Active Users:159 Time:01/06/2024 03:40:13 AM
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. Joel Send a noteboard - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
...a) it submits a post with profanities and parses out whether the result is an error page or b) it finds a post with profanities within. This goes for pretty much all filters, as they are better implemented server-side to avoid people disabling scripts to avoid filtering.

* and a parental control program will not see more than a browser does, even less if it is not logged in.

I'll take your word for it, even if it seems odd; many things about programming seem odd to non-programmers. Still, a filter that prevents posting profanity would satisfy such checks without inhibiting anyone. I'm NOT suggesting RAFO do as other sites have, disallowing special characters or html tags within words solely to enforce language policies (although if censorship is so horrid, why can't I link porn...? ;)) I'm simply saying an innocuous and inconspicuous feature could significantly expand accessibility of a young site while handcuffing no one.

We're not debating swearing on RAFO; that's not going anywhere (at least, I hope not). We're debating whether we should have the ability to proudly say, "This site HAS no language filter", which seems a pretty small thing for which to sacrifice dozens or perhaps hundreds of potential members. Put another way: Which do you think RAFO needs more right now, new blood, or the ability to write "shit" instead of "shit"?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Can we swear at RAFO? - 22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM 911 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear. - 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM 533 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk??? - 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM 564 Views
Delicate? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:06:19 AM 318 Views
Yes? - 22/11/2010 05:37:36 AM 415 Views
I don't know, can you? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:54:20 AM 339 Views
Why not try it an find out. *NM* - 22/11/2010 06:05:35 AM 297 Views
hell to the fuck yes! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:51:07 AM 293 Views
I can't think of underage users - 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM 613 Views
Well - 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM 625 Views
That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM 532 Views
Re: That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 12:11:25 PM 652 Views
THANK YOU! *hugs* - 22/11/2010 12:28:38 PM 476 Views
Back off! - 22/11/2010 12:31:13 PM 527 Views
'SOK: I hugged a man (in public)... - 22/11/2010 12:35:16 PM 404 Views
I never had that issue. - 22/11/2010 05:38:59 PM 549 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 05:53:24 PM 350 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches. - 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM 577 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles? - 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM 459 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient? - 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM 604 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb - 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM 534 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy. - 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM 645 Views
Subroutines such as what? - 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM 835 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM 826 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 525 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM 562 Views
well... - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM 574 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM 534 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM 516 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people. - 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM 601 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM 286 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college. - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM 561 Views
Please. - 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM 567 Views
I resent that. - 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM 426 Views
Sadface. *NM* - 23/11/2010 10:12:31 PM 298 Views
... and later additions like Ghavrel? - 23/11/2010 10:24:28 PM 617 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles - 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM 545 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM 531 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. - 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM 685 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 564 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 09:36:20 PM 535 Views
Who said anything about regulation? - 23/11/2010 01:45:21 AM 582 Views
I love how you made Adam into a positive - 22/11/2010 05:40:33 PM 586 Views
For good or ill, Adam was very much a part of wotmania. - 22/11/2010 07:40:03 PM 581 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM 297 Views
Hey there! - 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM 708 Views
A few honest answers. - 22/11/2010 10:54:30 PM 466 Views
Thanks - 22/11/2010 11:07:00 PM 482 Views
Perfectly alright. *NM* - 22/11/2010 11:12:43 PM 177 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though. - 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM 609 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM 270 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 508 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though. - 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM 552 Views
*sniggers* - 24/11/2010 02:27:22 PM 412 Views
Has anyone actually voiced that concern? - 24/11/2010 02:28:23 PM 516 Views
yes. - 22/11/2010 12:05:23 PM 460 Views
True. - 22/11/2010 06:45:58 PM 521 Views
I love how the original poster hasn't responded to any of this. - 23/11/2010 03:11:58 AM 543 Views
Probably still in shock. - 23/11/2010 01:52:01 PM 549 Views

Reply to Message