Opt in/Opt out swear filter

[Recursion]

There's nothing stopping people swearing.

THAT'S MY POINT.

[Hecktix]

THAT'S MY POINT.

No your point is to avoid the filter which in this thread and others there are many valid reasons against, if you want to swear, ******* swear (not meaning it to sound rude, just added it for the example ) but we aren't removing the filter or making it optional.

[HotelUser]

-SPOCK-

THAT'S MY POINT.

There's nothing stopping people swearing but having no language filter or the option to display filtered words would encourage swearing and thus devalue the conversation taking place here to a certain degree.

Also say it's disabled, then items filtered to prohibit illegal or vulgar activity (the latter could coincide with the above too) would be visible to users, such as the names of Runescape botting applications.

The amount of swearing going on as of the present and the amount of times moderators have to take action against a user avoiding the filter is not an issue right now. If swearing were visible I can guarantee you it would be taken advantage of to terrible lengths. If you want to infer what **** means in someone's post then by all means go ahead. Anything more than that is unnecessary and in lack of better phrasing encourages crappy posts.

[Eoin247]

Try again

Try reading it again.

FJ is right. Try again - you contradicted yourself?

From reading the posts i think he meant that if members were treated more maturely and given more leeway in what they can or cannot do then they would be more likely to stay longer on the forum as they get older. This is not neccesarily about being treated maturely to feel mature. So it's not quite a contradiction.

I personally agree that there should be an optional filter with the default set at on. I myself have brought this up in feedback before.

Also i hate this excuse about people insulting people with swear words. Currently insulting and targetting members isn't even allowed without swear words so it wouldn't make a difference.

This thing about making the site look bad and unproffesional is nonsense. The default would be on anyway to people browsing the site as a guest wouldn't see anything. If i join the site and and thought that swearing looks bad and unproffesional then why on earth would i turn the filter off.

[GommeInc]

I do find the maturity of members is often overlooked on the forum when it comes to the word filter, but I have to agree with keeping it as things are. You can still swear, and this way it keeps a happy medium - it's not a necessity, let's be honest.

[Eoin247]

There's nothing [I]
Also say it's disabled, then items filtered to prohibit illegal or vulgar activity (the latter could coincide with the above too) would be visible to users, such as the names of Runescape botting applications.

The amount of swearing going on as of the present and the amount of times moderators have to take action against a user avoiding the filter is not an issue right now. If swearing were visible I can guarantee you it would be taken advantage of to terrible lengths. If you want to infer what **** means in someone's post then by all means go ahead. Anything more than that is unnecessary and in lack of better phrasing encourages crappy posts.

Surely you're not telling me that you can either have the filter completely on or off? Keep the bots blocked if you want nobody here's complaining about that.

Sure for the first week or so people would take advantage of it (again people who don't want to experience this don't have to!). But once the novelty has worn off i can also guarantee you wont find lots of great abuses of it. Encouraging crappy posts? I don't need the filter to be on or off to see or make crappy posts. Sorry but I fail to see how some people being able to view swear words at their discression would encourage "crappy posts".

[FlyingJesus]

I'm one of the oldest people here, potentially the oldest regular user unless David really is as old as I tell people he is, and I think I'm mature enough to not require swearing. If maturity's the angle people want to push for allowing profanity then they ought to really take a good look at themselves and try to think of what logic they might actually possess.

Still haven't seen anyone say what a (genuine) positive outcome of having a lifted/optional filter would be

[Recursion]

I'm one of the oldest people here, potentially the oldest regular user unless David really is as old as I tell people he is, and I think I'm mature enough to not require swearing. If maturity's the angle people want to push for allowing profanity then they ought to really take a good look at themselves and try to think of what logic they might actually possess.

Still haven't seen anyone say what a (genuine) positive outcome of having a lifted/optional filter would be

How old are you anyway? :hmm:

EDIT: Oh lol, if you're profile's right about you being 21... wooooooowwwwwww.

[Catzsy]

Various newspapers do not filter, and OFCOM impose restrictions to safeguard children from swearing for the watershed, I dare say there would be swearing if it wasn't for OFCOM's restrictions. That is a totally different situation using totally different media.

I have not seen a mainstream newspaper that doesn't. Example? Restrictions are there for a reason and to to say that there would be swearing if it was not for OFCOM is rather silly as if there were not a lot of laws etc people would do a lot of things but that does not make it right. How is it a different media or a totally different situation? Also I have have heard a lot about 'maturity' in the thread. Since when was swearing a sign of maturity? FJ is also right what positives would there be of a lifted/ optional filter - nobody seems to have answered that one.

[RockyHorror]

I have not seen a mainstream newspaper that doesn't. Example? Restrictions are there for a reason and to to say that there would be swearing if it was not for OFCOM is rather silly as if there were not a lot of laws etc people would do a lot of things but that does not make it right. How is it a different media or a totally different situation? Also I have have heard a lot about 'maturity' in the thread. Since when was swearing a sign of maturity? FJ is also right what positives would there be of a lifted/ optional filter - nobody seems to have answered that one.

I've provided a positive, that everyone has glossed over because seemingly nobody can counteract it, why don't you provide me with a positive of having a filter in place that I haven't already provided a valid counter argument towards.

O and about your on-going media argument. I provided a reason why you can't make favorable comparisons;

I find it ridiculous your bringing newspapers/TV into this, there is no way to filter language on these types of media for individual users, whereby on a forum you can. /end that argument.