Do we need a swear filter?

Is it really necessary?
I can understand some words being too rude, for example the C word and maybe a few others.

But the swear filter goes OTT, it doesn't need to cover so many words. Honestly some words you hear in a PG film are censored here- I think it's just silly.

What do you guys think? Apologies if this has been covered before.

Amritia

If possible can't it be an individual option to have it on/off?

I'll answer your question with a question.

Do you really feel that your using of this forum is blighted by not being able to swear?

I think it says more about you than the forum if you can't contribute to something without dropping in a curse word.

Sainty wrote:
I think it says more about you than the forum if you can't contribute to something without dropping in a curse word.

Yes, of course I can contribute without swearing (https://www.606v2.com/f164-tennis-weekly-series-archive)
I never said I couldn't, don't put words in my mouth.

However I do think the extent of filtering is OTT. Of course, as I have said, I do believe stronger swear words should be filtered.
But recently I used the phrase 't*t for tat.' (i.e. you hit me, I hit you). Instead it came out as 'Holly Wilaboobie for tat.'
Also 'b*stard' is filtered too- even in PG films I see that word being used!

Once again, apologies if you disagree with me, but I think the level of censoring is a bit too high.

The people who came up with the swear filter are geniuses.

LOL!!

Seriously though, in general it is good but some words that are censored aren't even swear words. And some of the replacement words can ruin what your trying to say. Example: talking about wrist c*ck on the golf board has become impossible.

[quote="Sainty"]I'll answer your question with a question.

Do you really feel that your using of this forum is blighted by not being able to swear?

I think it says more about you than the forum if you can't contribute to something without dropping in a curse word.[/quote]

+1

incontinentia wrote:
Seriously though, in general it is good but some words that are censored aren't even swear words. And some of the replacement words can ruin what your trying to say. Example: talking about wrist c*ck on the golf board has become impossible.

I absolutely agree with this.

thanks for the feedback guys.

We will take the comments on board and consider the request

Well truth be told after the way the Boks played on the weekend I would have liked to use a few curses in my rants.

Just to put in a word on the sub.............. oops sorry.

Just to put in a word on the subject from an Irish perspective.

We Irish curse. It's a known worldwide fact. In a sense, it's our calling card. You don't believe me? Well just keep an eye out for any Irish guy you might see in a movie (I mean where he's either a real Irish guy or a guy pretending to be with that false accent no Irish man can ever place)

Anyway, in order to make it abundantly clear the character is Irish, it's usual that he's probably the first one to utter an expletive and in actual fact he'll probably be the only one allowed to continually curse throughout the movie - so that we keep remembering he's Irish... and that he's probably going to try and blow up the friendly neighbourhood cornerstore owner sometime later on.

In short, I think not allowing cursing is an infringement of our inalienable verbal rights - every bit as offensive as not allowing an Aussie to say 'Mite', an English man to say 'Yeah' at the end of his sentences, a South African to say 'Si' (as in: "We South Africans do not si 'si', we si 'si' just like the rest of you") - or not allowing a New Zealander to say "We won".

So come on - freedom of speech please - I don't know how to be articulate without me collection of filthy words.

Yes the swear filter is needed.

#authoritybull

In fairness many of Bull's guests are of a sensitive nature

It also has the greater ability to eradicate bad spellings that pop up all the time.

Don't believe me? Try typing t e h

Seriously, I don't think it matters a great deal. T i t for tat is a good example of when it is a bit silly, but as I only hear that phrase on Downton Abbey it doesn't matter to me that much

TwisT wrote:It also has the greater ability to eradicate bad spellings that pop up all the time.

Don't believe me? Try typing t e h

Seriously, I don't think it matters a great deal. T i t for tat is a good example of when it is a bit silly, but as I only hear that phrase on Downton Abbey it doesn't matter to me that much

the

Oh, you were right!
Never knew that

At the moment we have 57% who like it as it is.
43% would like change, a third of which want radical, the other 2-thirds want a moderate reform

So as it is, it looks like 606v2 altogether likes the filter, but it would be a bit better to have a pool more than 21 people!

I put in the following request:

If the swear filter must remain, then can the substitute word be 'frak' as an homage to Battlestar Galactica please?

beeman wrote:I put in the following request:

If the swear filter must remain, then can the substitute word be 'frak' as an homage to Battlestar Galactica please?

