Is it time to get rid of the swear filter?

4zn76tysfajdxp

We're pretty much all adults here and swearing is big and clever, why not get rid of the bloomin' thing? Hardly likely to descend into complete swear fests.

osarusan

I like guessing what word might be behind the filter.

There are 5 asterisks, did they actually type a swear word or just type 5 asterisks? What 5-letter swearwords are there? Which one makes most sense there?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

They should remove **** and **** from the filter, but leave ****,

GreatDefector

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

They should remove **** and **** from the filter, but leave ****,

**** yeah

The Hill Billy

@Frada - There's been a few threads on the topic, including a fairly recent one. The search function will throw them up for you. Unless there's something new to be brought to the table I'd imagine this thread will be short-lived.

@Others - If you want to provide feedback - you are welcome to give it here. If you want to dick about - here is not the place.

tHB

Beasty

We are not actually adults here though. My 12yo daughter mentioned to me only yesterday that one of her school friends is on Boards. I realise the minimum age is supposed to be 13 but it was suggested in one of the recent threads on the topic that one of the requirements to classify a site as suitable for children of that age is to have the swear filter.

Cabaal

Def not all adults here on Boards.ie,
After all we have a Junior Cert forum, as already pointed out the website has plenty of people below 18 years of age

D

I actually like the swear filter in place. There are many location/forums where there is no filter and anything goes.

I feel that the sear filter, and the more stricter/established infraction system helps to set boards apart from the internet as a whole and serves to give boards a certain atmostphere, which I like.

KomradeBishop

The best swear filter I saw, was about a decade ago on a game server - if you said e.g. "You effing bastard.", it'd be replaced with something silly like "You lovely' darling'." - might be fun to see something like that on Boards, just for the humour value :pac:

I don't think kids being on Boards, is a valid reason to have a swear filter really - kids swear as much as, if not more than, most adults.
The only way I see a swear filter being useful with kids on Boards, is to just allow more troublesome kid members to darwin themselves, by running into a ban through excessive swearing - in general (not just with kids), that is about the only useful thing about a swear filter really.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Honestly, if 12-13 year olds are the youngest it gets here then I see no reason for the swear filter. I certainly remember doing my fair share of effin' and jeffin' at that age, can't imagine I was too shocked to read the odd four-letter word online then. If anything, I'd say kids are more likely to be exposed to way more traumatising flim flam elsewhere on Boards.

I can't think of a single reason to keep the swear filter, tbh.

Dav

We're not getting rid of the swear filter - the benefits far outweigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned.

OldGoat

I like the filter. The word f_uck is so ubiquitous in Ireland that it's become like wallpaper - unnoticeable where as **** stands out in a sentence doing the job of adding weight and emphasis to your statement.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Dav wrote: »

We're not getting rid of the swear filter - the benefits far outweigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned.

What benefits?

The Hill Billy

Probably that the majority of swear words are masked.

I swear like a docker myself, but to be honest I don't particularly like seeing it peppering text that I am reading day in day out.

Orion

Celia Thankful Cheek wrote: »

What benefits?

Without the swear filter many corporate firewalls would block the site for profanity. That would reduce traffic to the site.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Orion wrote: »

Without the swear filter many corporate firewalls would block the site for profanity. That would reduce traffic to the site.

Oh, that's a very good explanation. Thanks. Much better than the "I don't like swear words so nobody should be allowed swear" stuff you'd see normally.

Sad Professor

Keep the swear filter, I don't care. Just make an exception for words contained in urls.

I recently went to post a link to a news article that happened to have some minor expletive in the headline and also in the permalink. I couldn't for the life of me find a way to make the link work since Boards kept asterisks-ing out the swear word and screwing up the url.

GLaDOS

Sad Professor wrote: »

Keep the swear filter, I don't care. Just make an exception for words contained in urls.

I recently went to post a link to a news article that happened to have some minor expletive in the headline and also in the permalink. I couldn't for the life of me find a way to make the link work since Boards kept asterisks-ing out the swear word and screwing up the url.

You can use tinyURL to get round this, but I agree it's a pain. Similar with posting images with a swear word in the URL.

