In this thread we have philosophical disagreements - The Censor

[GrnEyedDvl]

Agreed.

[Scar Face]

I've already argued this point before, but I think it needs to be made again. The entire argument for a censor in the first is that it is detrimental to the forum and discussion, that it is immature and accepting it brings about the wrong atmosphere for the forum [even more so considering many of our members are young]. Well to be honest, I think that is exactly what the wub itself does.

Swearing is a part of life, hostility is a part of life. It is not particularly mature to swear and become aggressive when you have the possibility to debate in a calm manner, but it is not particularly mature to give such power to words, and try to remove them. The Wub censor is childish. It is the equivalent of saying heck instead of hell, frick instead of ****. We all know exactly what is meant, the meaning still gets across [yes, even to the precious children on this forum, who know nothing of hostility or swearing, I am sure.]

If we want a website where we can discuss things in a mature and adult manner, then the wub smile is a direct counter to that. It brings about the wrong atmosphere on the forum just as swearing does. It is demeaning not to the person who swears, it does not marginalize his opinion or make him less apt to do it, it demeans the site. If we are mature enough to debate on the mortality of slavery, the possible invasion of Iran, the economic viability of a welfare state, then I think we are mature enough to avoid cutesy little smilies.

By going so far out of your way to marginalize those who swear and try to stop them from doing it, all you do is give power to the words in the first place. Everyone swears. They are wholly insignificant. Hell, you can insult someone more effectively without breaking the ToS or the censor. Putting your hands over your ears and screaming "nananana I cant hear you" is not the correct response to hearing something you find unfavorable.

[imb39]

Society gives power to those words. We are merely reflections of society. I repeat, this has already been discussed by the Curia and change was not forthcoming.

Sometimes 'putting your hands over your ears and screaming "nananana I cant hear you"' is the best option available out of a bad set of options.

[gigagaia]

That's why I'm willing to compromise. Can we have the list of censored words, so perhaps I may peruse them and offer up my own version? And I'm not going to let this committee end unless the censor is changed back to asterisks.

You of course mean, the committee recommends to hex that this should be the case?

[Simetrical]

A couple of quick comments here. Don't worry, I won't rehash the arguments I've made time and again. Anyone interested in seeing them can read up on the Q&S threads.

Perhaps I am off the mark and by all means correct me if I am wrong and I will apologise but I strongly think Simetrical has allowed his personal upbringing concerning swearing effect the forums.

Undoubtedly that influences my opinions, but I don't maintain the censor by fiat. In the last update (British profanities), I created a poll in the moderator forum. Only one voter out of 18 opposed the expansion of the filter entirely. Three of the four words that got added, in the end, were got at least 10 votes out of 18. The fourth was pointed out too late to make it into the poll, and I added it because all the Brits there assured me it was on par with the ones that passed, and I didn't want to bother with a new poll. Bollocks got only four votes and was not added, and while shite got 10 votes, concerns were raised about typo'ing with Shiite that weren't really addressed, so I left it off the list to be on the safe side. No staff member has objected to or further commented on the decision to date.

Well would CA throw a fit if there was no censor? That actually matters.

It has been made clear to us that TWC must remain a "family-friendly" site. What exactly that means is not clear, but I'm pretty sure that there would be some concern if people dropped F-bombs right and left. On the other hand, since removing the censor outright is likely to be rejected by the Curia and quite certain to be rejected by staff regardless of CA's opinions, the question seems academic.

We need a list of what's censored.

You will find one attached. Words enclosed in {curly braces} are censored only if they occur as a word by themselves; words not enclosed in curly braces are censored even in the middle of other words. (They're all equally banned when used as swear words, but some words can't be automatically censored in the middle of other words without messing up perfectly innocuous words. See Scunthorpe Problem on Wikipedia.)

They were censored at one point damn you!

Bollocks and shite were considered for censorship but rejected. Arse was not even considered, because it occurs in the Total War games (at least in RTW as a proper noun, if not used as a swear).

And I'm not going to let this committee end unless the censor is changed back to asterisks.

My reading of the Constitution is that any decision of the committee must be ratified by a Curial Decision. This has, of course, already failed to pass the Curia, by a large margin. I don't foresee the matter coming even as far as staff, where its fate would be dubious, regardless of the committee's opinion on the matter.

Edit: Er, I forgot the attachment. Give me a minute.

Edit 2: Okay, attachment attached.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Oh wow, that was an enjoyable read.