Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 257275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #975 on: September 25, 2018, 04:06:16 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28784
  • Tommy Points: 3511
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

I don't believe there are negative filters.  Once you have the root word in there you're out of luck.  Hence, no ****take mushrooms or ****zu dogs etc...

Oh well, the hell with it then.

It's nice to have hell to fall back on anyhow.

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #976 on: September 25, 2018, 04:07:10 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37497
  • Tommy Points: -27480
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

There's a workaround, but it's not particularly practical.

I believe you have the option of filtering only whole words.  For instance, d--- would be censored, but d----ing wouldn't be.  Unfortunately,  you can't set it for individual words; it's either you never censor partial words, or you always do.

That means that if you really want to filter out the f-word, the c-word, etc., that you'd have to manually filter out any derivative you can think of: f-s, f-ing, f-face, f-er, etc., etc.  It's not a practical solution, necessarily.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #977 on: September 25, 2018, 04:08:59 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37497
  • Tommy Points: -27480
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

I don't believe there are negative filters.  Once you have the root word in there you're out of luck.  Hence, no ****take mushrooms or ****zu dogs etc...

Ha.  Trust me, I'm sure it would have been filtered if not for it being so common within words:  hello, shell, etc.

And then there's the other word for rear end, which wasn't filtered because the word "assist" is fairly important on a basketball blog.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #978 on: September 25, 2018, 04:25:29 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6408
  • Tommy Points: 886
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

I don't believe there are negative filters.  Once you have the root word in there you're out of luck.  Hence, no ****take mushrooms or ****zu dogs etc...

Ha.  Trust me, I'm sure it would have been filtered if not for it being so common within words:  hello, shell, etc.

And then there's the other word for rear end, which wasn't filtered because the word "assist" is fairly important on a basketball blog.

If we're talking about the filter, any chance that a certain 4 letter acronym could be let through? The filter messes up words like re****l

Edit: the word I'm trying to write is r e s t f u l
I'm bitter.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #979 on: September 28, 2018, 08:16:23 PM »

Offline Kaz

  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 166
  • Tommy Points: 70
I find it funny that sand bag is censored if spelled as one word.

I get censoring actual cuss words and obviously slurs, but db@g?   ::)

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #980 on: September 28, 2018, 08:18:31 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37497
  • Tommy Points: -27480
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I found it funny that sand bag was censored

Ha.  Yeah, that's not an obvious problem at first.

But, the term itself isn't going to be uncensored.  It's not a particularly nice word.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #981 on: September 28, 2018, 10:09:15 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13804
  • Tommy Points: 1805
  • bammokja
********[dang]****ass
Just checking.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy ó not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #982 on: September 28, 2018, 11:51:51 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8854
  • Tommy Points: 1036
do the mods have the ability to zap posts? And should a mod be able to suspend a poster because the poster calls out the mod without any offensive words?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #983 on: September 28, 2018, 11:58:22 PM »

Online gouki88

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6791
  • Tommy Points: 268
do the mods have the ability to zap posts? And should a mod be able to suspend a poster because the poster calls out the mod without any offensive words?
Not relating to any rules, but did this happen to you?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #984 on: September 29, 2018, 12:23:07 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37497
  • Tommy Points: -27480
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
do the mods have the ability to zap posts? And should a mod be able to suspend a poster because the poster calls out the mod without any offensive words?

Mods delete posts all the time, and ďcalling outĒ posters isnít allowed, including mods. While Iím not sure exactly what the post said, it was deleted by two separate staff members.  And are you asking prospectively about a suspension?

Reading the rules is a good place to start.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 12:36:10 AM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #985 on: September 29, 2018, 01:20:32 AM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8854
  • Tommy Points: 1036
do the mods have the ability to zap posts? And should a mod be able to suspend a poster because the poster calls out the mod without any offensive words?
Not relating to any rules, but did this happen to you?

yeah..... just seeking clarification. GO CELTICS!!!!

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #986 on: September 29, 2018, 01:41:09 AM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6310
  • Tommy Points: 398
Is it still okay to cuss during Game Threads in those "heat of the moment" situations and then just wash it away like nothing happened LOL

because it's still going to eventually be buried in those 40-50 pages in the GT anyway

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #987 on: September 29, 2018, 02:05:49 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35375
  • Tommy Points: 5864
Is it still okay to cuss during Game Threads in those "heat of the moment" situations and then just wash it away like nothing happened LOL

because it's still going to eventually be buried in those 40-50 pages in the GT anyway
What I look for in game threads isn't frustration, but a game in and game out attack by posters on certain players or coaches that goes beyond frustration and appears to be trolling.

If you don't t like Kyrie or Smart or Morris or Stevens, venting your frustration every once in a while during the game is normal. But when you attack that person every game regardless of how well that person played or coached, that to me is trolling and needs to be addressed. First a quick PM. If it continues, a stern warning. If the person wants to keep doing it after being asked nicely not to do it, then comes the suspensions.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #988 on: September 29, 2018, 08:07:49 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37497
  • Tommy Points: -27480
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Is it still okay to cuss during Game Threads in those "heat of the moment" situations and then just wash it away like nothing happened LOL

because it's still going to eventually be buried in those 40-50 pages in the GT anyway

Itís never allowed, but itís usually not going to get somebody in trouble. If we see it, we delete it, and usually wonít even mention it to you.

However, if itís a serial issue, or if the profanity is particularly clear (for instance, an intentional attempt to display the f-word by circumventing the filter) consequences could be more harsh.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #989 on: September 29, 2018, 09:46:07 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13804
  • Tommy Points: 1805
  • bammokja
do the mods have the ability to zap posts? And should a mod be able to suspend a poster because the poster calls out the mod without any offensive words?

Mods delete posts all the time, and ďcalling outĒ posters isnít allowed, including mods. While Iím not sure exactly what the post said, it was deleted by two separate staff members.  And are you asking prospectively about a suspension?

Reading the rules is a good place to start.

ha ha ha....always good to plan ahead roy.  ;D
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy ó not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required