|
|
Post by piñata on Jul 26, 2004 16:33:29 GMT -5
Needless to say, no spamming (going needlessly off-topic, making one-word posts, posting the same thing over and over again, etc.), flaming (name-calling and other bad stuff), or trolling (basically, starting a fight for no good reason) will be tolerated.
Swearing is acceptable on this site at the moment -- as of right now, there is no language filter.
If I can think of anything else, I'll update this post -- for now, I'm leaving this thread open to replies so you can make serious suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Jul 27, 2004 20:11:39 GMT -5
One thing about the language filter, i vote we do have a filter, but only minor stuff. Like changing fuck to fork or f*ck, ass to arse or @ss and so on. This way people with 'parental'...thingies on their computers can visit the site. Or when someone is at school or a work computer or something that has a block on it, having the minor filter allows them to view the site.
Thats all i have.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jul 28, 2004 6:59:05 GMT -5
You make a good point, Ape Killer, but still... a language filter would mean censorship, and you know my feelings on that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Jul 28, 2004 7:22:09 GMT -5
True. But is it really 'censorship' when you change an A to an @, an I to a !, or a U into a V? They look the same and the word still gets its point accross and it still allows the blocked people to view the site. But its up to you, Mr. President.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Jul 30, 2004 0:11:11 GMT -5
Um, censorship exists everywhere Piñata, and most of the time it's acceptable.
Why don't we allow people to advocate killing all the minorities? It's wrong, and if we have to censor to protect people from lunatics, I'll stand behind that.
As for a filter, it's purely for membership. Some people won't like the idea of allowing vulgar language on a site, for better or worse. The removal of the filter on eM provoked a fair amount of criticism. I'm not saying whether this kind of censorship is right or wrong; I'm saying you'll appeal to a bigger group of people if fuck becomes fork, preferably with tags that'll send you right to eM, because that would be funny, in my opinion.
I think, you should use the filter for jokes, like changing all instances of scare to sare, or think to thoink at least. A filter for other stuff would be nice too, but only in the sake of humour, and possibly spelling.
|
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 30, 2004 0:23:55 GMT -5
I think that the "for now" idea is a good way to approach it. After a bit of time, if it becomes apparent that people cannot be intelligent and respectful in their posts with the full range of vocabulary at their disposal, then something can be done, whether it be language filter or something else entirely. If however it seems that people can have meaningful conversations that don't dissolve into mindless outbursts of obscenities then there really is no need for a language filter, it's all simply theoretical.
As I discovered on my site, one of the downsides of the language filter is that it filters stuff that you never intended it to. For example if we were talking about the Batman comic it would change Dick Grayson to Thin, sorry excuse for a sexual organ Grayson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Jul 30, 2004 5:27:19 GMT -5
Thats why you change dick to d!ck. Ass to @ss, Fuck to fvck, f*ck, or fork. Etc. And as for changing think to thoink or scare to sare, i'd say nay. The problem about bringing jokes from 1 site to another is the people who aren't from that site(The one where the joke originated) get all confused. And i'm sure Pinata plans on getting alot of non-conclave members here. |
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Jul 30, 2004 7:37:22 GMT -5
Hopefully... although right now there's only one non-Conclave member here, and he only has one post. Elfie -- I know a lot of places have censorship, but that doesn't just arbitrarily make it where the First Amendment never applies anymore. It still applies here. |
|
|
|
Post by devo2 on Jul 30, 2004 9:38:04 GMT -5
oh boy, here comes the history teacher in me....
the first amendment can be sidestepped only in cases where liberal application of one's first amendment rights poses a "clear and present danger" to themselves or those around them. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Others are libel and slander. The U.S. Government has found time and again, for better or worse, that restrictions on language, more specifically the restriction of profanity, does not Constitute a violation of the First Amendment, as profanity is considered harmful to some people.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just that them's the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Aug 4, 2004 15:26:30 GMT -5
The U.S. Government is in bed with the church. I'm going by the standards of the people who fought the Revolution, not the people who buttfucked everything they fought for.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Aug 5, 2004 17:20:58 GMT -5
The people who fought the revolution settled matters through dueling (Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton), if I remember correctly. I'm not sure that I always trust their judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Aug 6, 2004 7:19:00 GMT -5
I've actually always thought dueling was preferable to a civil lawsuit. Less of a drain on the taxpayers, and nobody's going to challenge anyone to a frivolous duel.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ape on Aug 6, 2004 9:10:32 GMT -5
But don't we already duel when we don't want to go to court...with guns... |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Sept 10, 2004 16:58:53 GMT -5
I've actually always thought dueling was preferable to a civil lawsuit. Less of a drain on the taxpayers, and nobody's going to challenge anyone to a frivolous duel. Yes, you and Zell Miller. |
|
|
|
Post by Silk on Sept 11, 2004 5:40:34 GMT -5
Elfie, that is by far the funniest thing I have seen these past couple of weeks. I love the Dick Cheney part... "Dick Did Not" haha. Bookedy-Bookmark! Does Comedy Central let you watch that stuff on their site?  |
|
