Auto-censor in content forums

[Cold Storm]

If someone is going after someone else, I think that the mods better deal with that, that really isn't acceptable practice on any forum...

True, but even so, this is a way to better the site... This is the start of the thing. For all we know, they will go with what people say and make it a button via UCP..

If they didn't care for what we thought about, this subject wouldn't even of been up.. Bta would of had a thread saying:

From now on, we have a "Auto-censor" plug-in that is going to censor everyone's word play..

 

[MoonPig]

Personally, i think it should be used on the "shown" sections. But on the actual forum? No. There's no point. You'd be driving people away over it.

If people wont stay because theres swearing used, whats stopping people leaving because it's blocked?

Maybe the option in CP, why not. It's not hard to turn off, but i know that i'll be turning it off straight away and so will 99% of the users.

 

[Binge]

If someone is going after someone else, I think that the mods better deal with that, that really isn't acceptable practice on any forum...

You realize you're advocating censorship now?

 

[Polaris573]

If someone is going after someone else, I think that the mods better deal with that, that really isn't acceptable practice on any forum...

Personal attacks on other members are not allowed regardless of the words used. That has always been the case and will never change.

That being said, this thread isn't for discussion of that topic. It is about whether curse words should be permitted in the news and reviews sub-forum. Please stay on topic everyone.

Thank you.

 

[lemonadesoda]

That sounds much more complicated than just ticking a box to turn it off or on, no?

Not at all. By giving each person a "live" option as you suggest to turn it on or off... means... the server would have to scan the same post hundreds or thousands of times... each time anyone read a thread depending on their at-the-time option and the current word blacklist. That would bring the server to its knees.

Alternatively, the server would need to have two versions of the forum, a clean and a dirty, and switch between the two. Seems a bit silly to double up the data like that... but probably the only practicable way.

*edit* What I wrote there was utter ********

**edit again** Toggle that back on!

Not at all. By giving each person a "live" option as you suggest to turn it on or off... means... the server/parser would have to scan each word of every post against the list of black-listed words. That list could be hundreds or thousands of words long. And every time any user read the thread, the server/parser would be repeating the process. That would be an enormous overhead with a lot of duplication that could bring the server to its knees.

Alternatively, the server would need to have two versions of the forum, a clean and a dirty, and switch between the two. Seems a bit silly to double up the data like that... but probably the only practicable way.

 

[Kreij]

No the server doesn't have to "scan" the post. Everytime that a user clicks on a thread the server would just run the textual content through a filter and replace the offending words with whatever is chosen to display if the filter is turned on. The server already has to parse for BBCode, so it's just one more thing to check for.

I think that instead of stars the words should be replaced with !@#$%.
Because that is just way more bad!@# then dumb*** stars.

Seriously, I think it's a good idea. While I've never minded the mild swearing on TPU, it should be kept as professional as possible when needed.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[imperialreign]

I think it's an absolute awesome idea.

Granted, the vast majority of regular users here are very mature in their discussions, and very few "swear" words actually crop up . . . it still occasionally happens. I mean, all things considered, I'm surprised (considering some of our more heated topics) it's never been a problem before.

So, +1 for the additional censorship. I'm sure some users will go ahead and interpret the feature to be yet another nazi-istic board implimentation, but the ones that would go to such lengths to complain are more than likely those that can't keep their arguements civil in the first place . . . or show any amount of self control.

Now . . . if y'all's could come up with a way of "censoring" flaming posts, that'd be truly awesome!

 

[Kreij]

What's the next step, installing software that censors ideas or words that they don't want us to hear?

No ... we have the Hit Squad for that.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Ah, OK, got it. So on original post entry, the post is scanned by the "AI" and identified words are marked automatically and masked e.g. [censor]bullshark[/censor]. Then the user toggle either shows ***** or the real text. Gotya.

 

[imperialreign]

No ... we have the Hit Squad for that.

I thought y'all just enforced the "unwritten" rules and regulations? Kinda like the gestapo?

