EM Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 As already discussed some time ago on the Are we allowed to swear? thread I am not a fan of the Shetlink swear filter. I have noted that nowadays some of those arguing in that thread against swearing on Shetlink, as well as some Mods too, also circumvent the filter with "*"s etc. I also note that many simply don't bother to circumvent the filter with the result that post after post recently have been full of monkey, sausage, pootle etc. Whether people are in favour or not of swearing I think that the swear filter as currently configured is rubbish. Can we please either get rid of it or at least change it to make it clear that words have been modified. For example, wouldn't the former be better than the latter: I don't give a about... I don't give a turd about... Such a change would require a trivial edit to the phpBB template file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppet Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'd either leave it just as it is, or substitute the 'monkey, pootle, sausage' etc for something even more ridiculous. Shetlink is read by a large number of people of all ages. I can't see why anyone would find it neccesary to constantly swear on such a public forum. I'm not saying that there are never occasions where a swear word might not be appropriate, but certainly not in the quantities they seem to get used here. Using the current set up with the swear filter to me is a fairly light hearted approach, and the dafter it makes the poster look the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daegerty Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'd either leave it just as it is, or substitute the 'monkey, pootle, sausage' etc for something even more ridiculous. I'd agree with this. They need to be changed every year or so for entertainment value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter-amy Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 When I feel the need to swear I just go ahead and type 'monkey' myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'd either leave it just as it is, or substitute the 'monkey, pootle, sausage' etc for something even more ridiculous. I'd vote for the more ridiculous too. Unfortunately the use of "monkey" by the filter sometimes leads to confusion for me when I'm reading posts...."Monkey's" is a favourite of mine to use (as in, don't give a....), so that when I come across "monkey" on here I end up having to stop and do a double take to check whether it was put there by the filter, or if indeed it was purposely put by the poster to convey the "don't care" meaning. Take a tip from Blackadder.....make the filter substitute any and all unacceptable words with the word "wubble". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeriebryan Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 There's a wide range of people and age-groups who use, or at least view, the forums and we (the moderators) feel that the swear filters are a practical necessity. If certain users could keep things to a reasonable 'conversational' level, then we may have reconsidered. However, it's clear that that isn't the case, and the moderators don't have the time to deal with all the instances of needless expletives. So the swear filters will be staying unless a very compelling case is made! However, EMs suggestion in the original post seems like a sensible idea, so we'll see how the poll goes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 However, EMs suggestion in the original post seems like a sensible idea,...Thank you. ... so we'll see how the poll goes....I am frankly amazed that anyone could find the existing replacements even mildly amusing, but given that amusement is good, I suppose it should be encouraged. How about a compromise which will improve things for everyone. Keep replacing the swearing with silly words, but change the colour to red. At the same time use a rand() to choose the word from a new list of replacements. I would suggest that there could surely be no better source of amusing sanitized curses than Captain Haddock: http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/lists/curses.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'm certainly a big supporter of the silly words option. It lends a certain character and maturity to the forum, sadly missing from many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 We researched 18th century curses to put in initially, there may be one or two still there. I think the one that goes against the grain is monkey, so it's due for a change. Otherwise, I like it, and it does have a notably beneficial effect on the forum content. There is only perhaps one or two users who consistently posts swear words and don't seem to ever realise that they are being replaced with nonsense. Without the filter, this would almost certainly not be the case. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Even with the replacements, it is still an easy job to work out what the word would be. As the BBC has been quoted, they bleep out words and they do use them on radio and in print, but more in factual reporting and artistic/literary programming. One other thing, how many insults are required for a person to be removed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 One other thing, how many insults are required for a person to be removed? Round about that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Keep replacing the swearing with silly words, but change the colour to red. At the same time use a rand() to choose the word from a new list of replacements. I would suggest that there could surely be no better source of amusing sanitized curses than Captain Haddock: http://www.tintinologist.org/guides/lists/curses.htmlWin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Yeah, I thought so too. When I/we get a mo we'll have a tweak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khitajrah Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted May 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 If it ain't on the BBC website, it ain't needed here.I must presume that you don't spend much time on the BBC site then, as it is in fact brimming with examples. Have a search and be amazed. Here are just a few to give you an idea of the kind of context in which swearing turns up there: sh*t: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/intro_independence2.shtml b*gger: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/wales/4465963.stm f*ck: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/learning/getwritingni/sp_pm_mum.shtml I really could go on and on as there are very many examples, but I think you get the point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.