MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited June 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1631949:date=Jun 7 2007, 08:20 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Jun 7 2007, 08:20 AM) [snapback]1631949[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Perhaps we need a spell-check-censor.
Invitation.
I'm sorry, I just...I feel guilty for even typing this out but the Add Reply button calls me. IT CALLS ME. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1631757:date=Jun 6 2007, 07:41 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jun 6 2007, 07:41 AM) [snapback]1631757[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another alternative would be to prevent the post until it is free of swearwords. Who would prefer that alternative? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> FWIW: *raises hand*
I feel strongly that this should be the approach taken. If you lack the creativity to compose your way around words we don't care to see, I can do without your contribution to the conversation. We'll all suffer from it eventually when composing, but all but a few of us will manage, and the boards will be a "better" read as a result.
I feel strongly that this should be the approach taken. If you lack the creativity to compose your way around words we don't care to see, I can do without your contribution to the conversation. We'll all suffer from it eventually when composing, but all but a few of us will manage, and the boards will be a "better" read as a result. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"We". The people who care at all about swearing tend to be the majority. You're the minority. That said, I don't care at all either way about the swear filter, just censor the words and don't make me change my post, because being "creative" sometimes completely ruins the way you can word your post. Most people don't even take a notice to swear words.
<!--quoteo(post=1631977:date=Jun 7 2007, 01:55 AM:name=KungFuDiscoMonkey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Jun 7 2007, 01:55 AM) [snapback]1631977[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Just keep in mind that we're putting some faith in you to be able to handle yourselves maturely. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Particularly in my case, you sure that's wise? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Aw, I missed the revolution! And I had a movie quote all ready and everything! I guess I might as well post it anyway <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-Edgar Friendly+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Edgar Friendly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1631987:date=Jun 6 2007, 08:59 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jun 6 2007, 08:59 PM) [snapback]1631987[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I wouldn't. What's maturity if not a way to distinguish what is mature and therefore something you might want to do from what is immature and therefore something you might not want to do? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think maturity defined between things you want to do and don't want to do has a fundamental flaw (for example: plenty of adults eat a bunch of chocolate, because they want to). The idea is to express self control in areas where societal constraints tell you how to act and recognizing that the selfishness of childhood no longer applies. 'Mature' people give into the impulse to smoke, eat unhealthily, drink, shoot things recklessly, start fights, cheat on other people, gamble and a multitude of other things that show poor judgement and impulsive behavior. I think the idea that 'because someone can't refrain from entertaining an urge they are not mature' has flaws, in that every human, no matter how old, gives into impulses, and therefore it is a poor judge of maturity. The real judgement is how they conduct themselves while giving into those impulses.
And that would be the difference between writing a post filled with "######!" 200 times, or one that checks to see if poop is indeed an uncensored word - if you did happen to give in to your curiosity. To deny the inquisitive nature of man is to deny humanity <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay?[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He really should have stopped there. Until then, it was about doing what he wants, and he had a point. After that it became about being an ######.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1632151:date=Jun 7 2007, 10:39 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jun 7 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]1632151[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <!--QuoteBegin-Edgar Friendly+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Edgar Friendly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He really should have stopped there. Until then, it was about doing what he wants, and he had a point. After that it became about being an ######. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is worth noting that Edgar Friendly is a Fictional Character portrayed by Denis Leray in Demolition Man.
This is actualy a rewording of some of his stuff from his stand up act "No Cure For Cancer".
So take it with a grain of salt as it is basicly stand up material.
<!--quoteo(post=1632210:date=Jun 7 2007, 02:56 PM:name=Nil_IQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nil_IQ @ Jun 7 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]1632210[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Just me DrSuredeath, just me. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you justify blowing up a 32 millions dollar mall for a girl whos ransom was only 2 million?!
without a major change to the constitution, Arnold cannot become the US president.
ultima, you took that from a rather incomplete point of view. You say it's about how you conduct yourself through an impulse, but whether you allow yourself an impulse is a <i>part</i>, not all, of maturity. That's the other flaw in your reasoning, I never said it was a total and complete measure of maturity, only part. Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all.
<!--quoteo(post=1632266:date=Jun 7 2007, 06:54 PM:name=Gwahir)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwahir @ Jun 7 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]1632266[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> without a major change to the constitution, Arnold cannot become the US president.
ultima, you took that from a rather incomplete point of view. You say it's about how you conduct yourself through an impulse, but whether you allow yourself an impulse is a <i>part</i>, not all, of maturity. That's the other flaw in your reasoning, I never said it was a total and complete measure of maturity, only part. Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My initial point was that giving into curiosity in itself does not imply immaturity (your consideration of an 'oxymoronic statement'); I didn't meant to imply that conducting yourself during an impulse (or the avoidance of an impulse completely) is the only measure of maturity. In general that one long post above was directed at Tycho's view of maturity as 'want' and 'not want'.