 

[Kreij]

Ah, OK, got it. So on original post entry, the post is scanned by the "AI" and identified words are marked automatically and masked e.g. [censor]bullshark[/censor]. Then the user toggle either shows ***** or the real text. Gotya.

Not exactly. The post is not modified upon entry. It's parsed when it's sent to the client (browser) after checking for the "censor" flag in the users account. It's similar to anything else you can turn off or on in your profile (like avatars, etc.).

@IR : No, the Hit Squad does not enforce anything. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[lemonadesoda]

As a side question - does vB allow mods to create "invisible" posts in a thread. That is, you can add/insert a post that is only readable by other mods or admins. Like a markup tool. (Note this is different from being able to view edits and deletes).

 

[phanbuey]

I think they should be permitted... frankly i think everyone with kids who get on the internet should, if they haven't done so already, wake up and smell the pungent odor of reality (that their kid has seen porn AND all those bad words, and they probably know them and think they're cool).

Other than kids, there is no real reason to censor these words. I just don't think that adults who are SO sensitive, that the word 'fuck' makes them want to cry, are worth the time and the energy of the programmer or that of the users who have to accommodate their fragile emotions.

Plus, it really isnt a problem on TPU... is it?

 

[lemonadesoda]

Not exactly. The post is not modified upon entry. It's parsed when it's sent to the client (browser) after checking for the "censor" flag in the users account. It's similar to anything else you can turn off or on in your profile (like avatars, etc.).

Oh, in that case, I think my original point stands. With other parser "options" you either show or dont show. In this instance you need to check each and every word against a database of blacklisted words, possibly a list hundreds if not thousands of words longs. You will very significantly increase the work of the parser. And this "scan" is repeated again and again for each person reading the same thread. There is therefore a lot of process duplication. Terrible design.

No, you need to implement it my way, or you will add a monstrous overhead to the server, and fail class for repetative duplicative database searches.

 

[phanbuey]

I solaris' post still up about hit squad... had a dream about TPU the other day too

 

[Kreij]

As a side question - does vB allow mods to create "invisible" posts in a thread. That is, you can add/insert a post that is only readable by other mods or admins. Like a markup tool. (Note this is different from being able to view edits and deletes).

Not that I know of, Lemon.

Other than kids, there is no real reason to censor these words. I just don't think that adults who are SO sensitive, that the word 'fuck' makes them want to cry, are worth the time and the energy of the programmer or that of the users who have to accommodate their fragile emotions.

While I respect your opinion, not everyone would agree with you. I swear very little in personal conversations and try to keep it to a minimal when writing. The reason is not that I am "SO sensitive", it's that my personal opinion is that adding a swear word as an adjective simply shows a lack of ability to express what you really want to say without it.

For instance, saying "That's fucking cool", does not add anything to the comment other than the fact you know a swear word. You would be better served by expressing the reason you feel it's cool.

Again, just my 2 cents, and I am not picking on you personally Phan.

 

[imperialreign]

I think they should be permitted... frankly i think everyone with kids who get on the internet should, if they haven't done so already, wake up and smell the pungent odor of reality (that their kid has seen porn AND all those bad words, and they probably know them and think they're cool).

Other than kids, there is no real reason to censor these words. I just don't think that adults who are SO sensitive, that the word 'fuck' makes them want to cry, are worth the time and the energy of the programmer or that of the users who have to accommodate their fragile emotions.

Plus, it really isnt a problem on TPU... is it?

I would tend to agree . . . except that, IMHO, TPU upholds a much higher level of overall user quality than other sites do.

At least, my impression is a very professional, work-friendly site, where one can browse around without running head-first into "NSFW" issues.

 

[phanbuey]

Not that I know of, Lemon.



While I respect your opinion, not everyone would agree with you. I swear very little in personal conversations and try to keep it to a minimal when writing. The reason is not that I am "SO sensitive", it's that my personal opinion is that adding a swear word as an adjective simply shows a lack of ability to express what you really want to say without it.