Sad Professor

ScienceNerd wrote: »

You can use tinyURL to get round this, but I agree it's a pain. Similar with posting images with a swear word in the URL.

<slaps forehead>

I never thought of this. Good idea, thanks.

Melodeon

Lots of people would be hesitant to follow tinyURL or similar anonymous links, as there's no way of knowing what they're pointing at.
It might be a good idea to post a little note explaining the use of the shortened link too, to help allay such fears.

Sad Professor

Melodeon wrote: »

Lots of people would be hesitant to follow tinyURL or similar anonymous links, as there's no way of knowing what they're pointing at.
It might be a good idea to post a little note explaining the use of the shortened link too, to help allay such fears.

Also, they aren't permanent. I come across so many broken short urls. Usually expired or because the service went bust.

They are a good short-term solution, but I would like to see urls excluded from the swear filter.

Dav

What Orion said - that and Google rankings too.

The tech doesn't allow us to exclude URLs from the filter, I'm not sure how big a job it'd be to do so, but it's edge case stuff, so the investment of time may not merit it. However, it's on the list, if we can do it easily, we will.

I don't like soccer, but you'd never see me try and ban that So "I don't like swear words" isn't an excuse you're going to see here.

Orion

Dav wrote: »

I don't like soccer, but you'd never see me try and ban that

How about changing all mentions of "soccer" to "round ball poncing" :pac:

Dav

Or "professional cheat ball."

Harry Palmr

bastard is okay of course as its a proper word so just 'bastard' a lot. Unless you are those dopes at The Weinstein Company

Cabaal

Celia Thankful Cheek wrote: »

I can't think of a single reason to keep the swear filter, tbh.

How about people making at least a little bit of effort to construct a sentence without resorting to swearing to get their point across? Not good enough?

osarusan

How does a poster manage to be exempt from the filter?

Here's an example. It's filtered when I quote it, but click on the link to the actual posts and you'll see it's not filtered there.

rubadub wrote: »

And you then wonder why you were called a ****.

rubadub wrote: »

The dogs copped on the white **** they were doing was not actually attractive to the opposite sex. They barked disapproval at their owners who were still spray painting it white.

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah, only 1 single doctor has ever said it... sweet ****ing jesus

****, ****, ****...nope, filtered here too.

Melodeon

That's odd!
Those posts employ the usual workaround for posting stuff the swear filter normally removes, and when I quote them (in the original thread) the workaround carries through and still works.
I've no idea why it's not working when you quote them.
I'm posting from the full desktop site though, are you using mobile/touch/beta by any chance? Perhaps they handle quoting content differently.

Melodeon

Here's that last one quoted complete:

rubadub wrote: »

Yeah, only 1 single doctor has ever said it... sweet fucking jesus

osarusan

Melodeon wrote: »

That's odd!
Those posts employ the usual workaround for posting stuff the swear filter normally removes

Do they? How?

Usually one letter is italicised or something like that, but I can't see anything out of the ordinary that looks like a workaround. Maybe I'm just not familiar with them though.

Melodeon wrote: »

I'm posting from the full desktop site though, are you using mobile/touch/beta by any chance? Perhaps they handle quoting content differently.

I'm on the full desktop site but still using the old VBulletin skin.

The Hill Billy

Folks - Let's keep this to feedback on the filter rather than finding ways to circumvent it.

Thanks,

tHB

Melodeon

Apologies

I too think the swear filter should remain, it's better for the site in a whole lot of ways to have it.

The unintended URL glitch thing is a bit of a nuisance now and again, but not the worst thing in the world either.
There are no shortage of URLs with flagged words in them that absolutely wouldn't be welcome here!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Cabaal wrote: »

How about people making at least a little bit of effort to construct a sentence without resorting to swearing to get their point across? Not good enough?

Nope, swearing is cool and fun.

Cabaal

Celia Thankful Cheek wrote: »

Nope, swearing is cool and fun.

and clever!...you forgot clever!
All the cool kids are doing it these days....that and smoking,

4zn76tysfajdxp

Cabaal wrote: »

and clever!...you forgot clever!
All the cool kids are doing it these days....that and smoking,

Check my first post.

Steve

Frada, me auld segoshia! this discussion has been ongoing since you and me were nippers on this site, you're here long enough to remember the scandal in the test forum where we all got around the filter and a certain admin couldn't! lol, happy days they were...