The specific part to be addressed here is probably: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument was that giving into an impulse is always 'acceptable', it just matters how you express the impulse that defines maturity. That is: thirst for violence? Do you play chess, shoot up a convenience store or play Counter-Strike? (I'm not a psychologist, but I'd assume we have a 'maturity level' associated with all three of these activities based on the cognitive and logical expression involved in them) You could also argue that deciding when to exercise the impulse is also important, but I don't believe that's an adequate measure of maturity.
The point being that the desire to fulfill an impulse does not necessarily denote immaturity. If only a single outlet is possible for the urge, the choice of "what to do with the impulse" becomes binary (there's only one way to express the impulse); he's only going to know which swears are filtered by using them, there's no other way to independently satiate his curiosity (which, oxymoronically, would not be independent of others, but the only way he personally can have a direct impact on which words he knows are in the filter).
The other option, I suppose, would be to have patience - which is generally considered a virtue of maturity, but is simply the procrastination of impulse. In that way he'd be able to dependently obtain the information, but that too could be considered immature, because - like patience - independence is generally a trait also associated with maturity.
But perhaps we're taking the analysis of the legitimization of testing a swear filter too far, I'm not sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1632362:date=Jun 8 2007, 09:31 AM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Underwhelmed @ Jun 8 2007, 09:31 AM) [snapback]1632362[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Why exactly do we have a swearing filter again? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the community guidelines or rules or whatever say the community is to stick to PG13 material, yet the Half-Life game is of course 15+.
Aside from the use of humour that's old and worn out (even for a place like 4chan), the main thing that's been driving me away from the forums lately is the swearing filter. It's too unintelligent to be very effective in filtering, and I don't personally feel that it's necessary.
A great help would be making the filter optional for each user, so they can choose to have words filtered or not. This would cater to both those who prefer posts to be filtered and to those who feel that it's silly/unnecessary. The ability to temporarily disable filtering for a specific post would be helpful too, but I can see how that wouldn't be feasible.
I don't know if its possible to have an option to filter or not for each user. I imagine you'd have to store each post twice, once with the filter on and once with it off. That might get a bit cumbersome.
If having a swear filter makes you not want to post on the forums, I don't know what to say. I'd much rather have it on than read f bombs and such being dropped all over the place. It would also look very unprofessional for UWE.
We have giving the filter a fairly good cleaning, but a few words are still being looked at. Otherwise, what is the big deal? The wonder of language is that there is always more than one way to get a point across which means we don't need swearing to convey a message. You will not sound more intelligent if you drop F bombs throughout a post. People pay much more attention when you don't talk like an angsty 15 year old kid <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
TheAdjHe demanded a cool forum title of some type.Join Date: 2004-05-03Member: 28436Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1631703:date=Jun 6 2007, 03:29 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jun 6 2007, 03:29 AM) [snapback]1631703[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Having said that, I do agree that the current swear filter is too harsh. Those of you who think it is cencorship need to go back to listening to ratm <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a good laugh as this as I was listening to the Renegades album while browsing.
<!--quoteo(post=1632436:date=Jun 8 2007, 08:12 AM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ Jun 8 2007, 08:12 AM) [snapback]1632436[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't know if its possible to have an option to filter or not for each user. I imagine you'd have to store each post twice, once with the filter on and once with it off. That might get a bit cumbersome. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a forum set up where each person can choose whether or not they want to use the swear word filter. It's part of the base setup of forums from simplemachines.org. I imagine the implementation is that content is filtered when it's viewed instead of when it's stored in the database, though it could store two separate versions.
<!--quoteo(post=1632441:date=Jun 8 2007, 11:31 AM:name=im_lost)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(im_lost @ Jun 8 2007, 11:31 AM) [snapback]1632441[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I have a forum set up where each person can choose whether or not they want to use the swear word filter. It's part of the base setup of forums from simplemachines.org. I imagine the implementation is that content is filtered when it's viewed instead of when it's stored in the database, though it could store two separate versions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Some may find this an attractive option, but it's not available on IPB.
