Quoting: edgleyCensorship is controlling the freedom of expression. Saying you can't swear is censorship.

I guess we can call it censorship if you insist, but it's still a necessary part of forum moderation. Unless you think any messages containing offending language should simply be deleted entirely instead.

I'd have more to say but this xkcd comic does it better: http://xkcd.com/1357/

Quoting: tuubiI guess we can call it censorship if you insist

Thanks for not reading the rest of my post there. We can argue semantics all day, but that wasn't the reason I made the suggestion. Also, if you read my first post, you would also see I'm highlighting a bug in the current system (which I'm currently using to get around it).

Quoting: tuubibut it's still a necessary part of forum moderation

Why? That's like saying grammar correction is a necessary part of forum moderation. I'm not talking about allowing us to be abusive to other people, incite hatred / intolerance or spamming / trolling. I would just like to, on occasion, express myself with words that some people may find coarse or less appropriate.

Here, have an example:

"Holy shit, this is the best damn news ever!"

Shit should be censored right? Because it's offensive to see that particular word for poo, faeces, turd, butt biscuit etc etc etc (those words aren't censored, what do we do?!). But then, wait! "Holy" is suggesting something, that isn't God, is divine! That should also be censored so for those who may be offended by such a statement don't see it. Then again, damn is considered a swear word to some people, so we should probably censor that as well. At what point do you stop?

The big issue with censoring, is that it's automatic; it doesn't filter offensive language, only "offensive" words -- a regex can only be so clever. A moderator that edits your post is at least telling you, someone actually finds what you said to be offensive. And I'm pretty sure that's what the report button is for.

Quoting: tuubiUnless you think any messages containing offending language should simply be deleted entirely instead.

No. I'm not sure why you would think that was my stance on this.

Quoting: tuubiI'd have more to say but this xkcd comic does it better: http://xkcd.com/1357/

Thanks for the useful contribution to this discussion.

Quoting: edgleyIt's also less "just one of those things" when it's not always been in place and not obviously disclosed when it is activated.

This is my primary point. It wasn't disabled, I didn't see any issues before it was disabled. Then, seemingly out of nowhere it was enabled. I'd like more openness about these sorts of changes that do have an impact on how people can communicate through this site.

Quoting: edgley"Holy ***, this is the best damn news ever!"

*** should be censored right? Because it's offensive to see that particular word for poo, faeces, turd, butt biscuit etc etc etc (those words aren't censored, what do we do?!). But then, wait! "Holy" is suggesting something, that isn't God, is divine! That should also be censored so for those who may be offended by such a statement don't see it. Then again, damn is considered a swear word to some people, so we should probably censor that as well. At what point do you stop?

I can't see how that particular sentence should be offensive to anyone, but you can't say the part before the comma adds anything to it either. I don't personally have a problem with crude language, but took issue with your claim that this somehow hinders your freedom of expression. And to answer your question about where to stop; if you need to ask, you're probably crossing the line. Just talk like there are children present, but not like you're talking to children.

Quoting: edgleyNo. I'm not sure why you would think that was my stance on this.

I don't. Just pointing out that blanking out a small list of specific swearwords does not take anything relevant out of your message, whereas other ways of dealing with this would.

Quoting: edgleyThis is my primary point. It wasn't disabled, I didn't see any issues before it was disabled. Then, seemingly out of nowhere it was enabled. I'd like more openness about these sorts of changes that do have an impact on how people can communicate through this site.

I'm still unconvinced that this hinders your ability to communicate, unless you find it somehow relevant to start a discussion on excrement on a Linux gaming site.

Quoting: tuubiI can't see how that particular sentence should be offensive to anyone, but you can't say the part before the comma adds anything to it either.

It adds emphasis to the sentence. It also more closely resembles the way the commenter talks.

Quoting: tuubiI don't personally have a problem with crude language, but took issue with your claim that this somehow hinders your freedom of expression.

Having to curb how you talk is limiting your freedom of expression. I use these words, if you (not specifically you) have a problem with it, why is that my fault? This is exactly why I'm suggesting a toggle so that people who have thin skin can not see the bad words the bad people are saying and those of us that really don't give a shit can carry on as it was. As I said, standard moderation of posts that are specifically offensive to someone makes sense, but this is not what swear word censoring / filtering, whatever the hell you want to call it, does.

Quoting: tuubiAnd to answer your question about where to stop; if you need to ask, you're probably crossing the line.

What? No, where does the censoring stop? I'm well aware of how to behave around people, but how far does censoring go to "protect" people who are easily offended?

Quoting: tuubiJust talk like there are children present, but not like you're talking to children.

But I'm not talking to children. Or at least, I hope not. Children that are influenced by my language on a message board about Linux gaming should not be using the internet, watching TV or reading books.

Quoting: tuubiI don't. Just pointing out that blanking out a small list of specific swearwords does not take anything relevant out of your message, whereas other ways of dealing with this would.

No, but it's hypocritical to say XYZ is bad, but ABC is fine. Even if you hide censoring certain words behind the veil of "pretend your talking to children", what if I'm talking to a God fearing child? "Holy Hell!" would still be offensive, yet not censored. Why? What makes this kind of offense less of an issue?

Quoting: tuubiI'm still unconvinced that this hinders your ability to communicate, unless you find it somehow relevant to start a discussion on excrement on a Linux gaming site.

