It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Not liking this new censor system.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
To be fair, Mr. Monkey, I don't think we were being ungrateful. I completely agree that the site should be run however the pantheon of moderators and owners decree. I was merely wondering what was so wrong with the old system of censorship? The new system, to my mind, can make it more difficult for people to get their points across. Of course no-one should use bad language, but this is the real world! Of course the language should be censored, but the absolute excision of the offending articles is an ugly, arbitrary way of doing it - particularly since I've seen more than one example of (and forgive me for this) jacka-s-s, fcuking, sh1t and all the other oh-so-witty ways of bypassing the filter.

The new system outlaws bad language, but doesn't actively encourage good language. At least with the old (v) substitutions and what have you, everyone knew where they stood. I can say this, by the way, as someone who has never attracted the attention of a censor outwith the fiction boards.

But ungrateful to Simon and the others? I pray to them three times daily.




posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   
There a link to information regarding the new censors? For example, a thread SO started, with news on the new censors.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:04 AM
link   
BTW I think you have to spend 1000 points to turn off the censors.

[Edited on 22-5-2004 by drunk]



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I have no problem with the (v) words, I can see removing them, but it edits out words that can be found in the bible, just because they have more than 1 meaning.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
To be fair, Mr. Monkey, I don't think we were being ungrateful. I completely agree that the site should be run however the pantheon of moderators and owners decree. I was merely wondering what was so wrong with the old system of censorship? The new system, to my mind, can make it more difficult for people to get their points across. Of course no-one should use bad language, but this is the real world! Of course the language should be censored, but the absolute excision of the offending articles is an ugly, arbitrary way of doing it - particularly since I've seen more than one example of (and forgive me for this) jacka-s-s, fcuking, sh1t and all the other oh-so-witty ways of bypassing the filter.

The new system outlaws bad language, but doesn't actively encourage good language. At least with the old (v) substitutions and what have you, everyone knew where they stood. I can say this, by the way, as someone who has never attracted the attention of a censor outwith the fiction boards.

But ungrateful to Simon and the others? I pray to them three times daily.


its not the old style of censoring that was the problem...it seems the problem is members were/are buying to turn the censors off and they seem to believe that makes it ok to curse like sailors, it doesnt. so william is having to clamp down on the censoring as a result. as it was said before after people learn to stop being potty mouths the censors will go back to normal. noone said it would always be like this, this is only temporary until people can learn how to behave.

how the new system prevents people from getting their points across is absurd.

i can get my points across just fine. in fact i made a rather large point on the first page of this thread that you seem to read just fine. you're implying those who are cursing in their posts arent going to get THEIR point across. i guess they'll have to learn to post without the foul language. if i can do it 90% of the time when i'm probably the most vulgar person off this board i KNOW everyone else can.

as for encouraging "good language" i wasnt aware we had to. i thought wanting to learn was incentive enough. i thought exchanging ideas was incentive enough. apparently now people want to get a reward for the type of behavior they are suppose to display to begin with. whats next? want a cookie for paying your bills on time? if william wants to reward people for doing something they're suppose to be doing already that's his business but i dont think he should.

another point here is in some areas of the board, as i stated...while it is still frowned upon it is more tolerated. in some cases we allow it but when asked to calm it down or take it down a notch we expect compliance, just because we dont always enforce a rule doesnt mean it stops being a rule.

i also never thought that some people would act this way and need us to play parent but i guess i was wrong. bypassing the filters is also against the rules and that too is being addressed.

i'm going out on a limb here and say that about 90-95% of the board can do without cursing. in fact if everything was reworded outside of thw forums where its allowed you could still understand everything being said.

i dont believe anger hatred or emotion is a good enough excuse to use vulgar language. its all over the board. its in the paranormal forum. what use does it have there? none. and there is more than one way to express emotions, many more ways...



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
intrepid, where did you get the info on the new censor system, if you don't mind me asking, I'd like a read



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I am slightly annoyed that members don't realize what SimonG has done for us.
Imagine life without ATS.? Everyone needs their daily 'time out'.
Mine is ATS. Live with the censor for now, and when the cussing levels
out, so will the censor...simple.

Sanc'.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lyriox
intrepid, where did you get the info on the new censor system, if you don't mind me asking, I'd like a read


I didn't have any, I just posted something and a word was removed, and I was wondering, why? Wasn't even cursing.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Surely we are educated enough to get our points across without the F word, among others.
It may cause a few more synapses to go off in our brains, but to deny ignorance should make it worth it.
I have been guilty of bypassing the censors...shIte, for example. But, I can live with out that, too.

Kay Em is soooo right, we have much more importants things to concern ourselves with.

Folks, the mods are trying to maintain a certain standard here, I think. This board is betting huge. The bigger it is, the more the work. The bigger it is, the more people come here who seem to need "gentle" reminders on their behavior. I've seen what seems an increase in "ungentle" behavior since I came here, only a few months ago.



posted on May, 22 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
its not the old style of censoring that was the problem...it seems the problem is members were/are buying to turn the censors off...


Then wouldn't it be a more equitable solution to remove the opportunity to "turn off" the censor? I don't understand why anyone would need - or want - to turn them off anyway.


Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
how the new system prevents people from getting their points across is absurd.


The new censor is unclear - the utter excision of a word without a trace can be confusing, particularly in any of the more vociferous threads. I'd rather have a big old **EXPLETIVE DELETED** in the middle of a line than nothing at all. As I said, it's all to do with getting your point across - something which isn't always easy for those fine ATS members for whom English isn't the first language.