<!--quoteo(post=1632438:date=Jun 8 2007, 04:27 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Jun 8 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]1632438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> People pay much more attention when you don't talk like an angsty 15 year old kid <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1632436:date=Jun 8 2007, 11:12 AM:name=KainTSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KainTSA @ Jun 8 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]1632436[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't know if its possible to have an option to filter or not for each user. I imagine you'd have to store each post twice, once with the filter on and once with it off. That might get a bit cumbersome.
If having a swear filter makes you not want to post on the forums, I don't know what to say. I'd much rather have it on than read f bombs and such being dropped all over the place. It would also look very unprofessional for UWE. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It could be done fairly easily through javascript. Just store the unfiltered post in the DB and, when the page loads, use javascript to filter anything if the user has filters on.
The filter could be on by default. I just want the option of turning it off, rather than have to read a mangled message that is actually sometimes completely unintelligible.
<!--quoteo(post=1632438:date=Jun 8 2007, 11:27 AM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Jun 8 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]1632438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> We have giving the filter a fairly good cleaning, but a few words are still being looked at. Otherwise, what is the big deal? The wonder of language is that there is always more than one way to get a point across which means we don't need swearing to convey a message. You will not sound more intelligent if you drop F bombs throughout a post. People pay much more attention when you don't talk like an angsty 15 year old kid <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there's more than one way to get your point across, but I'd rather not have certain ways of expressing myself closed off. Overuse of swear words <b>does</b> make you sound like an idiot, but sometimes careful use of them gets your point across better than any non-swear word can.
The filter doesn't actually stop people from sounding retarded anyway. If they're determined to swear, they're just going to let themselves be filtered, and a lot of the time you can tell what they were saying regardless.
I'll make it very simple CForrester to save you the effort: there will be no option to turn it off. How do we decide who? Why do some people have to follow rules while others don't? Keep in mind these are rhetorical questions that don't need to be answered <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> The final answer is a resounding no.
And yes I know the filter can be easily avoided, but this provides clear and cut lines now. If we allow people to swear, where do we draw the line? Now if people swear and go around the filter, it's an obvious offense that the person deliberately did. No questions asked and removes most of the gray area.
TBH this is a mod for a mature rated game, I doubt parents care about a bit of cussing when they just bought their child a violent video game with cursing in it. Let alone they actually PLAY this mod, which there is tons of profanity found on most servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1632469:date=Jun 8 2007, 01:23 PM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Jun 8 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]1632469[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'll make it very simple CForrester to save you the effort: there will be no option to turn it off. How do we decide who? Why do some people have to follow rules while others don't? Keep in mind these are rhetorical questions that don't need to be answered <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> The final answer is a resounding no.
And yes I know the filter can be easily avoided, but this provides clear and cut lines now. If we allow people to swear, where do we draw the line? Now if people swear and go around the filter, it's an obvious offense that the person deliberately did. No questions asked and removes most of the gray area. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I understand that any argument I can make won't do anything. I'm just trying to make sense of the logic used here.
I don't mean turn off the filter for specific users, if that's what you're saying. I mean allow any user to see the unmolested posts with a control panel option, if they wish. My point would be a change in the rules: Swearing would be allowed, but individual users can choose whether or not they want to see it.
Now, I don't actually know how many people (if any) agree with me, but I don't see how it could be a bad thing to allow the community to work for its userbase. Within reason, of course. If a large amount of people actually do want the option to see/use swearing, then is there really any harm in letting them do so while the people who don't want to still get to have the filter?
For example, say the word "foobar" is filtered to "######". User 1 has filtering turned off. They see "foobar" in the post normally. User 2 has filtering turned on. They see "######". This pleases people on both sides.
Comments
Perhaps we need a spell-check-censor.
Invitation.
I'm sorry, I just...I feel guilty for even typing this out but the Add Reply button calls me. IT CALLS ME.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I blame Comprox entirely.
<!--quoteo(post=1631950:date=Jun 7 2007, 08:21 AM:name=Faskalia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Faskalia @ Jun 7 2007, 08:21 AM) [snapback]1631950[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
sal######er ?
edit: <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrm..
*investigates*
[EDIT] saltwater
[EDIT2] <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FWIW: *raises hand*
I feel strongly that this should be the approach taken. If you lack the creativity to compose your way around words we don't care to see, I can do without your contribution to the conversation. We'll all suffer from it eventually when composing, but all but a few of us will manage, and the boards will be a "better" read as a result.
