Filtering.

[MKR&*42]

Not really.



Come on, how often is gtho used? Utter crap can't be directed at someone and is completely different from ****. But yes I do agree, most people use it as a joke but unfortunately it has to stay filtered because some people don't use it that way.

I use gtho a lot, 'cause I can't use the other one and it annoys me

How can't it be directed at someone? If they post something about themselves and another user says "utter crap", surely that's directed at them. Or are you on about them specifically saying "you're full of utter crap"?

If the majority of people use it as a joke as you agree with, why can't you enable it and then warn other users who use it in an abusive/bullying manner?

[Chris]

So "ffs you are utter crap" is allowed?

I'm just being pedantic now

LMAO, what do you think?

I use gtho a lot, 'cause I can't use the other one and it annoys me

How can't it be directed at someone? If they post something about themselves and another user says "utter crap", surely that's directed at them. Or are you on about them specifically saying "you're full of utter crap"?

If the majority of people use it as a joke as you agree with, why can't you enable it and then warn other users who use it in an abusive/bullying manner?

If someone says "You're full of utter crap", then yeah thats rude but if someone is debating and they say "thats utter crap" then I wouldn't consider that to be something that we would edit.

If this was unfiltered then we would have to start unfiltering other words of that nature, and then there would probably be a few problems!

[Martin]

So "ffs you are utter crap" is allowed?

I'm just being pedantic now

If that was aimed at someone it could be seen as breaking the respect other forum members rule, rather than being to do with the filter. It depends what context its used in and how its aimed at someone etc. If it is done in a light hearted way then I don't see a problem with it, but the problem begins when people get offended/take it as rude and a line has to be drawn there.

---------- Post added 22-08-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------

Right. Can I ask, as to why.. hmm.

1) ** (Bull ****) is filtered as an acronym.
2) **** (Get the **** out) is filtered as an acronym.

I can understand the second one over the first, but tbqh. If users can say "ffs", "omfg", "tbf" et al, why aren't those allowed either. I really don't see an issue with them considering they're acronyms alone. The only acronym that I believe should be filtered is the one for "**** off".

It just seems a bit pointless really.

They are both in a different context to the others really. I know previous Forum Management worked on a list of what was acceptable and what was not based on what could be seen as rude towards other people, the more serious ones etc.

The 2nd one especially is really rude and I don't see any need for it to be unfiltered really because it looks quite bad and negative around the forum.


I think its a lot less strict now than it used to be, and as people have rightly pointed out, a year or two ago, people were getting warnings/infractions for minor abbreviations, which we now allow providing they are not aimed at people and are on the list of allowed ones.

[MKR&*42]

LMAO, what do you think?



If someone says "You're full of utter crap", then yeah thats rude but if someone is debating and they say "thats utter crap" then I wouldn't consider that to be something that we would edit.

If this was unfiltered then we would have to start unfiltering other words of that nature, and then there would probably be a few problems!

But there surely can't be that many "popular" acronyms that are blocked due to it being rude towards members. Honest to God, g.t.f.o is the only one I can think of alongside the one for "**** you". And in all honesty, I still don't get the rudeness issue anyway If a user says "**** you" to another user, then they can clearly tell what has been said to them and will still be offended, filtering off or not. There are rare cases when it's hard to determine what the filtered word actually is - e.g. "she is such a ****".

Members will simply adjust after a while anyway, that using certain acronyms in an abusive manner will result in a warning.

---------- Post added 22-08-2012 at 09:44 PM ----------

If that was aimed at someone it could be seen as breaking the respect other forum members rule, rather than being to do with the filter. It depends what context its used in and how its aimed at someone etc. If it is done in a light hearted way then I don't see a problem with it, but the problem begins when people get offended/take it as rude and a line has to be drawn there.

---------- Post added 22-08-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------



They are both in a different context to the others really. I know previous Forum Management worked on a list of what was acceptable and what was not based on what could be seen as rude towards other people, the more serious ones etc.

The 2nd one especially is really rude and I don't see any need for it to be unfiltered really because it looks quite bad and negative around the forum.


I think its a lot less strict now than it used to be, and as people have rightly pointed out, a year or two ago, people were getting warnings/infractions for minor abbreviations, which we now allow providing they are not aimed at people and are on the list of allowed ones.

See, you say here;

"If it is done in a light hearted way then I don't see a problem with it, but the problem begins when people get offended/take it as rude and a line has to be drawn there."

and then

"The 2nd one especially is really rude and I don't see any need for it to be unfiltered really because it looks quite bad and negative around the forum."

Why does an exception HAVE to be made for g.t.h.o. You yourself said it's fine in a "jokey" manner, and even Chris has agreed that the majority use it in a non-serious manner. I cannot see how "g.t.h.o." is going to cause harm, by that logic "**** off" also presents a negative view of the forum because it's easy to interpret what it is.

[Chris]

I wouldn't say **** is popular and I hardly see it used on the forum. I would say don't fix something that doesn't need fixing. As it stands the filter is less strict than it used to be and there are a lot of other alternatives you can use if you feel you really need to tell someone to ****.

[MKR&*42]

I wouldn't say **** is popular and I hardly see it used on the forum. I would say don't fix something that doesn't need fixing. As it stands the filter is less strict than it used to be and there are a lot of other alternatives you can use if you feel you really need to tell someone to ****.

I suppose there's no true way to judge how popular an acronym is but it is widely used on the internet enough in my opinion.

I can think of 2 alternatives which provide the same sense of emphasis - "Gtho" and "Get the **** out". Would the second one still get me a warning?

[sex]

Stop trying to go backwards or whatever I fought for ages to have those removed from the filtered and finally got them lol!

[Chris]

Not unless you use it in a rude way, no.

[MKR&*42]

Stop trying to go backwards or whatever I fought for ages to have those removed from the filtered and finally got them lol!

Confused graham? Are you saying you fought for ages to get acronyms out the filter?

---------- Post added 22-08-2012 at 09:48 PM ----------

Not unless you use it in a rude way, no.

Then why can't I shorten it to use it in a "non-rude" (not even sure if that's a word tbh) way haha. They both essentially mean the same thing, and the acronym seems less worse than me typing out the phrase (marginally)? no?

[lawrawrrr]

Why on earth would anyone say 'to be ******', more like 'cant be ******' as in *** (which i dont even know is filtered, guess i'll find out when i post this).

I agree with the current filtering though, the targetting ones should be blocke dout but the rest are signs of exasperation that most people type without even thinking.