Unintelligent profanity filter

Not a complaint, just a suggestion.

I made a post which quoted another post. In the quoted post was the word I-D-I-O-T. Yet I got the "be nice" warning.

Theoretically it would seem that the filter should be able to determine the difference between a breach of TOS in a quoted text and what the poster is posting. A poster should not get warned about somebody else's violation. They should be warned only about what they have control over - what they are posting.

You can say idiot.

You just can't call someone an idiot.

Well actually, I've called myself an idiot a few times and not gotten in trouble.

These are just heads up notices, not breaches of terms of use, or anything. It saves some of us grief of having our posts reported and getting our hands slapped by mods.

it's Pekka's solution of "hey, make sure you are being nice" when we post. Yes, I agree, it could possibly exclude any quoted sections of our post though maybe. It might be worthy of consideration by Pekka unless there is a reason for it.

.
It's only a warning - just ignore it or click through it or whatever.

If a warning that isn't enforced bothers you ..... then ..... wow - I don't even know what to say to that.


.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #18862767
A poster should not get warned about somebody else's violation. They should be warned only about what they have control over - what they are posting.

When you know that the automated warning isn't about your behavior, you don't have to feel that you're being scolded. The warning is only an alert and certainly not a penalty. Members are expected to use their judgment to decide whether their post is acceptable.

A word like "wistful" or "restful" triggers the warning, but it needn't be taken seriously.

Here are two examples for why the warning is useful.

- If the original text contained a word or use of a word that IS prohibited, and Moderators come in to take action, then that post is likely going to be deleted.

If that prohibited text is quoted in entirety later in the thread, then that post with quote will also necessarily be deleted. Whatever content the "quoter" offered is lost as collateral damage of the clean up.

Given this possibility, a member should in fact receive an intelligent warning of this.
When I am the one making the deletion, I try to write a note to the member who's collateral post is deleted, so they understand "no harm no foul" but if it's a big messy one, sometimes this may not get done.

In that case, the member having had the warning, would hopefully be understanding of the situation.

- If the nasty bits being quoted are part of an online debate that has turned into a flame fest that violates the forums rules, a member that is engaging in that hostility is receiving warnings as they proceed, reminding them that they may be straying into moderator action.

I see no problem with an automated reminder that continuing could results in consequences.

OhLook wrote in post #18862836
When you know that the automated warning isn't about your behavior, you don't have to feel that you're being scolded. The warning is only an alert and certainly not a penalty. Members are expected to use their judgment to decide whether their post is acceptable.

A word like "wistful" or "restful" triggers the warning, but it needn't be taken seriously.

wistful

Wow! I never noticed that before.

That popup warning should seriously STFU!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18862842
wistful

Wow! I never noticed that before.

That popup warning should seriously STFU!

How many of my fellow idiots read oh looks post, then CDS's post, and it still needed a couple of minutes of WTFing to figure it out?

:highfive:

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18862853
How many of my fellow idiots read oh looks post, then CDS's post, and it still needed a couple of minutes of WTFing to figure it out?

:highfive:

An idiotic idiot can always start to quote my post, get the warning in Preview, achieve understanding, and back out by clicking CANCEL. I thought of saying so in the earlier post and, idiotically, didn't.

OhLook wrote in post #18862836
A word like "wistful" or "restful" triggers the warning, but it needn't be taken seriously.

But Penistone and Scunthorpe seem to pass unhindered.

what does wistful mean?

.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #18862927
what does wistful mean?

.
To wish for something ..... like, to wish you had more money means you are wistful of dollars. . In fact I think they even made a movie about being wistful of dollars .... or something to that effect.

.

The filter is quite odd and seemingly inconsistent.

You can call someone a dick but not a c*nt.
Ass is okay, but ass hole (put together) is not and in fact neither is a$$ or even $hole.
Moron is okay, so is stupid, but not idiot.
As noted before wistful, lustful, boastful, etc are bad.

I lost patience in trying other things.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #18862927
what does wistful mean?

Full of a melancholy yearning; longing pensively; wishful. (American Heritage Dictionary, 1st ed.)

For people who don't have even one dictionary (!) or are away from home when a word question comes up, there are dictionaries online.

I followed another forum once that had a very comprehensive filter. People started talking about old TV programs. When someone mentioned the Dick Van Dyke show, we were served a whole bunch of asterisks.