FWIW: *raises hand*
I feel strongly that this should be the approach taken. If you lack the creativity to compose your way around words we don't care to see, I can do without your contribution to the conversation. We'll all suffer from it eventually when composing, but all but a few of us will manage, and the boards will be a "better" read as a result.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"We". The people who care at all about swearing tend to be the majority. You're the minority. That said, I don't care at all either way about the swear filter, just censor the words and don't make me change my post, because being "creative" sometimes completely ruins the way you can word your post. Most people don't even take a notice to swear words.
Just keep in mind that we're putting some faith in you to be able to handle yourselves maturely.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Particularly in my case, you sure that's wise? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Aw, I missed the revolution! And I had a movie quote all ready and everything! I guess I might as well post it anyway <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteBegin-Edgar Friendly+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Edgar Friendly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just like that quote, ok?
I wouldn't. What's maturity if not a way to distinguish what is mature and therefore something you might want to do from what is immature and therefore something you might not want to do?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think maturity defined between things you want to do and don't want to do has a fundamental flaw (for example: plenty of adults eat a bunch of chocolate, because they want to). The idea is to express self control in areas where societal constraints tell you how to act and recognizing that the selfishness of childhood no longer applies. 'Mature' people give into the impulse to smoke, eat unhealthily, drink, shoot things recklessly, start fights, cheat on other people, gamble and a multitude of other things that show poor judgement and impulsive behavior. I think the idea that 'because someone can't refrain from entertaining an urge they are not mature' has flaws, in that every human, no matter how old, gives into impulses, and therefore it is a poor judge of maturity. The real judgement is how they conduct themselves while giving into those impulses.
And that would be the difference between writing a post filled with "######!" 200 times, or one that checks to see if poop is indeed an uncensored word - if you did happen to give in to your curiosity. To deny the inquisitive nature of man is to deny humanity <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> .
He really should have stopped there. Until then, it was about doing what he wants, and he had a point. After that it became about being an ######.
<!--QuoteBegin-Edgar Friendly+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Edgar Friendly)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He really should have stopped there. Until then, it was about doing what he wants, and he had a point. After that it became about being an ######.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is worth noting that Edgar Friendly is a Fictional Character portrayed by Denis Leray in Demolition Man.
This is actualy a rewording of some of his stuff from his stand up act "No Cure For Cancer".
So take it with a grain of salt as it is basicly stand up material.
T-T
wtf, you people actually quote Demotion Man.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just me DrSuredeath, just me.
Just me DrSuredeath, just me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you justify blowing up a 32 millions dollar mall for a girl whos ransom was only 2 million?!
ultima, you took that from a rather incomplete point of view. You say it's about how you conduct yourself through an impulse, but whether you allow yourself an impulse is a <i>part</i>, not all, of maturity. That's the other flaw in your reasoning, I never said it was a total and complete measure of maturity, only part. Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all.
without a major change to the constitution, Arnold cannot become the US president.
ultima, you took that from a rather incomplete point of view. You say it's about how you conduct yourself through an impulse, but whether you allow yourself an impulse is a <i>part</i>, not all, of maturity. That's the other flaw in your reasoning, I never said it was a total and complete measure of maturity, only part. Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My initial point was that giving into curiosity in itself does not imply immaturity (your consideration of an 'oxymoronic statement'); I didn't meant to imply that conducting yourself during an impulse (or the avoidance of an impulse completely) is the only measure of maturity. In general that one long post above was directed at Tycho's view of maturity as 'want' and 'not want'.
The specific part to be addressed here is probably:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, people give in to impulses, and some impulses are acceptable while others are not. The ability to decide when to allow the impulse and when not to is my argument, not whether you give in to impulses at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument was that giving into an impulse is always 'acceptable', it just matters how you express the impulse that defines maturity. That is: thirst for violence? Do you play chess, shoot up a convenience store or play Counter-Strike? (I'm not a psychologist, but I'd assume we have a 'maturity level' associated with all three of these activities based on the cognitive and logical expression involved in them) You could also argue that deciding when to exercise the impulse is also important, but I don't believe that's an adequate measure of maturity.
The point being that the desire to fulfill an impulse does not necessarily denote immaturity. If only a single outlet is possible for the urge, the choice of "what to do with the impulse" becomes binary (there's only one way to express the impulse); he's only going to know which swears are filtered by using them, there's no other way to independently satiate his curiosity (which, oxymoronically, would not be independent of others, but the only way he personally can have a direct impact on which words he knows are in the filter).
The other option, I suppose, would be to have patience - which is generally considered a virtue of maturity, but is simply the procrastination of impulse. In that way he'd be able to dependently obtain the information, but that too could be considered immature, because - like patience - independence is generally a trait also associated with maturity.
