A comment on strong language

We've been getting a lot of reports lately about various uses of strong language that aren't picked up by the auto censor. To help you avoid creating work for the mods, here are some guidelines. I haven't cleared this with Tom, so he might come in and write something different, but I have talked with the real mods. So for now:

Swapping letters or slightly mis-spelling a word that would otherwise be inappropriate is still inappropriate. So is playing tricks with the editor to display a word in a way the auto-censor doesn't understand.

Replacing some letters with "*"s is generally okay. That's the traditional way to publish words that aren't appropriate to print. The more "*" the better. Trust me, if you type the first letter, and perhaps the suffix, people will figure out the rest. If a casual reader might not notice the "*", it's not good enough.

The rules are stricter in the professional sections, and in general you should just avoid strong language altogether there.

Graphic sexual imagery, even if it is written without any naughty words, is generally inappropriate. It's especially inappropriate if used in a derogatory way to describe another poster.

As always, the mods don't patrol the forum for bad stuff. Just because you can find an example of something that wasn't edited doesn't mean it was okay, it probably just means no mod noticed it.

Thanks.

[IMP]

are you ****** * ****** ******* ****** ** *******?

real mods? come ********** *** ******** ***** *** *******.

seriously, i don't want to lose this deal!

kthks!

[bdschobel]

It's really, really silly to allow immediately recognizable representations of "bad words" (like "f***") but not allow the bad words themselves. Who is that protecting? And from what? It's ridiculous.

Bruce

[Pseudolus]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

It's really, really silly to allow immediately recognizable representations of "bad words" (like "f***") but not allow the bad words themselves. Who is that protecting? And from what? It's ridiculous.

Bruce

Choosing not to fully type, say, the efferoonie communicates "I know that some people are offended by the full efferoonie, and, so, since I respect those people, I will not type the full efferoonie even though everyone knows what I mean by 'f***'." While choosing to type it means "I know that some people are offended [...], but eff those effers - I don't give an eff".

Search my archives for further insights into this topic.

Originally Posted by Pseudolus

Choosing not to fully type, say, the efferoonie communicates "I know that some people are offended by the full efferoonie, and, so, since I respect those people, I will not type the full efferoonie even though everyone knows what I mean by 'f***'." While choosing to type it means "I know that some people are offended [...], but eff those effers - I don't give an eff".

Search my archives for further insights into this topic.

Thank you. That is exactly our reasoning.

[bdschobel]

A person would need a very strange value system indeed to be offended by the actual efferoonie but not be offended by an immediately recognizable representation of the efferoonie. How can anyone think that way?

Bruce

[Pseudolus]

"Strange" may be a matter of taste. But such a value system (wouldn't use that phrase, but ok) would not be at all uncommon.

[bdschobel]

If I put a turd (is that word OK?) in a plastic bag, it's still a turd. Disguising my bad word with asterisks is simply foolishness.

Bruce

[Pseudolus]

But human communication doesn't work like that. Words are more complex, carrying multiple levels of meaning and association.

Even going with your analogy: putting a turd in a plastic bag signals that you respect the preference of others not to be directly exposed to your turd.

[Hero3128]

I don't care what people write, as long as they can spell it correctly.