Active Users:995 Time:31/07/2026 07:33:18 AM
well... jh Send a noteboard - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
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"?


To be honest, if the alternative to writing shit is an influx of underage americans, keep the shit flowing. :P
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world" - Calvin.
Reply to message
Can we swear at RAFO? - 22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM 1171 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear. - 22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM 832 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk??? - 22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM 811 Views
Delicate? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:06:19 AM 431 Views
Yes? - 22/11/2010 05:37:36 AM 691 Views
I don't know, can you? *NM* - 22/11/2010 05:54:20 AM 450 Views
Why not try it an find out. *NM* - 22/11/2010 06:05:35 AM 409 Views
hell to the fuck yes! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:51:07 AM 395 Views
I can't think of underage users - 22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM 871 Views
Well - 22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM 870 Views
That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM 783 Views
Re: That's a good point of course - 22/11/2010 12:11:25 PM 912 Views
THANK YOU! *hugs* - 22/11/2010 12:28:38 PM 736 Views
Back off! - 22/11/2010 12:31:13 PM 792 Views
'SOK: I hugged a man (in public)... - 22/11/2010 12:35:16 PM 673 Views
I never had that issue. - 22/11/2010 05:38:59 PM 803 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 05:53:24 PM 464 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches. - 22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM 851 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles? - 22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM 727 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient? - 22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM 891 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb - 22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM 785 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy. - 22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM 908 Views
Subroutines such as what? - 22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM 1137 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now. - 22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM 1148 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 796 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none. - 23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM 812 Views
well... - 23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM 826 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM 802 Views
Re: well... - 23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM 781 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people. - 23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM 858 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM 388 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college. - 23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM 824 Views
Please. - 23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM 832 Views
I resent that. - 23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM 698 Views
Sadface. *NM* - 23/11/2010 10:12:31 PM 406 Views
... and later additions like Ghavrel? - 23/11/2010 10:24:28 PM 862 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles - 22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM 792 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck - 22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM 781 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk. - 22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM 943 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 826 Views
*NM* - 22/11/2010 09:36:20 PM 794 Views
Who said anything about regulation? - 23/11/2010 01:45:21 AM 844 Views
I love how you made Adam into a positive - 22/11/2010 05:40:33 PM 899 Views
For good or ill, Adam was very much a part of wotmania. - 22/11/2010 07:40:03 PM 843 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM* - 22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM 409 Views
Hey there! - 22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM 997 Views
A few honest answers. - 22/11/2010 10:54:30 PM 729 Views
Thanks - 22/11/2010 11:07:00 PM 734 Views
Perfectly alright. *NM* - 22/11/2010 11:12:43 PM 290 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though. - 23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM 859 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM* - 23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM 381 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 776 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though. - 23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM 788 Views
*sniggers* - 24/11/2010 02:27:22 PM 686 Views
Has anyone actually voiced that concern? - 24/11/2010 02:28:23 PM 777 Views
yes. - 22/11/2010 12:05:23 PM 733 Views
True. - 22/11/2010 06:45:58 PM 784 Views
I love how the original poster hasn't responded to any of this. - 23/11/2010 03:11:58 AM 778 Views
Probably still in shock. - 23/11/2010 01:52:01 PM 795 Views

Reply to Message