I agree with you absolutely that profanity is unnecessary in civilised society, but I also trawl the boards at ATS a great deal, and this society is not always civilised.

But I will, of course, accept the decision of the moderators. My intention was never to belittle the great work the backstage guys do on the site. As I stated, earlier, I entirely agree that censorship is a good idea - I just wonder if this authoritarian zero-tolerance approach is necessary.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Kay Em is soooo right, we have much more importants things to concern ourselves with.



Um...I think you misunderstood me lol

What I meant was that I can't believe that ATS would focus so much time and energy on swear words when we should be most concerned with posting our thoughts on issues and what's happening around the world. It was my point to stress that is cussing REALLY such an important issue with the world in the bad way that it is ?

I guess I just don't see the big to-do about swear words, or why people choose to become offended by them.

Believe me, I love ATS just as much as the next person. I just think it's a little ridiculous that you can't say (word that rhymes with) 'Spit', but yet people can post truly offensive things like a certain post I saw in a recent gay marriages thread.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
There are many things with which to be concerned, no doubt, but that does not mean that you are obligated to be rude in public, nor does conducting one's self as a cad in the company of ladies and children going to make the world a better place, now is it?

Regardless, the censor is in place, not to mention the terms and conditions of this board. You, like all the rest of us, have the choice of abiding by the rules or striking a trot to another board, or even yet, creating your own board.

There is a reason this board has grown to be the giant that it now is. It is the quality of board Simon wanted to create that has made the difference.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
From Kayem


The world is falling to pieces. We've got Americans having their heads cut up on video for all the world to see. We've got homeless in the streets wondering where the next meal is coming from. Working poor who can't afford doctors or dentists and the only thing ATS (sorry guys, I've got to say it) can complain about is cussing.

Yeah, Simon, do something about those homeless, willya? Seriously, though..

Of all those maladies listed, the only one that Simon has control over is ATS. Profanity is for shock value, period. Like when your 3 year old calls you a dumb-head. After that, after having being shocked that once, it's just an excuse for lazy grammar, IMO.





posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There are many things with which to be concerned, no doubt, but that does not mean that you are obligated to be rude in public, nor does conducting one's self as a cad in the company of ladies and children going to make the world a better place, now is it?

Regardless, the censor is in place, not to mention the terms and conditions of this board. You, like all the rest of us, have the choice of abiding by the rules or striking a trot to another board, or even yet, creating your own board.

There is a reason this board has grown to be the giant that it now is. It is the quality of board Simon wanted to create that has made the difference.


I never meant to imply dissatisfaction with this board, TC. I was simply expressing my opinions freely which is ALSO a reason this board has grown to be the giant it is now. I am correct in this, yes ?

I was also merely trying to have an honest debate about swearing. Not actually questioning any decision of Simons.

I would just really like to know from you anti-cuss-words people. Who decided that swearing was rude in the first place ? Who says ??? Maybe I (and others as well) feel that swearing isn't all that bad compared to other things going on in the world that we SHOULD be offended at.

People choose what they get offended by. It's a matter of priorities. I will choose to get offended at the homeless living in streets and not being given the real help they need. I will get offended at wars where people are getting their heads chopped off and videotaped. But I will NOT get offended at somebody spitting out a few well chosen swear words. Why ? Because it's not WORTH getting offended about with everything ELSE going on in the world.

Again. I am trying to debate "Cussing" here. NOT Simons decisions or rules of his site. Although admittedly maybe another thread would be the more appropriate place as it appears that whatever pro-swearing words are posted here, they are going to be taken in the spirit and misunderstanding of challenging the owners decisions.

I will stop now. And I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Of all those maladies listed, the only one that Simon has control over is ATS. Profanity is for shock value, period. Like when your 3 year old calls you a dumb-head. After that, after having being shocked that once, it's just an excuse for lazy grammar, IMO.




Sorry. Jso..we disagree again. IMO swear words are every bit as valid as the rest of the words listed in Websters. They are only shock words if you choose to be offended by them.

Also, I doubt very much the homeless would appreciate your making light of their plight. Not very thoughtful.

End of rant. You guys go ahead with your flamethrowers. My 2 pennies have been spent.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I personally have no problem with the censor system. I think more places should use it. I don't see why someone would have a problem with not being able to swear. I don't see it as an infringment on my rights. I swear enough RL...LOL I dont need to do it here. There are many ways to get a point across, it can be done without swearing. But this is just my opinion. Like I said, I swear a lot as it is RL.
And also reading the reasons behind the censor system, I think it is a good thing because it keeps the site in the green with all the filters and parental controls out there. Sounds like a good plan to me.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
i think the best use for the censors is when one of two things is true:

1. The word is bad in a different context, and is not really harmful to a thread.

or

2.It helps me realize how abiding the poster is. For example, when i see a post littered with (v) and (c), i dont assume they have as much tolerance and wisdom as some1 without. Ive been proven wrong, but for the most part, its proportional.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Again, I'm talking about 2-way words, not outright swearing. Words that have more than 1 meaning. I put it in my post, to indicate I was replying to the original post and when I saw it, it didn't address that post at all.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
So, let me get this straight, Kay'em, you are trying to make it sound as if you have no idea why foul language is not proper conduct in public, and you are truly making the argument that you should be able to use fould language?



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com... The automatic site-ranking spiders do not care about the context of swear-words. If the censors were turned of tomorrow, they would find the F-word occuring on the ATS discussion board 9,291 times. That's far too much. We would immediately receive a "HIGH Vulgarity" rank and the entire domain would be restricted. [Edited on 23-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join