Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
Joel Send a noteboard - 22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
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
I'm still not convinced how well it's "working" though. The proof is in the newbs, I think; wotmania was around long enough that most of its members are Big People who can access it from home if they so desire, but God alone knows how this is affecting young potential RAFOlk. Thank goodness for ToM, I say, because it seems pretty clear much of our newbs (and most of our recent content) can be traced directly to that source. Who knows who's missing though? Seems like a big risk for a new site to take, IMHO, unless it intends to survive solely on former wotmaniacs.
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.
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.
Can we swear at RAFO?
22/11/2010 04:57:59 AM
- 956 Views
Fuck no. Are you shitting me? There's no damn chance we can swear.
22/11/2010 05:01:48 AM
- 578 Views
You DARE presume to assault my delicate ears with your nasty coarse sailor talk???
22/11/2010 05:05:23 AM
- 612 Views
I can't think of underage users
22/11/2010 11:32:40 AM
- 662 Views
Well
22/11/2010 11:47:13 AM
- 672 Views
That's a good point of course
22/11/2010 11:58:37 AM
- 577 Views
Obviously we don't know what we don't know.</Rumsfeld>
22/11/2010 12:33:53 PM
- 689 Views
Apparently it's not high on Ben's priority list, so we seem to be fine for now. *NM*
22/11/2010 12:38:42 PM
- 314 Views
The difference is webbrowsers can't be set to automatically exlude the former from web searches.
22/11/2010 12:01:05 PM
- 622 Views
How many posts have there been with swear words in titles?
22/11/2010 12:45:49 PM
- 501 Views
Are you telling me monitors are THAT horribly inefficient?
22/11/2010 02:55:43 PM
- 654 Views
Scanning a CoC requires a human (or significantly improved parsing), whereas spidering can be dumb
22/11/2010 03:06:19 PM
- 582 Views
I figured,but checking for filter subroutines seems like it would be pretty easy.
22/11/2010 04:18:01 PM
- 692 Views
Subroutines such as what?
22/11/2010 04:33:05 PM
- 891 Views
Well, honestly, I don't know, but I expect language filter subroutines are pretty standardized now.
22/11/2010 08:01:07 PM
- 871 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
- 567 Views
OK, but even then preventing such posts covers the contingencies while censoring none.
23/11/2010 01:49:15 PM
- 609 Views
well...
23/11/2010 04:14:51 PM
- 618 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 05:26:14 PM
- 586 Views
Re: well...
23/11/2010 06:42:43 PM
- 561 Views
Yes, a lot of people don't seem to want RAFO "invaded" by new people.
23/11/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 647 Views
new people is not the same as children. *NM*
23/11/2010 08:30:43 PM
- 305 Views
True, but the same principles apply to people surfing at work or college.
23/11/2010 09:16:30 PM
- 605 Views
Please.
23/11/2010 09:40:16 PM
- 615 Views
Of course they do; who do you think creates all those time sink--er, games?
23/11/2010 11:46:09 PM
- 571 Views
I resent that.
23/11/2010 10:09:36 PM
- 474 Views
Yeah, I may have skipped a few important people, too; sorry.
23/11/2010 11:44:12 PM
- 669 Views
the whole community was younger then. It really doesn't apply to today.
24/11/2010 07:50:56 AM
- 559 Views
Unless you mean the whole internet community, it's far more applicable, but to different individuals
24/11/2010 02:26:01 PM
- 644 Views
188 f-bombs dropped in titles, $hit's used 142 times in titles
22/11/2010 05:01:02 PM
- 588 Views
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
22/11/2010 06:27:59 PM
- 574 Views
Yea, you're helping exclude dozens, if not hundreds of potential RAFOlk.
22/11/2010 07:42:58 PM
- 728 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
- 613 Views
I used the search function, it was just the number of post that had those in their title
22/11/2010 07:45:18 PM
- 541 Views
*waves* Hi! *NM*
22/11/2010 10:17:52 PM
- 316 Views
Hey there!
22/11/2010 10:30:24 PM
- 754 Views
A great deal of us were underage, though.
23/11/2010 01:11:58 AM
- 653 Views
And look what a dirty mouth you got even without our help *NM*
23/11/2010 08:04:06 AM
- 289 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
- 551 Views
Who cares about the cursing. In other ways wotmania did probably corrupt me, though.
23/11/2010 10:25:37 PM
- 600 Views