But perhaps we're taking the analysis of the legitimization of testing a swear filter too far, I'm not sure.
Why exactly do we have a swearing filter again?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the community guidelines or rules or whatever say the community is to stick to PG13 material, yet the Half-Life game is of course 15+.
A great help would be making the filter optional for each user, so they can choose to have words filtered or not. This would cater to both those who prefer posts to be filtered and to those who feel that it's silly/unnecessary. The ability to temporarily disable filtering for a specific post would be helpful too, but I can see how that wouldn't be feasible.
If having a swear filter makes you not want to post on the forums, I don't know what to say. I'd much rather have it on than read f bombs and such being dropped all over the place. It would also look very unprofessional for UWE.
Having said that, I do agree that the current swear filter is too harsh. Those of you who think it is cencorship need to go back to listening to ratm <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had a good laugh as this as I was listening to the Renegades album while browsing.
I don't know if its possible to have an option to filter or not for each user. I imagine you'd have to store each post twice, once with the filter on and once with it off. That might get a bit cumbersome.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a forum set up where each person can choose whether or not they want to use the swear word filter. It's part of the base setup of forums from simplemachines.org. I imagine the implementation is that content is filtered when it's viewed instead of when it's stored in the database, though it could store two separate versions.
I have a forum set up where each person can choose whether or not they want to use the swear word filter. It's part of the base setup of forums from simplemachines.org. I imagine the implementation is that content is filtered when it's viewed instead of when it's stored in the database, though it could store two separate versions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some may find this an attractive option, but it's not available on IPB.
People pay much more attention when you don't talk like an angsty 15 year old kid <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
|/\| 4 T 3 \/ 3 R
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I don't know if its possible to have an option to filter or not for each user. I imagine you'd have to store each post twice, once with the filter on and once with it off. That might get a bit cumbersome.
If having a swear filter makes you not want to post on the forums, I don't know what to say. I'd much rather have it on than read f bombs and such being dropped all over the place. It would also look very unprofessional for UWE.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It could be done fairly easily through javascript. Just store the unfiltered post in the DB and, when the page loads, use javascript to filter anything if the user has filters on.
The filter could be on by default. I just want the option of turning it off, rather than have to read a mangled message that is actually sometimes completely unintelligible.
<!--quoteo(post=1632438:date=Jun 8 2007, 11:27 AM:name=Comprox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Comprox @ Jun 8 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]1632438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
We have giving the filter a fairly good cleaning, but a few words are still being looked at. Otherwise, what is the big deal? The wonder of language is that there is always more than one way to get a point across which means we don't need swearing to convey a message. You will not sound more intelligent if you drop F bombs throughout a post. People pay much more attention when you don't talk like an angsty 15 year old kid <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, there's more than one way to get your point across, but I'd rather not have certain ways of expressing myself closed off. Overuse of swear words <b>does</b> make you sound like an idiot, but sometimes careful use of them gets your point across better than any non-swear word can.
The filter doesn't actually stop people from sounding retarded anyway. If they're determined to swear, they're just going to let themselves be filtered, and a lot of the time you can tell what they were saying regardless.
And yes I know the filter can be easily avoided, but this provides clear and cut lines now. If we allow people to swear, where do we draw the line? Now if people swear and go around the filter, it's an obvious offense that the person deliberately did. No questions asked and removes most of the gray area.
I'll make it very simple CForrester to save you the effort: there will be no option to turn it off. How do we decide who? Why do some people have to follow rules while others don't? Keep in mind these are rhetorical questions that don't need to be answered <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> The final answer is a resounding no.
And yes I know the filter can be easily avoided, but this provides clear and cut lines now. If we allow people to swear, where do we draw the line? Now if people swear and go around the filter, it's an obvious offense that the person deliberately did. No questions asked and removes most of the gray area.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I understand that any argument I can make won't do anything. I'm just trying to make sense of the logic used here.
I don't mean turn off the filter for specific users, if that's what you're saying. I mean allow any user to see the unmolested posts with a control panel option, if they wish. My point would be a change in the rules: Swearing would be allowed, but individual users can choose whether or not they want to see it.
Now, I don't actually know how many people (if any) agree with me, but I don't see how it could be a bad thing to allow the community to work for its userbase. Within reason, of course. If a large amount of people actually do want the option to see/use swearing, then is there really any harm in letting them do so while the people who don't want to still get to have the filter?
For example, say the word "foobar" is filtered to "######". User 1 has filtering turned off. They see "foobar" in the post normally. User 2 has filtering turned on. They see "######". This pleases people on both sides.