Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fair enough for it existing, it is the internet after all, but twice now, i've had moderators editing my SELF-CENSORED words and then giving me warnings about "bypassing the language filter"

I never bypassed the language filter - in fact i was doing BETTER than the language filter - try and work out what 'f*****t' means!

It's so much easier to work out if i let the language filter "do the job".. 'fethwit'


So can moderators stop the intrusive editing of posts retrospectively and allow people who actually and actively self-censor to continue doing so?

 SirDonlad wrote:
try and work out what 'f*****t' means!

That's pretty much one of the reasons for not allowing it. If the end result is unintelligible, it falls into the same category as text-speak.

The language filter tones down the language, to keep things a little friendlier for all.

 SirDonlad wrote:
l, but twice now, i've had moderators editing my SELF-CENSORED words and then giving me warnings about "bypassing the language filter"

Then stop doing it.

Okay, but by the same measure, whats the point of having 'orkmoticons'? same level of unintelligible-ness (just what does an orkmoticaon mean? there's no explaination!) yet they are part of dakka.

I beleive my point still stands - there is no need to chastise someone for self-censorship.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
l, but twice now, i've had moderators editing my SELF-CENSORED words and then giving me warnings about "bypassing the language filter"

Then stop doing it.

Fair enough if i was actually bypassing it, but in reality i'm doing a better job than it can (see first post).
There was never a word included which could be regarded as an expletive, i did not break onto your server to change the settings; nor have i uploaded any code to alter the monitoring of said 'language filter'.

So you are wrong and now you are being vindictive - i showed in my first post that what i am doing is not 'bypassing the language filter' and your flippant comment reveals that you don't even intend to issue a rebuttal - just derogatory statements assuming you're correct.

At least 'insaniak' tried to answer the situation, but theres only so much you can say when you're 'towing the line'.

Don't question the rules. They are a guideline, but ultimatively, it's the guy with the gun on the trigger finger who decides whether something is bannable or not.

Move on, citizen!

Seriously though, there is nothing for you to "win" here. You either follow exactly what you are told to do, or you get banned. It's not your site and thus you have to do what others tell you.

Does your act of self-censorship stop the language filter from picking up on an otherwise bad word? Yes. Then you're bypassing it. It doesn't matter if you did it to try and ensure the word was censored, because the filter does that job perfectly well, and in most cases, the filter's end result is less understandable than self-censored content. The 'f' word is the only one where the filter's word is similar to the swear word, however 'feth' is an actual 40k curse word, so given the topic of the forum it's largely fine.

Most curse words translate to terms where you wouldn't know at all what the word had been before unless you already knew the filter language. In those cases, starring the word save the first and last letters is actually less effective than letting the filter do its work, same with most of the other filtered language. Allowing people to self-censor in the way you do would be almost wholly less effective than simply allowing the content filter to work.

Either you let the filter work like it should, or you find another word to use; it's not hard, and shouldn't impede your forum use at all.

Seriously? You're going to do that, in THIS thread? --Janthkin

 SirDonlad wrote:
So can moderators stop the intrusive editing of posts retrospectively and allow people who actually and actively self-censor to continue doing so?

Or, you know, you could use any of the tens of thousands of (English) words that aren't subject to filtering, either automatically or through Moderator action, and avoid the whole issue.

This isn't the public marketplace; it's the digital equivalent of Yakface's & Legoburner's living rooms, where they've allowed us all to come in for a conversation or two (or 8 million). They've got very few rules, which everyone has to agree to follow when they join up, and to prevent accidental slippage, there are a few automated tools in place as a safety net (the language filter being notable in this particular instance).

I think I ran into a word today that didn't get picked up by the language filter, or maybe I just thought it was part of the filter but it wasn't?

It would be the non-filtered word for slowed.

 d-usa wrote:
I think I ran into a word today that didn't get picked up by the language filter, or maybe I just thought it was part of the filter but it wasn't?

