For those SB members unaware of the change, our esteemed webmaster has just recently instituted a language policy that restricts words he evidently finds offensive regarding posts and comments. The thread where it was discovered:
http://swampbubbles.com/20090616/carty-youtube#comment-43259
Let opinions and comments be addressed here:
shitshitshitshit Ha! I beat it! LOL, 8-)
keep it up tm and you could lose your bubbles.
And if any one goes to the Sci Fi Channel method of using the word Fracking, you'll loose double the bubbles.
Now, wait a minute--you are letting a computer program determine whether or not something is offensive?
Let's compare, shall we:
fat+++
to just about anything John Law, Phakit Man wrote here, most of which would pass by this computer sensor, which I'd argue, was much more offensive, no to mention, gratuitous.
mann could not control himself. He still has over 100 days in the penalty box. But this could drive him nuts.
How the frack would you know, Billy?
I'll repeat my earlier opinion about this latest restriction: This is not the best idea you've ever had for SwampBubbles, Chris. Computer moderated language restrictions never work as intended and won't change behavior.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
This reminds me of the South Park "Mr Hankey" episode where they tested to see which words are offensive.
Chair was not offensive but these were: Christ, Camel, and StupidWopDaego
MikeyA
I disagree. It's CM's sight, so it's his rules. It might chill discourse somewhat. Some posters here might be rendered mute, no longer being able to express themselves in expletives. There is a sight called "DavesGarden" where this type of language censorship works extrememly well. Granted, "DavesGarden" is not a site where emotionally charged political topics are discussed, however the thread about the Hosta of the Year selection was extremely heated.
is the thought-process that went into including this ridiculous procedure with the recent system changes/'upgrade'.
Grown adults are not allowed to include certain words with their comments, but in the Carty-with-the-kids-at-the-park-video, posted by Chris Myers himself, the words 'sh*t and 'fata##' can clearly be heard.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, it's simply beyond comprehension.
Give me a common four letter word beginning with the letter 'D' which means:
1. an embankment for controlling or holding back the waters of the sea or a river: They built a temporary [????] of sandbags to keep the river from flooding the town.
2. a ditch.
3. a bank of earth formed of material being excavated.
4. a causeway.
5. British Dialect. a low wall or fence, esp. of earth or stone, for dividing or enclosing land.
6. an obstacle; barrier.
Of course, this word triggered the new thought police function, so when I referred to 'water coming out of the ----' I was treated to the pretty red box with the nasty words warning.
This really is not working well, Chris.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
that common four letter word, when used to define all that you listed above, is actually a three letter word: dam.
As to whether or not it's banned from here, I won't know until I try to post, eh? :)
Let's test Chris' tech savvy:
fück shït äss pïss cöck cünt
ROFL!
P.S. plz dont ban me lol kthkbye
that's very f
ucking good, GZ...your tone sounds very familiar and your going after a particular poster is quite peculiar. I am watching your posts.
Yeah, you keep hopin' I won't frakkin' show up anymore, GW. You and Mr Disappointment are apt to become good friends.
I can't get over the "BrainZero" thing, either. I mean, it's too clever, by half. Do you write children's books? It reminds me of reading about the new kid coming to a school, encountering the school bully, and after a lot of insults, they become friends. Except in our situation, we won't be.
BTW, the word "frack" is the old term. The new series blows that out of the water: http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Frak
So get it frakking right, guys!
yes, 'cr
ap' is indeed a naughty, naughty word on here (evidently deemed profanity!) but, in keeping with the 'logical' progression of this entire matter, 'bullshit' gets past the morals police filter unscathed. In case you ever need to use it...have been on this site since day one. That was one of the things I said I always held the right to edit and I discouraged. I am now able to make it a bit more automated, and if you have to work a bit more at it, then maybe it will discourage those from using it. And if you do need it like McCaskey said, you seem well enough able to get the point across. Other than quoting others, I don't believe that I have found a reason to use swear words in any of my posts or comments, so it is not an impossible task. So there is no surprise, I just was not able to keep up with it over the last year. But I am watching what others have to say. I did receive some e-mails saying there was too much swearing going on on this site, so not everyone disagrees with the filters.
BTW I have only used the get your own site argument once, and that was after someone kept harping on a point. I don't use that.
words and I am sure some would be useful.
Dam and Ass have been added to the whitelist. If you have other recommendations, feel free to add them here or e-mail them to me using the form above.
There is no better word in the parlance of our times that more accurately describes most Toledo politicians and I'll be damned if I'm going to resort to an inferior choice of descriptor.
There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at
was added, although I don't want to go any further than this word.
Ah... never mind my earlier comment. :) Sorry, MadJack!