Frack instead of flip

Not a bad idea

Because we love you so.

Now Frak off.

Can we change every swear word to sex?

No, though we can change your username whenever we please if we continue to get silly requests in.

Can you change it to Bull's guest?

Classic

Site rules were applied to my post??? Even when you're funnin' there's always a po-faced officer with his can of mace and cuffs.

Hmmm, I must seek out a pretty unpleasant thread I came across a few days ago that was allowed run for 10 or fifteen posts and although it was forcefully closed by mods eventually, they allowed some quite vicious language to remain in place and allusions to all kinds of unsavoury stuff. I'll get back to you with the thread title when I find it again - might take some time though.

But maybe it's not always the language itself that's 'offensive' (even starred out variety!!!!) but the offensive intent in even 'decent' language? Like I say, I'll get back to you if I find it.

Got it, here it is:

https://www.606v2.com/t34620-when-will-olley-edwards-reveal-all#1528819

A nice little crass piece of bilge and bile, and unsubstantiated allegations of quite a serious nature and crude responses and bad language aplenty.

Not that I'd ask to have the thread deleted btw .... I'm anti-censorship, even though I do tend to censor myself when I'm joking and try to keep all my swear words to the 'starred out' stuff. But my comments above are infinitely milder than the bunk I've alluded to in the link, so maybe a little balance in moderating standards might allow us all to understand what is actually allowed and what isn't.

I think the editing of your comment was a little tongue in cheek.

Can I go back to GSC, I dislike the way Bull treats his guests

Crimey wrote:I think the editing of your comment was a little tongue in cheek.

Maybe you're right... but it killed the humourous punch of my intent stone dead in the process. A little allowance please for us comic relief guys of 606 . It's a hard and thankless job we do to lighten the sometimes over zealous and serious nature of sporting comment that goes on on these pages. We deserve our starred out expletives!!!

GSC wrote:Can I go back to GSC, I dislike the way Bull treats his guests

Some may say guests.
Others may say missing persons.

Its just a friendly game of hide and seek

Hero, as the founder of this site, you of course decide what action to take

Personally I think that being aggressive to another poster, in a offensive manner, is worse than swearing.

But nevertheless I do believe the filter should exist for certain words- which are 'too' rude.
But other borderline words could be taken of the system. Is saying 'you lucky b*stard!' or 't*t for tat' harmful?

Whilst I agree with you in certain circumstances words such as T1t are perfectly acceptable there are also unfortunately times when they are not and generally these are the more frequently used versions of the word.
The other issue is that words such as t1t etc may then cause the ad banner at the top to start picking up unsavoury images (well unsavoury in that they wouldn't look good on a work computer).

Fargin corksoakers and iceholes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv8tVxk6Nj4

Hero wrote:Whilst I agree with you in certain circumstances words such as T1t are perfectly acceptable there are also unfortunately times when they are not and generally these are the more frequently used versions of the word.
The other issue is that words such as t1t etc may then cause the ad banner at the top to start picking up unsavoury images (well unsavoury in that they wouldn't look good on a work computer).

Wow, how smart is the ad banner? And what information does it pick up on because I've noticed in the past couple of weeks that it has felt far more targetted marketing than usual banners.

Back on topic, I think the filter is a good idea and pick that option in the poll but my only suggestion sould be to italic or colour those filter changes when they happen, it would make reading auto-edited posts a bit easier to understand. Those sometimes posts just make no sense in the first place.

It is Google adsense, thus it targets the user based on various things that individual has searched for etc. Very clever.

Well - at the moment mine is showing UPC - broadband TV and phone provider.

I haven't looked up anything of that nature in approximately two years! So it has me all wrong, this Google adsense guy!

Thankfully, I may add as I hate the idea of a computer programme keeping an eye on my interests - its much too kinky for me.

Oops - em............... that just brought up an interesting ad -------------- hmmm, Your own personal and Discreet S&M dungeon, delivered to your doorstep or to your nearest neighbour if you're not at home

I'll just keep my mouth closed from here on in.

Your own personal and Discreet S&M dungeon, delivered to your doorstep or to your nearest neighbour if you're not at home

I'll just keep my mouth closed from here on in.

That'd be the ballgag.

*nods afirmatively*