Back then, the boards server was still under DeVs setee and they didn't really care about such things as wimmin and children had not yet discovered the internet.. nowadays, however its much different, you cant cuss out loud, no parading in your underwear any more, you cant wear wimminz stockings (wait, what?) and no more taking the mick out of banned users on feedback...
Is it progress or regress? mmm can't tell.

Stay safe bro..

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

remember that time they banned oxygen? fun times in the science forums...

Dial Hard

Cabaal wrote:

How about people making at least a little bit of effort to construct a sentence without resorting to swearing to get their point across? Not good enough?

As an extremely articulate English grad, I can personally attest that there are times when only a good old swear will suffice. Particularly in Ranting & Raving.

Suggesting that it's down to laziness or inability to construct sentences is quite patronising, imo.

mynameis905

Orion wrote: »

Without the swear filter many corporate firewalls would block the site for profanity. That would reduce traffic to the site.

Mods/Admins - is this true? If so, maybe it might make sense to put up a sticky once and for all explaining that the swear filter is there to keep site traffic up.

Cabaal wrote: »

How about people making at least a little bit of effort to construct a sentence without resorting to swearing to get their point across? Not good enough?

You could make the same (poor) argument about lousy grammar and spelling, both of which are rife on the site.

Steve

mynameis905 wrote: »

Mods/Admins - is this true? If so, maybe it might make sense to put up a sticky once and for all explaining that the swear filter is there to keep site traffic up.

It would be as much use as BMW putting bulbs in the indicators of their cars. Nobody would notice.

Maybe there was a sticky, who knows, nobody seems to read them.

TherapyBoy

Steve wrote: »

Maybe there was a sticky, who knows, nobody seems to read them.

You're right! Maybe some sort of small flashing light would attract attention to them :pac:

DopeTech

I'd prefer to use words like fup off , backstard, grasshole and pedrophile.

K-9

Dial Hard wrote: »

As an extremely articulate English grad, I can personally attest that there are times when only a good old swear will suffice. Particularly in Ranting & Raving.

More effective that way.

Suggesting that it's down to laziness or inability to construct sentences is quite patronising, imo.

Zero effect if basically every single post includes swearing.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people should swear more.

K-9

Celia Thankful Cheek wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting that people should swear more.

That seems a very random reply to my post.

Dial Hard

K-9 wrote:

That seems a very random reply to my post.

Why?

You said that there was zero effect in profanity if every single post was a curse.

He's saying nobody necessarily wants to curse more than they already do. But that when they do, they should just be able to do it like actual adults.

Canadel

Dav wrote: »

I don't like soccer, but you'd never see me try and ban that So "I don't like swear words" isn't an excuse you're going to see here.

Soccer isn't banned. Swear words are. If discussion of soccer was as damaging to the business success of the site as swear words apparently are, would it make sense to ban soccer discussion? Would it be right?

Steve

Canadel wrote: »

Soccer isn't banned. Swear words are. If discussion of soccer was as damaging to the business success of the site as swear words apparently are, would it make sense to ban soccer discussion? Would it be right?

When you amass multiple forum bans / sitebans / infractions / previous accounts.. your feedback credibility wains somewhat.

At the risk of offending my superiors, piss off.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Steve wrote: »

When you amass multiple forum bans / sitebans / infractions / previous accounts.. your feedback credibility wains somewhat.

Why should it though? And this could apply to a few other threads in this forum. If a poster makes a valid point, what difference should it make who they are? Attack the post, and all that...

uck51js9zml2yt

If swearing is banned, why are workarounds allowed in the form of misspelled words and asterisks.
They don't add to the post and make it more difficult to read.

Its been mentioned that kids use this site, they're not stupid then know what the misspellings mean.
Would you really want your kids exposed to some of the garbage on this site?

I'm on an astronomy forum where such things are banned. Its a pleasure to read peoples posts.

Canadel

Steve wrote: »

When you amass multiple forum bans / sitebans / infractions / previous accounts.. your feedback credibility wains somewhat.

At the risk of offending my superiors, piss off.

And yet you've managed to lose credibility without any of those things.

Congratulations.