Active Users:1285 Time:15/06/2026 11:30:43 PM
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 1157 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear. - 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM 810 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk??? - 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM 796 Views
Delicate? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:06:19 AM 424 Views
Yes? - 22/11/2010 05:37:36 AM 672 Views
I don't know, can you? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:54:20 AM 442 Views
Why not try it an find out. *NM* - 22/11/2010 06:05:35 AM 402 Views
hell to the fuck yes! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:51:07 AM 387 Views
I can't think of underage users - 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM 855 Views
Well - 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM 852 Views
That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM 769 Views
Re: That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 12:11:25 PM 896 Views
THANK YOU! *hugs* - 22/11/2010 12:28:38 PM 725 Views
Back off! - 22/11/2010 12:31:13 PM 776 Views
'SOK: I hugged a man (in public)... - 22/11/2010 12:35:16 PM 659 Views
I never had that issue. - 22/11/2010 05:38:59 PM 787 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 05:53:24 PM 456 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches. - 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM 839 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles? - 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM 700 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient? - 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM 876 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb - 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM 772 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy. - 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM 893 Views
Subroutines such as what? - 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM 1116 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM 1132 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 770 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM 797 Views
well... - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM 805 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM 787 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM 761 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people. - 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM 840 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM 380 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college. - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM 803 Views
Please. - 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM 811 Views
I resent that. - 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM 684 Views
Sadface. *NM* - 23/11/2010 10:12:31 PM 398 Views
... and later additions like Ghavrel? - 23/11/2010 10:24:28 PM 846 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles - 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM 775 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM 768 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. - 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM 931 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 813 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 09:36:20 PM 778 Views
Who said anything about regulation? - 23/11/2010 01:45:21 AM 826 Views
I love how you made Adam into a positive - 22/11/2010 05:40:33 PM 886 Views
For good or ill, Adam was very much a part of wotmania. - 22/11/2010 07:40:03 PM 828 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM 395 Views
Hey there! - 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM 977 Views
A few honest answers. - 22/11/2010 10:54:30 PM 716 Views
Thanks - 22/11/2010 11:07:00 PM 719 Views
Perfectly alright. *NM* - 22/11/2010 11:12:43 PM 283 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though. - 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM 845 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM 374 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 747 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though. - 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM 775 Views
*sniggers* - 24/11/2010 02:27:22 PM 667 Views
Has anyone actually voiced that concern? - 24/11/2010 02:28:23 PM 764 Views
yes. - 22/11/2010 12:05:23 PM 713 Views
True. - 22/11/2010 06:45:58 PM 771 Views
I love how the original poster hasn't responded to any of this. - 23/11/2010 03:11:58 AM 762 Views
Probably still in shock. - 23/11/2010 01:52:01 PM 781 Views

Reply to Message