When someone uses the 'f' word, I think of someone having sex, and I wonder why they are talking about sex in their unrelated discourse. Or when someone says s+++, why are they talking about this in an unrelated message? Maybe I am a literal thinker, but these words do have a meaning and a purpose.
Thanks to webmaster for clarifying our posts. These words just muddy up the message
Profanity is the strongest expression of a weak mind.
Now this site has turned into Little House On The Prairie.
'Coarse words'? Wow, I'm in my fifties and I do believe the last time I heard that one was from my grandpappy back in the black-and-white TV era. I believe Ozzie and Harriet was on at the time.
I'd still like to know why a video was posted that contained language contributers to this site are no longer supposed to use?
I can't edit YouTube videos yet nor can people read YouTube videos. Of course you are ignoring that I just said which was from day one this site was created, swearing was not allowed. You seem to be quite familiar with the original and posting requirements since you have highlighted them before, how about look them up again and see the swearing part. Look at the words when you create a new story right above the title. Those have been there.
as part of your site in written form from contributors but 'swearing' is apparently allowed to be included in video form from the same contributors, including yourself.
Have I followed your pretzel logic correctly?
and oranges.
It has always been a policy.
I will make exceptions for words if it is requested.
No one has made an effective argument yet on why it should not be here.
No one has made an effective argument yet on why it should not be here.
The old fall-back argument I've seen on here before--it's my blankie and I'm gonna do what i want, regardless of logic.
It's typical of your 'style'---it's 'always been policy' not to use swear words, but for whatever reason you just decide now to enforce it for others, even as you post a video that contains swear words.
Holy cow.
you are humored. I am sure we are all humored at your surprise that something that has been a policy from the beginning is only a surprise to you now.
I am also humored at your lack of reasoning on why this is bad.
I guess we are all having fun tonight.
I am sure
we are allhumored at your surpriseSeen this act before as well.
Once again, you're lost and virtually alone on your own island here but still playing the part as though 'all' the others have got your back. It's a role you like to play.
If nothing else, you're an interesting study.
I have counted at least 2 posters on this thread that say it is a good idea. Plus, I have the e-mails of others who encouraged it over the last few months.
Virtually alone, the evidence shows that this is not the case on this thread, but it does not stop you from making pronouncements to the contrary.
And you continually not answering the question on why you are surprised is also well noted.
Lots of discussion about politics goes on every day without swear words and anyone who says they are needed, well they can't make intelligent arguments.
I will continually tweak the list and if anyone wants an exception, they know how to request it.
but my thought process goes something like this: if you'd had this 'rule' in effect since...what, Jan. of '07 did you say?....and you haven't formally enforced it with some kind of filter until now, you must not have thought all the 'swearing' and carrying on that occured since then was that big a deal. You had a rule in effect for 2 and a half years without formally enforcing it? What does that say about the 'rule' itself?
In point of fact, as others here have pointed out, there's a bare minimum of bad language on here anyway.
Lots of discussion about politics goes on every day without swear words
Absolutely, and I would certainly expect someone who launched the jonstainbrooksucks.com website to engage in civil, mature, adult-level discussion on all things political. Or do I have the wrong person here?
Let's see...'sucks'....yes, in today's world, that could mean 'inept' or, according to this (and I'm sure others) online dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suck
it could mean 'Vulgar Slang To perform f
ellatio on.'Whoops, lookee here, 'f
ellatio' doesn't make it past the nasty-word filter. So, I guess this really isn't about 'swear' words, after all. Or do you consider 'fellatio' a 'swear' word? Do you recognize the insanity by now?Either way, I'm greatly offended by the name of website and the vulgarity it contains.
Can we expect Libscanblowme to be made to change his username? I find great offense at that as well.
Keep pretending otherwise, the vast majority of members of this site think this is a complete joke and you along with it.
I only had so much time to do it and I decided to improve the site. Just because I do not stay up late at night going through all of the swear words, does not mean that I will try to find a way to make it easier. I did keep up for about a year. Now that I can be more proactive with a filter I will be so.
Funny you only choose one definition out of the like 30 different definitions for that word of which only 1 says that. Suck in the common useage means bad which most people would understand. That sucks, the Browns have sucked since they moved into their new stadium. We all know what that means. I guess I am not a pervert and always thinking sexual meanings to words.
But the swear words the filter filters out are not words that people debate the meanings of.
Again, you have said two times the swearing is kept to a minimum, then we have nothing to worry about. But before you make an issue out of a policy, you should have a good reason to do it. Just to say that you assume that because I have not enforced it means by defacto it was never a policy is lame.
I am actually shocked that you-McCaskey-who was only a couple of months ago making a big deal about my original policies of the site, is now saying they are not a big deal because they are not enforced.
