What i'm suggesting is to have a option to disable the filter so when someone swears we don't have to see words like nice doggy! shizzle love-child etc.

If not totally off then atleast allow us to set it to asterisk type filtering.

The filter could be turned on by default.

Asterisk censors are so annoying. At least with the current censor, if you're experienced with it you know what each word means. The asterisks are an even more strict censor, in my opinion.

And I think I heard someone say that the current censor changes what you write, not what you read, so I dunno if this would be possible.

This is impossible to do. The forums filter as you make your post. In other words, if I make a post like this: "fudge Microsoft!", it is going into the system as having been written as just those letters: fudge Microsoft. The forums can't distinguish between fudge being written in the context "I love fudge on my sundaes!" and "fudge Microsoft", because it is filtered before it gets saved to the forums. The result of this is that your idea is simply impossible. For your idea to work, that post would have to be saved in the system as "f-word Microsoft", and then censored as you read it rather than censored in the system to begin with. But since the word has already been changed, it wouldn't be possible to change it back to the word that it originally was.

Hopefully that made sense.

I understood it perfectly.

In other words, there is no such thing as a mod to disable the filter off. It would make this forum look bad if this has bad words, etc.

@Steve - I don't understand

Basically, your statement says the users would make the forums look bad.

Censorship is applied when you post, not when you read.

As an example, let's assume that "toothpaste" is a horrible, horrible swear word, which the censors replace with "watermelon".

If censorship was applied upon reading:

1. User A posts "toothpaste lol"
2. The post is saved as "toothpaste lol"
3. User B opens up the thread containing that post
4. The censors would apply now, turning the post into "watermelon lol"
5. User B reads "watermelon lol" and compliments the censor.

However, censorship is applied upon posting:

1. User A posts "toothpaste lol"
2. The censors would apply now, turning the post into "watermelon lol"
3. The post is saved as "watermelon lol"
4. User B opens up the thread containing that post
5. User B reads "watermelon lol" and compliments the censor.

Since, in this case, there is no way to adjust the censor according to the person viewing, there can be no option to disable the censor for a single user.

Notice that directly reading the storage drives would yield "toothpaste lol" in the first case and "watermelon lol" in the second case.

Clearer now?

You guys do know that you could modify how it is done, right?

You make smart posts... Thanks.

Why would you want to censor the word "fudge" anyway? You certainly wouldn't use the f-bomb in saying, "I love f-bomb on my sundaes!" so your example could use some adjustment.



Kaibaman is very correct in saying that it could be modified but I don't believe such a change should be implemented. Other than venting and flaming, I don't see why you would need to use such curse words.

Edit: Nvm, just made a post instead.

I am a moderator. I push the button, I don't make the machine. I don't know if it can be modified, but so far I have never seen a forum with an option to disable filters.

Technically, there may be people with such a fetish.

You misunderstood me (probably my fault.. I'm not very good at explaining things). What I meant was: The system can't distinguish between fudge as in "I like fudge on my sundaes" and "f-bomb Microsoft", because both are saved as the word "fudge".

Basically the word that you post is changed into the appropriate word and then it gets saved so there's no way of changing it.

The problem with asteriks (yes I know I spelled it wrong) is that they make the swear completely obvious, Yes, the current censors are a bit annoying, but they are necessary to keep this forum clean and safe.

I don't know, I'm quite the connoisseur of profane and slang grammar, it allows me to express my anger and feelings in a more direct and defined way, but i respect the rules of the forum (or at least i do now) for as you can tell by the amount of warnings i have, i let myself get carried away in the past with my lack of sensitivity and respect for the rules, so i think the filters just fine as it is.

Despite how ridiculous and demeaning the words are to their actual reference, and how they drain any seriousness out of the point you're trying to make using them, a public forum isn't the place for such language, as is any other public setting, online or out.

Consider that my apology sals lol, because I'm not too good at making them.

Be sensible for once, Arianna. Even in the forum rules discussion, I think it was you (one of the green goblins anyway) that said you shouldn't look at every possible scenario. Try to cover the more realistic and probable ones.


I understand what you're saying, but your analogy is faulty. "I like fudge on my sundaes" is different than "fudge Microsoft". In the former, you're referring to a chocolate topping while in the later, you're using 'fudge' in replacement for fudge (f-bomb). If you were to type "Fudge Microsoft", the system wouldn't have any problem with it because the actual word 'fudge' isn't on the censored word list. The forum doesn't need to distinguish between 'fudge' as a chocolate topping and 'fudge' as a replacement for the f-bomb. It wouldn't involve the censor system. Saying "Fudge Microsoft" is an alternate for the writer to get their point across without involving the word censor or evading it.


Software can be modified. Saying there is no way to change it would be an incorrect statement. It can be modified to save the post as it is written and then display the post depending on the user's settings. The very same is done with emoticons. The text
is saved in the database, but the output is (by default of the user's settings) this image:

Sure it can, but it is viable?

He's saying that, since both words are stored as "fudge", there would be no way with the current system to distinguish a censored word from an actual usage of the word "fudge". I'm not the only one that ought to be slightly more sensible, or at least less literal, apparently.

No, my analogy (not even an analogy - this is an example) is fine... You even explained why it is fine. The point is that the system cannot compare between f-bomb and fudge, because they are stored the same way. Therefore, without a modification to the way in which the censors work, this suggestion would be impossible, because the forums can't distinguish between "fudge" used in different contexts (f-bomb or the word fudge).

F-bomb=F word. Fudge meaning the actual word fudge (like the chocolate stuff ). "fudge" is the replacement of f-bomb

The forum knows that when the word f-bomb is typed out to convert it to "fudge". When the word fudge is typed out, it knows not to convert the word fudge to anything. So if you say, f-bomb the president, the forum reads f-bomb and changes it. If you are a culinary politician and you make a fudge president, then it will just be ignored, since the word f-bomb wasn't written anywhere.

When someone's typing out their post "OH MAN SCHOOL SUCKED TODAY. F-BOMB MY LIFE", the censor will read the f-bomb and then change it to "fudge" as compared to someone saying: "OH MAN SCHOOL SUCKED TODAY. FUDGE MY LIFE", where the word fudge will not change.

I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I think that we all know perfectly well how the censor works at the moment and why the suggestion isn't possible with the way that the censoring system works at the moment. There's no use continually trying to explain to each other what we mean, when we're just going to confuse each other even more.

Sure is. Just look at how emoticons are stored and displayed.


As I've said, if the system were to work like the emoticons, f-bomb would be saved in the database as f-bomb. Upon the user loading the page, the post would be either be modified or left alone based on the user's censor setting. I speak literal because I like to draw less confusion for others. It seems that being the devil's advocate is only reasonable when you feel it's right. Heck with everyone else. As long as you feel good about yourself.

@ Steve: Like I said, I get what you're saying so there doesn't need to be anymore explanation. It doesn't matter how you say it or even if you mess it up. As long as the receiver understands what the sender means, everything is fine.

To keep things clear, I am still against the suggestion to add a censor option for the end-user. I'm just explaining how the system would work and that it is not impossible like some have stated.

THAT's the point! Steve is not making that assumption! You're like a cat and dog trying to communicate via semaphore.

The problem is you don't understand what's going on. I see what Steve is saying, but what you quoted is what I suggested would be modified. Notice the important word IF in the very part you quoted. You're like a third person jumping into a conversation halfway through. What's odd is the whole discussion is available for read.