You are still missing the point. An option was disabled, then it was enabled. I was not informed of this decision / it was not made apparent to the general public. I have, in a couple of my posts (that are not so derailed as to argue what the meaning of freedom of expression is) offered solutions. Liam has stated that he is looking into a notification of some sort. My second idea was to have a toggle button, which is a simple concept (execution might be trickier, but not impossible).

While I don't expect my judgement on an option to be the deciding factor of if it is enabled or not, I would like to know when it is enabled so I can say "Ah okay, they enabled this option for this reason. That makes sense." rather than "What? When and why did they enable this?".

---

I don't know if you are an alt or not, but you seem to have only signed up and replied to have an argument over what the meaning of censorship is. This was not the reason for this thread. I still don't think you actually read my original post.

Quoting: edgleyIt adds emphasis to the sentence. It also more closely resembles the way the commenter talks.

I'm sure you can think of other ways to add emphasis. The way you normally talk is hardly relevant.

Quoting: edgleyThis is exactly why I'm suggesting a toggle so that people who have thin skin can not see the bad words the bad people are saying and those of us that really don't give a *** can carry on as it was. As I said, standard moderation of posts that are specifically offensive to someone makes sense, but this is not what swear word censoring / filtering, whatever the hell you want to call it, does.

I agree that human moderation of all posts would be better than automated filtering, but protecting your right to swear simply isn't worth anyone's effort.

Quoting: edgleyWhat? No, where does the censoring stop? I'm well aware of how to behave around people, but how far does censoring go to "protect" people who are easily offended?

I'd say it stops wherever the blog owner wants it to stop. A blog is not a democracy.

Quoting: edgleyBut I'm not talking to children. Or at least, I hope not. Children that are influenced by my language on a message board about Linux gaming should not be using the internet, watching TV or reading books.

That wasn't the point. I happen to think your insistence on using language the admin doesn't seem to want to allow on his blog borders on immature though. Especially the way you seem to take pride in circumventing the system.

Quoting: edgleyNo, but it's hypocritical to say XYZ is bad, but ABC is fine.

No, it's not. Some things are bad and others are not. Where to draw the line comes down to the admin's personal judgement. And as the blog owner he does have the right to decide.

Quoting: edgleyYou are still missing the point.

I don't think so. We might disagree on what the relevant point is though. :)

Quoting: edgleyAn option was disabled, then it was enabled. I was not informed of this decision / it was not made apparent to the general public.

That would make sense if we were talking about a public service. Now you are basically saying that a blog/forum you happen to frequent should not be allowed to change things without your consent.

Quoting: edgleyI have, in a couple of my posts (that are not so derailed as to argue what the meaning of freedom of expression is) offered solutions. Liam has stated that he is looking into a notification of some sort. My second idea was to have a toggle button, which is a simple concept (execution might be trickier, but not impossible).

Not worth the effort in my opinion, but then again I'm a developer myself, so I might be a bit biased towards NOTABUG/WONTFIX. :D

Quoting: edgleyWhile I don't expect my judgement on an option to be the deciding factor of if it is enabled or not, I would like to know when it is enabled so I can say "Ah okay, they enabled this option for this reason. That makes sense." rather than "What? When and why did they enable this?".

The reason should be pretty obvious, even if admittedly arguable.

Quoting: edgleyI don't know if you are an alt or not, but you seem to have only signed up and replied to have an argument over what the meaning of censorship is. This was not the reason for this thread. I still don't think you actually read my original post.

No conspiracy here, just happened to read the forums for the first time. I've only been following the blog via rss thus far.

I did read your original post, but you're right. This discussion of ours is quite unproductive and off topic. Sorry. I'll bow out now.

Quoting: tuubiThat wasn't the point. I happen to think your insistence on using language the admin doesn't seem to want to allow on his blog borders on immature though. Especially the way you seem to take pride in circumventing the system.

I'm not insisting that I must use a swear word, but I do prefer some kind of tolerance. I'm not sure me requesting this to be constructively thought about and some background on why it was implemented is immature.

It's not pride, this is most definitely to emphasise the point though. There is a bug, I'm highlighting it and will continue to use it (if I feel it necessary) until it's fixed. I certainly wont bitch if it does get fixed though.

Quoting: tuubiThat would make sense if we were talking about a public service. Now you are basically saying that a blog/forum you happen to frequent should not be allowed to change things without your consent.

No, I'm not. But common decency would be to inform people of said change. This becomes much more apparent the larger the community. As this is in the suggestion, I assumed it would be implied that my original post (which is what the core suggestion was) was just a suggestion.

Perhaps I derailed this myself in my second reply, which is what really starts to make the comparison.

Quoting: tuubiI did read your original post, but you're right. This discussion of ours is quite unproductive and off topic. Sorry. I'll bow out now.

I wouldn't say it was unproductive, it's made me dust of my "MUST BE RIGHT ON THE INTERNETZ LUL" hat, and genuinely try and think about this. It is irrelevant to the thread though.

I haven't replied to most of your replies because I don't think that would lead anywhere. Your opinion is yours, mine is mine -- I don't think either will be swayed much here.

GG, wp etc.

Funs over guys, locking this post as it's gone off-the-rails.

As I've said we are working out a new system to give warning on swearing without filtering.