He is currently an active poster under the name grittynhl (granted not particularly prolific), and he is not voting on multiple accounts… So I fail to see what your argument is. Should we not let @devil vote because that name is kind of a gimmick too, even though it’s his main account?
I made it - ■■■■■■ with quotes will not make it past the filter. It isn’t retroactive, so any post that was made before the filter was applied will still show it.
The current filter is - *(bad word)*
So the asterisks are wildcards and that makes the software bleep anything that has the word ■■■■ in it. I am intending on implementing a regex pattern that will bleep out JUST the word ■■■■ and not the entire rest of the word, because that seems like something people want that support bleeping it.
Another example:
■■■■
Should really have a running list of posters who have indicated they will stop using the forum if this fails in the OP, IMO.
This is disingenuous bull. Basically everyone in that thread, including me, has agreed to stop using whatever words you find offensive as well.
2 Likes
If this is close and people start voting on gimmicks - If I see anything that looks suspicious, I WILL out you. So, that shouldn’t be a concern in anyone’s mind.
Naaw I haven’t seen an issue with yours. Ggoreo made one specially for me when I blew up in the moderation thread (lol me for reading that), which I truly appreciate him doing so quickly.
Do you agree with me that someone who’s only account is a gimmick should be allowed to vote?
How about every minority/oppressed group gets exactly one word that is completely banned. Thinking about it, its actually amazing how well this lines up. The c-word is gone, but the b-word is safe and forever will be.
That’s a good idea - maybe admin can add that to the filter code so whenever someone uses the ‘bad word’ not only is it filtered but the poster can also be remnded of all the users who have threatened to leave if they persist. That should help resolve this issue.
3 Likes
It’s a pretty shameful state of affairs.
To me, it appears that censoring words is a way of treating everybody here like children. It’s not like a bunch of asterisks changes the meaning of the word that they’re replacing.
Easier just to make using those words punishable instead of censoring them.
4 Likes
How about let’s worry about that if it comes down to precisely one vote. As it looks right now, I don’t think it will. I think the community is going to make the right choice.
If I’m wrong… well, heh. I’m not gonna quit but I’m not gonna give as much of a fuck. Sorry, I can’t help that. This seems like a very obvious choice to me and I’m not sure that most people voting no really understand the full context here.
Unfortunately I’m quite sure this is what is going on with most of the non-troll no votes.
As a cis white male, I would like the word cracker banned from this forum.
I tried to do it justice in the OP, but maybe people just skimmed or I did a bad job. I tried.
Pretty sure that was voted on before. The pro-banning side lost. The nice thing about the big bold censor dots is it makes it easy to figure out which posts to ignore completely as I’m scrolling through a thread.
1 Like
I think most of the members of “the group of posters who happen to be from the UK who like to follow around particular posters and mods and troll them in every thread, tm.” are asleep by now. It’ll tighten.
Several women already said they find it pretty offensive. Not sure what else people need. Would be funny if filter was a dictionary replacement with a random 4-letter word.
1 Like
I don’t know if this is fair to them - They’ve said they’d moderate their use of the word, so why would bleeping matter to them? Unless they wanna just give a middle finger to the site. I think more highly of the people you’re talking about than that.
Saying people are going to quit if you vote a certain way above the poll is extremely biased and we should redo the entire thread.
1 Like