For instance, saying "That's fucking cool", does not add anything to the comment other than the fact you know a swear word. You would be better served by expressing the reason you feel it's cool.

Again, just my 2 cents, and I am not picking on you personally Phan.

No offense at all, I totally understand. I don't swear very much myself. And I agree, that this type of usage shows a massive lack of maturity.

That being said, what is putting ***** instead of the word gonna do? Its not like you don't know what the person said, and youll probably still read it as "That's <expletive> cool". And fill in the expletive as you go.

IF a censorship option was available, I think it should be set at the account level... like when they ask you if you want to get emails and such... that way you wouldnt have to click every post to see the naughty goodness. - Thus I would agree with Lemon's version of it.

 

[Cold Storm]

To me, I see that it's more of making TPU a Mainstream website then anything.. Making it shown that the censorship is there..

Then, if you become a member, you'll be able to change it. Along with all the options that TPU gives you to make the forums view the way that you want it to be viewed as.


Me personally, I feel this site is one of the best sites around for "main stream" help.. We have a people of all walks of life that know a thing or two about "this & that".. Not about just "one thing"..


So, if we had a censorship up for our "guests" we could probably generate even more flow onto TPU. Who knows, Even sponsorship via W1z taking on the actions of this nature..

Or, at lease that's how I look at it.

 

[Kreij]

I think that the parsing out of swear words has its place, but at the same time I still can't help but feel that the introduction of stars (or whatever) is pretty lame.

It would be better, in my opinion, to replace the offending words with less offensive words. It would not be perfect, but it would help, and could be quite humorous too. I think it would imply that we know some people will swear and we are just offering up an alternative.

OP : "That console is a piece of shit"
DISPLAYED WITH FILTER : "That console is a piece of fermenting llama excrement"

You get the idea.

 

[Triprift]

Personally myself if you have swearing filtered out in the contents threads then you might as well do it for the entire forum. Either you have a filter for all or none it would just be confusing and would tell ppl if you must swear swear in these type of threads. Have swearing just for GN only.

 

[Polaris573]

Poll added, so please vote. The more votes the more helpful the poll is.

There is purposely no "maybe" option so don't ask for one. People voting "maybe" doesn't help us in coming to a decision, so if you're on the fence just don't vote. Sorry.

 

[MK4512]

I think that the parsing out of swear words has its place, but at the same time I still can't help but feel that the introduction of stars (or whatever) is pretty lame.

It would be better, in my opinion, to replace the offending words with less offensive words. It would not be perfect, but it would help, and could be quite humorous too. I think it would imply that we know some people will swear and we are just offering up an alternative.

OP : "That console is a piece of shit"
DISPLAYED WITH FILTER : "That console is a piece of fermenting llama excrement"

You get the idea.

While fun at the start, it gets rather annoying after awhile (see Team Fortress 2 Forums), and I personally think it makes the website less "professional" which seems to be one of the goals.

 

[Kreij]

Yeah, you're probably right MK.

 

[lemonadesoda]

Newmember: "I think it's a fucking shit idea that only a douche ass would fucking screw up"

Oldmember: "Hey, that type of language isnt appreciated at TPU"

Newmember: "WTF oldtimer, turn on your foul filter if you dont like the way i is talkin"

Oldmember reports. Nothing gained. Plenty lost.

*********

Newmember: "I think it's a fuuucckkkin sh111t idea that only a dooche asss would fukin screw up"

Oldmember reports many new spellings for blacklist.

*********

Newmember: "wassup with youre awsome atitude?"

Oldmember reports need to implement grammarnazi and spellnazi 2.0

*********

No, I think the earlier suggestion is good: A post or quick post is parsed. If it passes, it goes up. If it doesnt, the preview window is shown and the offending words are underlyined in red and the question "are you sure you want to post" checkbox is shown, just like "this thread is dead man, are you sure you want to wake it?".

PLUS, posts could contain a caution flag only visible to mods. It means bad language could be "spotted" quickly and easily and appropriate action taken