But I am glad you started the thread. Thank you for that.
umm...how are the naughty words selected for exclusion?
is the service that maintains the list. I can create my own whitelist or black list.
are on your 'blacklist' that otherwise would not be on Webpurify?
none, all of the alerts are coming from Webpurify's DB.
You're in denial, Chris. The innuendo about the whole John Stainbrook thing is obvious to anyone over six. 'The Stain'? Give me a break. McCaskey's right about this and just why that has your shorts in a wad is beyond me.
You may have had a profanity policy in effect for several years, but you rarely enforced it. That leads the rest of the users to believe you generally tolerate profanity, except for those few times per year when you don't.
My opinion is that the real cause of this whole thing is that you're getting tired of the board. JR got tired of having to babysit ToledoTalk all the time, so you opened an alternative for heated political debate. The trouble with that is that you're running into the same problems JR did and you don't want to handle them constantly, which is really what is required.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
not the one with the problem. I am just explaining it. It sounds like a bunch of other people are the ones with the wads.
Well we have different trains of thoughts about words. But don't you dare try to define why I created something. I know why I choose the words I did and they are not for the reasons you are so hard trying to make.
Basically, the arguments that I should not have it comes down to, since I have not enforced the policy, I should not have it. That is not that brilliant of an argument which is why it won't change. If someone wants to try to make a convincing argument, then I am all ears.
if you'd had this 'rule' in effect since...what, Jan. of '07 and you haven't formally enforced it with some kind of filter until now, you must not have thought all the 'swearing' and carrying on that occured since then was that big a deal. You had a rule in effect for 2 and a half years without formally enforcing it? What does that say about the 'rule' itself?
Let's see, what does this dremind me of?
There has been a rule on the city books about parking in gravel driveways.
People all over the city have been parking in their gravel aprons and sidedrives for years and years and years without being ticketed.
Suddenly, the city issues tickets to number of nefarious, lawbreaking gravel parkers. As McCaskey asks, "What does that say about the 'rule' itself?"
actually, it's worse. This site's webmaster posted a video containing 'foul language', the sort we're not allowed to now express in written word.
In other words, you can't actually comment on the video, at least attempting to use the very same words contained in the video. The webmaster will tell you it's comparing 'apples and oranges', LOL.
So, to complete your thought process here Helen, it's like Carty himself parking on the gravel aprons and sidedrives and then issueing citations for others who do the same.
because unlike the City which silently passes the law a couple of years ago and only now enforces it, is different.
The alert that swearing won't be tolerated is there when you sign up, in the e-mail confirmation sent to you, there when you post on the about pages multiple times.
This is more like someone got pulled over by the police for speeding and someone says, you never pulled me over before in this spot.
Of course, I have explained myself why this case is not a problem, and I don't expect everyone to agree. Everyone can read my comments above.
I did not notice that posting restrictions have been placed on the Glass City Jungle as well as on SwampBubbles at virtually the same time, but now that you mention it - what a coincidence!
I'll tell you what I have noticed over the past year or so. I notice that the intelligent, reasonable contributors have been conspicuously absent or do not contribute the way they used to. Threads that are otherwise decent discussions tend to get hijacked by right or left wing nuts. The place is over-run with trolls and sock puppets. I also notice that there is not a lot of profanity on SwampBubbles, particularly in the posts of the brightest and most well read of the contributors - and you people know who you are. In point of fact, there is very little profanity on SB. I suspect if anyone did a word count they would find less than one percent of the contributions here contain profanity.
The concept of group punishment as a valid response to individual misbehavior faded with kindergarten. If the problem really is profanity, address the contributors and tell them to clean up their language.
Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack
there has been a minimum of profanity on here and, as HelenWheales has already succinctly pointed out, the hate-filled venom of the likes of John Law/Phakit Mann, far worse than any 'swear' word, was allowed to flow seemingly forever on here before action was taken.
if there is no profanity, then there won't be a problem.
The posting alerts about profanity have been here since Jan 2007. Maybe you should pay more attention to the alerts and warnings that have been here since day one.
who immediately thought of the late, great, George Carlin's routine, the seven words you can't say?
How about username names that have profanity? Or at least desperate attempts at persuading other men for oral sex? Who comes to mind? Hmmm what was his name?
Was it LiberalIbegyoutoblowmeIneedmanonmansexbad? Or something like that any.
Does your filter work on “blow me”…
I'll file that one away for later...
Testing...testing...one, two, three....
"Doodie"
It's only censorship when the government does it.
Any other time it's Editorial Control.
MikeyA
Though it tears at every fiber of my being, and causes me great pain to say it....I must side with Mcaskey on this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'