like "git", "asshole", "bore" will result in action as will vulgar language (or substitute words such as "cnut" or "pr1ck" used to get around the boards.ie vulgarity filters). So, it's ok to call someone boring, but not to call them a bore - yes it may be a crap system, but it's the system.p.

That is the forum-specific standard and that is what's being enforced. The fact that there was less enforcement of it before now is part of the reason why there are now two more moderators.

I have to say, I don't agree in full with the rule. I think it will probably be updated soon to make it less of a burden for both users and moderators.

However;

hullaballoo wrote:

Frankly, the overuse of vulgarity in the radio forum is a disgrace. It's totally unnecessary, adds nothing to discussion and lowers the overall standards of debate. Practically every post in one particular thread had some redundant swear word.

I stand over this comment although it is not as clear as it ought to be.

In the Liveline thread, there is/was a tendency to post just to curse. To curse for the sake of cursing. Just posting curses. Nothing else. Just a swear word with no or little padding.

What's the point in that? It's mindless.

I think that might be part of the reason why the above rule is so strict in the first place. There are many reasons why that sort of post should be discouraged from discussions and moderator or individual sensitivities are low down that list. The fact that every post in the forum is publicly viewable means that we have to have some objective standards. This means ensuring that there is actually a discussion going on rather than a group of people swearing at each other/other people/the wall.

Also, the argument that we're all adults in the radio forum etc. does not really mean anything. I don't care whether people are offended by swearing, I care about the quality of discussion.

hullaballoo wrote:

I accept that swearing is appropriate in certain circumstances but it's like that thread is just there for people to curse for no good reason.

.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Just an aside, but do you think that mods should be appointed to forums where they had never actually posted a single comment either before or after becoming mods on that particular forum?

This is pretty obviously directed at me so I will answer this. In 9 years on this site, I have amassed a grand total of 8,000-odd posts. I am not a prolific poster. That said, I am a prolific reader. I have been reading the Radio forum regularly for years. Now that I am a moderator there, I have been and will be reading every post in that forum.

That's just the way I've always been, I'm inactive on most forums here, even the ones that are my favourite to read.

I had always found the existing Radio mods to be very fair as most of them had a very particular interest in radio as a powerful medium and they have plenty of empathy and understanding with the contributors, and they will readily call somebody up if they are out of order.

I don't know if you think this is going to change but it almost certainly won't. The addition of moderators is to pick up slack because busy forums need cover and we all have real lives that occasionally take up the spare time we would otherwise spend doing things like posting here etc.

That said, your above comment is bordering on a cliquey mindset. Perhaps you didn't intend it but there isn't a forum on boards exists only to pander to its current regulars.

I mean, I ain't got a clue about cricket, so I'd never expect to be appointed as a mod to the Cricket Forum (if such a forum exists)

Quite. But I have listened to the radio daily for all of my life. When I was a child, I wanted to be Larry Gogan.

Harry Angstrom

hullaballoo wrote: »

That said, your above comment is bordering on a cliquey mindset. Perhaps you didn't intend it but there isn't a forum on boards exists only to pander to its current regulars.

It's not a question pandering only to the current regulars. It's more a question of using common sense and allowing a certain amount of leeway here and there, without causing hostility and divisiveness, and thereby creating a "them and us" situation between contributors and mods.


By the way, I didn't necessarily direct that question at you. I've noticed that there are a few mods in the Radio Forum who've never posted there, despite having posted several thousand times in other various forums.

Skid X

hullaballoo wrote: »

I believe, though I could be wrong, that it is for the forum moderators to decide whether problematic behaviour exists and how that is dealt with. In the Radio charter, it is specifically provided for that:

Quote:
Nouns like "git", "asshole", "bore" will result in action as will vulgar language (or substitute words such as "cnut" or "pr1ck" used to get around the boards.ie vulgarity filters). So, it's ok to call someone boring, but not to call them a bore - yes it may be a crap system, but it's the system.p.

That is the forum-specific standard and that is what's being enforced. The fact that there was less enforcement of it before now is part of the reason why there are now two more moderators.

