Free them and weep boys and girls (and its)
OK TK, I am back sort of. Past week has been a jumble of issues here at the house, but like I promised, I'd follow up with the topic and take a look at what was done. There were a couple other threads on banned words I might have commented in but they were all closed, as is the 'Cussing' thread and the 'Banned Words' thread above. So I will make all my comments here.
I was going to offer an expertly worded, cogent version of the banned word rule as a suggested template to consider but apparently that idea was kicked right back in my face, and the resolved final rule still leaves itself open to a number of glaring problems, to iterate:
- Apparently this new word filter applies to all posts everywhere whenever in time going back 20 years and not just current words going forward into the future, which is a shame as I don't want to see ****** words in my posts, and had I known they would be blocked words someday in the future, I would have changed them then. Now I can't. Words which were viable, approved words at the time they were posted should not be filtered out now. I can just imagine people reading old posts now and all they might see is ******* then ******* happened leading to *******, and who is going to want to read that?
- I looked at the official banned words list. I don't even know a couple of them! Banned words I never heard of? Worse, I'm confused: just as most words have a past, present and future tense, singular, plural, etc., many banned words do too. I'm still very confused as to the point of banning the word "fox," (e.g.) but we can still say foxed, foxes, foxy, and out-foxed. So, what exactly is accomplished? I see nothing but a huge rabbit-hole here both for moderators, admins, and members alike. If "fox" is banned but foxy or foxed and outfoxed isn't, then these are approved OK words? Words pending to be likely banned in the future? Attempts to "circumvent" the filter subject to discipline? Who decides when a word was an attempt to "circumvent a filter," a typo, or just a person trying not to cuss at all by saying a similar but clean word? This is entirely ARBITRARY and thus unenforceable and can only lead to a lot of problems.
- It is common parlance for a lot of people to use alternate spellings to AVOID cussing, like saying fricking, fracking, farging, farquing, etc. These are NOT cuss words but colloquialisms and slang. These are NOT "attempts to circumvent a filter." They are attempts to simply not cuss, which brings me right back to the possibility of people being banned for NOT cussing! This raises serious legal and 1A rights questions. If this board thinks it in their best interest to start banning people left and right just for typing any word which remotely sounds like or could be an alternate spelling of another word which is banned, but isn't, then ban them for that, the owners of this board have really shot themselves in the face.
- Then there is the word B I T C H. Why is that even on the list? This is not a cuss word or profane word. Most often, I use the word in reference to someone COMPLAINING. It also refers to a female dog. Yes, it CAN refer to a derogatory slander, but that alone seems weak in making it a banned word when it is a word used in the common everyday parlance of the lexicon of language, on TV, radio and print. We even say it in yelling "Son of a b----!" This is one word I'd strike off the list.
- Not all curse words are censored. OK, what does that mean? We are right back to:
- If it is a banned cuss word, it will just get filtered out, so OK then to say, it'll just get filtered, right?
- If it is NOT a banned word, but still a cuss word, it is OK to say (but might get filtered in the future). After all, how can you ban a person for saying a word that isn't even banned?
- If you clean up your language to avoid saying bad words by making up a word similar enough to get the idea across, this might be OK because you did NOT swear or use a bad word, or you might get warned or banned for using a made up word that sound SIMILAR to a bad word? WTF.
Wow. Talk about a nightmare. A nightmare for members, a nightmare for moderators and a nightmare for administrators. All of it could have been ameliorated with judicious and careful wording. My advice is to get your banned word list resolved. Instead of banning words, you should ban strings of text, that way, if "fox" is banned, that eliminates foxes, foxy, foxes, and outfoxed.
Take B I T C H off your list. Make your rule: IF IT IS A NO-NO WORD, IT WILL GET FILTERED OUT. Then enter the words (as text strings) you want blocked. Mistyping, is OK. Alternate spellings are OK. Words with ASCII characters like @%*% inserted are OK. I mean, HOW CAN THEY NOT BE? ASCII characters is a form of self-bleeping.
If you want to ban words as offensive, then PICK THE WORDS YOU WANT TO BAN AND BAN THEM. End of story. Later on, if you think up others you overlooked, they can always be added. Forget all the rest of the nonsense about typos, misspellings, alternate spellings and characters as this is a wholly arbitrary rule that will only get abused leading to huge problems.
