Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

So when is a swear word a swear word ?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,631 ✭✭✭✭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.

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



  • #33
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • #34
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,707 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • #36
    Harry Angstrom
    Registered Users Posts: 19,351 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Skid X
    Registered Users Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • #38
    wnolan1992
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,009 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement