Fliter

[VeggieMan]

Why is there a fliter for words on JCF when it's never used.

For example, I write a swear word in the middle of a sentance or something.

So these **** little friends come into play. Fine.

So why do they need to be edited again? To (/) or stupid :) in the middle of my sentance?

I'm sure others of you have had this problem? Maybe someone understands why...cuz I don't.

[FreeLance]

I was wondering the same thing. **** is just as obvious as (/).

I mean, if I say 'man I can't handle this ****!', it's obvious what I said, just as (/) is. I think Derby just likes editing things. He has to have something to do;)

[Link]

Well when anyone sees ****, they know it is a swear word. So it is almost as inappropriate to have a swear filtered out with *s as it is to have it displayed. Whereas when a word is edited, it isn't always as obvious.

Actually, I think the best alternative would be to just not show anything, like just delete the word. To use Freelances example as an example, "I can't handle this ****". If the word was totally removed, "I can't handle this " still has the exact same meaning, but without the inappropriateness.

[Trafton]

The (-/-), (-), (---/), (/), etc. system also helps tell what swear word it is. After all everyone knows what four stars reperesents based on the context. With it changed to (-/-), only people who actually care can tell, and those tend to be the people that aren't offended by it. I think it's a good system myself, but like any system, it isn't perfect.

[KRSplat]

Yes, but...


*shame* I can't find anything to dsagree with in Trafton's post...

;)

[VeggieMan]

The idea of the fliter is to protect the supposed kids that we have on the JCF. So if they use *'s to edit it out then it shouldn't matter because the kids should be too innocent to understand what the *'s are replacing.

My point is if you're going to have a word fliter use it and don't replace it with other fliters.

Espacially when I'm writting a sentance and it's replaced with a completely different word in ( )'s that's really annoying. Then I have to go back and re-edit so the sentence makes sense.

[Trafton]

Well, answer this so I can understand where you're coming from: why is (-/-) worse than *****?

(Note: I do not actually mean anything with these (-/-)s or asteriks. ;-p)

[Derby]

Originally posted by Link
Well when anyone sees ****, they know it is a swear word. So it is almost as inappropriate to have a swear filtered out with *s as it is to have it displayed. Whereas when a word is edited, it isn't always as obvious.

Actually, I think the best alternative would be to just not show anything, like just delete the word. To use Freelances example as an example, "I can't handle this ****". If the word was totally removed, "I can't handle this " still has the exact same meaning, but without the inappropriateness.

Most of the time, words are outright removed from the posts. Sometimes the meaning can get totally destroyed in a post, however; that is when a less coarse editing approach needs to be taken. My own editions remove pertinent context that is inappropriate, but otherwise not demeaning of the post. Context editions usually tag along with content editions in this sense. Content edits often vary. Sometimes, a highly discouraging method is used every once in a while known as a "content replacement", and more recently a "smiley redaction". Small portions of offensive test can be dealt with more easily than large portions of offensive text. Likewise, they are dealt with more severely. Editions in this category include personal and wide attack replacements, as well as propaganda insertions. It is good news and bad news that personal and wide attacks are scarce, however. The good news is, personal and wide attacks are scarce, but are also very bad. The bad news, as a result of this, is that I do not get to insert more propaganda into them and dish out as many warnings. Oh darn.

[Trafton]

I agree with Derby. Also, if you want your sentence to not be edited, then don't include content. If there isn't any content, the sentence is fine. I know someone will reply saying that the sentence requires the word use, but that's rarely true. Rephrasing it to not have content will avoid an edit and make the sentence make sense.

[FreeLance]

I like the censorship. It rocks.

[Blackraptor]

Im thankfull for the filter, because with out it ppl would go **** all day and **** like that.

[Krezack]

Originally posted by Derby
Most of the time, words are outright removed from the posts. Sometimes the meaning can get totally destroyed in a post, however; that is when a less coarse editing approach needs to be taken. My own editions remove pertinent context that is inappropriate, but otherwise not demeaning of the post. Context editions usually tag along with content editions in this sense. Content edits often vary. Sometimes, a highly discouraging method is used every once in a while known as a "content replacement", and more recently a "smiley redaction". Small portions of offensive test can be dealt with more easily than large portions of offensive text. Likewise, they are dealt with more severely. Editions in this category include personal and wide attack replacements, as well as propaganda insertions. It is good news and bad news that personal and wide attacks are scarce, however. The good news is, personal and wide attacks are scarce, but are also very bad. The bad news, as a result of this, is that I do not get to insert more propaganda into them and dish out as many warnings. Oh darn.

What does redaction mean?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Tik]

It would be nice if you guys had an option or something about whether or not things were censored. Although I suppose that would be hard to achieve after all of the special editing you do all the time.

Redaction = Masticate.

[DannyBoy]

A few months ago I saw two guys making out at the train station. I thought that was the gayest thing I'ld ever seen, until I saw the editing with smiley faces and replacing of words such as **** with things like "pancreatic juices" put in parenthesis.

[Fawriel]

Originally posted by DannyBoy
A few months ago I saw two guys making out at the train station. I thought that was the gayest thing I'ld ever seen...
Huh?:p

[Trafton]

Originally posted by DannyBoy
A few months ago I saw two guys making out at the train station. I thought that was the gayest thing I'ld ever seen, until I saw the editing with smiley faces and replacing of words such as **** with things like "pancreatic juices" put in parenthesis.
And why would smiley face edits be homosexual? I wasn't even aware they had a gender.

[Krezack]

Originally posted by Krezack
What does redaction mean?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Derby: Please chew my smilies!