Active Users:485 Time:18/09/2025 01:43:36 PM
That's a good point of course ironclad Send a noteboard - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
It was the family friendly argument at WOT that brought the swear filter. We've been rather open about it here at RAFO so far, at least until someone takes it to ridiculous degrees. I don't get what the difference between f*ck and fuck's supposed to be anyway.


Places of work, schools etc can have firewalls that block sites without swear filters or stop people going onto the messageboard if it has swearing in post titles (I recall that giving people problems at wotmania, where words that weren't caught in the swear filter were enough to be blocked by school networks, "sex" for example stopped someone, Tim it might even have been, from going to the Comm boardif it was in a post title)

Basically the difference is that the former is much less likely to stop someone being able to access the site, which is probably not a bad thing if people want the site to survive and grow;)


Then again, we won't make people write "S*x survey" as subject line to avoid collisions with filters, so it seems to work with the way it's handled right now. At least I think we didn't hear anything about someone being unable to access the site regularly. And people at school should pay attention anyway, not surf the net :approve:
*MySmiley*

You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Reply to message
Can we swear at RAFO? - 22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM 1070 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear. - 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM 692 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk??? - 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM 721 Views
Delicate? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:06:19 AM 388 Views
Yes? - 22/11/2010 05:37:36 AM 587 Views
I don't know, can you? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:54:20 AM 406 Views
Why not try it an find out. *NM* - 22/11/2010 06:05:35 AM 364 Views
hell to the fuck yes! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:51:07 AM 350 Views
I can't think of underage users - 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM 772 Views
Well - 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM 777 Views
That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM 691 Views
Re: That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 12:11:25 PM 820 Views
THANK YOU! *hugs* - 22/11/2010 12:28:38 PM 637 Views
Back off! - 22/11/2010 12:31:13 PM 692 Views
'SOK: I hugged a man (in public)... - 22/11/2010 12:35:16 PM 572 Views
I never had that issue. - 22/11/2010 05:38:59 PM 706 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 05:53:24 PM 416 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches. - 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM 763 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles? - 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM 613 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient? - 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM 795 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb - 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM 697 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy. - 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM 807 Views
Subroutines such as what? - 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM 1028 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM 1035 Views
The point is that there is nothing that a browser* will see of such a filter unless... - 23/11/2010 08:56:37 AM 675 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM 718 Views
well... - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM 728 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM 708 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM 685 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people. - 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM 761 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM 345 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college. - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM 726 Views
Please. - 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM 732 Views
I resent that. - 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM 602 Views
Sadface. *NM* - 23/11/2010 10:12:31 PM 361 Views
... and later additions like Ghavrel? - 23/11/2010 10:24:28 PM 770 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles - 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM 699 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM 690 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. - 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM 840 Views
Watch out. The CIA is watching you post that. And then they're going to arrest EVERYONE. - 22/11/2010 08:09:07 PM 728 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 09:36:20 PM 699 Views
Who said anything about regulation? - 23/11/2010 01:45:21 AM 745 Views
I love how you made Adam into a positive - 22/11/2010 05:40:33 PM 792 Views
For good or ill, Adam was very much a part of wotmania. - 22/11/2010 07:40:03 PM 743 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM 363 Views
Hey there! - 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM 890 Views
A few honest answers. - 22/11/2010 10:54:30 PM 629 Views
Thanks - 22/11/2010 11:07:00 PM 637 Views
Perfectly alright. *NM* - 22/11/2010 11:12:43 PM 244 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though. - 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM 771 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM 336 Views
All I can say to that is that people who think cursing on RAFO/WoTmania corrupts the youth - 23/11/2010 10:13:26 PM 661 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though. - 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM 697 Views
*sniggers* - 24/11/2010 02:27:22 PM 575 Views
Has anyone actually voiced that concern? - 24/11/2010 02:28:23 PM 682 Views
yes. - 22/11/2010 12:05:23 PM 627 Views
True. - 22/11/2010 06:45:58 PM 700 Views
I love how the original poster hasn't responded to any of this. - 23/11/2010 03:11:58 AM 673 Views
Probably still in shock. - 23/11/2010 01:52:01 PM 701 Views

Reply to Message