In my opinion, you have taken that part of the Radio Forum Charter out of context .

Here it is in full (the hashed lines are in the charter)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057005035

---

Clarification on abuse towards radio presenters or those featured on radio programmes:

With regard to radio programmes, this forum is NOT for the GENERAL discussion of the presenters themselves, but for discussion of their programmes and their presenting styles. i.e.: topics such as TV shows presented by them, books they may have written, etc. don’t suit this forum.

Physical Adjectives like "fat" "oily" "greasy" or whatever will result in action. However, we generally won't action opinions on style like calling someone "boring" "smug" or "pompous", but we reserve to right to action these where deemed appropriate.

Nouns like "git", "asshole", "bore" will result in action as will vulgar language (or substitute words such as "cnut" or "pr1ck" used to get around the boards.ie vulgarity filters). So, it's ok to call someone boring, but not to call them a bore - yes it may be a crap system, but it's the system.

None of the mods are strongly pro- or anti- these shows or their presenters. We like a bitching session as much as the next man. However, this is not pub banter, comments are available for everyone to see, for the foreseeable future.

---

I read that as stating that the swear filter is not to bypassed to make a derogatory statement about a Radio Presenter or Guest or someone being discussed on a Radio Programme.

It is not a general blanket policy that all swearing will result in a Yellow Card (which is the interpretation being applied by the New Moderators).

wnolan1992

OldGoat wrote: »

Of your three examples I see one as a common usage phrase, one as a superfluous use of profanity and one as a personal insult at a personality. So there is clearly a difference between your and my take on even such a simple selection.

Is all swearing not superfluous though? Just as use of many adjectives is superfluous. The point I was trying to make was that two of those examples were harmless, the other would deserve a card, IMO.

I do enjoy a good **** when it's used effectively but if it's in every ****ing line of text in every ****ing post I walk away from the thread. Having people walk away from threads is what the mods of forums try to prevent.

You say that Boards is recreation and I agree with you on that but it's not just you having a chat with your friends. You are putting out posts for everyone to see, friends, acquaintances, adults, children, strangers, tourists, dignitaries, journalists, lawyers, farmers, firemen ...everyone. That is a whole gamut of personality types. What you say to your friends is not necessarily what you would say to everyone else so I for one would appreciate it if posts were not needlessly littered with swearing.

Perfectly valid points. And if it's literally making a thread unreadable, then yeah, clamp down. But a general "no swearing" rule for any forum (other than aforementioned 'higher-standard-expected forums) seems a bit excessive. Taking ThisRegard's carded post in isolation (again, don't read that thread so not aware how bad it is) it comes across as the type of heavy handed approach to enforcing a rule which, as Harry says, could lead to a "them and us" atmosphere with a nasty undercurrent.

It really is a fine line I guess.

P. Breathnach

Skid X wrote: »

...
I read that as stating that the swear filter is not to bypassed to make a derogatory statement about a Radio Presenter or Guest or someone being discussed on a Radio Programme.

It is not a general blanket policy that all swearing will result in a Yellow Card (which is the interpretation being applied by the New Moderators).

I was making a similar point above. The sanction, in my view, should not be applied for working around the filter, but for abusing presenters or guests.

I'm curious about how the new tighter controls might be applied to radio participants who are relatively anonymous, such as Liveline callers whose full names are not given, or people interviewed in vox pops, especially the sort of interview conducted by Paddy O'Gorman.

P. Breathnach

hullaballoo wrote: »

...
I believe, though I could be wrong, that it is for the forum moderators to decide whether problematic behaviour exists and how that is dealt with....

A bit of an over-simplification, I suggest.

There is a hierarchy in Boards, and the mods must work in co-operation with C-mods and Admins. But you know that, of course.

There is also a general intention in Boards to be responsive to the wishes of users. That is why we have forums like Feedback, and why many forums have threads in which users can discuss the forum itself, including the forum charter. As there seems to be some intention of becoming more strict about abusive posting, it might serve a useful purpose if a thread were created in the Radio forum to alert people of that, and to allow some discussion and clarification of how things might be done.