It would be the non-filtered word for slowed.

Lego has a discrete list, which is updated at need, but "need" is defined as "this has come up more than a handful of times." It's not hard to bypass the filter (compound words do it pretty easily), and the important takeaway is that, filter or not, posters are responsible for their posts.

It wasn't anything I wrote (I did have a compound word slip past the other day and quickly corrected that).

Just something I noticed and thought had been filtered in the past.

 d-usa wrote:
It wasn't anything I wrote (I did have a compound word slip past the other day and quickly corrected that).

Just something I noticed and thought had been filtered in the past.

I saw it too.

I thought it was on the filter because I'm pretty sure I've seen it corrected on other posts when I've quoted them. Perhaps it was the fact that it had an ellipses tacked on the end?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It wasn't anything I wrote (I did have a compound word slip past the other day and quickly corrected that).

Just something I noticed and thought had been filtered in the past.

I saw it too.

I thought it was on the filter because I'm pretty sure I've seen it corrected on other posts when I've quoted them. Perhaps it was the fact that it had an ellipses tacked on the end?

Please tag it with the "Alert Moderator" triangle.

 Janthkin wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It wasn't anything I wrote (I did have a compound word slip past the other day and quickly corrected that).

Just something I noticed and thought had been filtered in the past.

I saw it too.

I thought it was on the filter because I'm pretty sure I've seen it corrected on other posts when I've quoted them. Perhaps it was the fact that it had an ellipses tacked on the end?

Please tag it with the "Alert Moderator" triangle.

Will do.

Sorry, I was going to tag it when I saw it but I got distracted, likely by something shiny.

It's OK if we just type the post-filtered "feth that gak!" instead of a pre-filtered "feth that gak!", right? Or is that some sort of bypass?

 d-usa wrote:
I think I ran into a word today that didn't get picked up by the language filter, or maybe I just thought it was part of the filter but it wasn't?

It would be the non-filtered word for slowed.

IIRC, the past tense is filtered as it is most commonly used as an insult, while the present tense is not as it has legitimate uses, particularly is the P&M section when referring to paint drying times and materials for affecting that time.

Of course, insults are unacceptable at any time, filtered or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's OK if we just type the post-filtered "feth that gak!" instead of a pre-filtered "feth that gak!", right? Or is that some sort of bypass?

Totally. These days, I find myself using 'feth' more often than the original

Just checking. Thanks!

 kronk wrote:
Seriously? You're going to do that, in THIS thread? --Janthkin

kronk will be kronk


What about insults in foreign languages? Are those banned too? Or are they not because no one understands them?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What about insults in foreign languages? Are those banned too? Or are they not because no one understands them?

You gamble with your posting privileges at your own risk. Be aware that the Moderators are a diverse lot, our users more so, and Google Translate is only a click away.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

What about insults in foreign languages? Are those banned too? Or are they not because no one understands them?

If you insult someone, you trigger a mod.

If you insult someone in English, you insult someone.

If you insult someone in Russian, you insult someone.

Make an educated guess

In all seriousness, what about swearing in foreign languages in the fiction section?
That's not directed at anyone (real) but I've been doing it occasionally because it reads nicely. I can't assume anyone actually noticed, but I'll stop if necessary.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
In all seriousness, what about swearing in foreign languages in the fiction section?.

Foreign to whom?

Dakka has users from a very large number of different countries.

You can use obscenities and profanities all day long, heap endless vitriol, and you won't come close to shocking or offending an experienced flame warrior (or MOD).

Instead, focus on psychological weakness, and hit them where it hurts. Why insult somebody with something crass when you can remind them that they are weak, flawed, mortal beings doomed to a living purgatory of their own creation?

Warning don't open the spoiler if you consider yourself under aged, you actually are under aged, if you have a phobia for certain words or if you are a mod that doesn't like to discuss policies.




text removed.

Your post seems to focus on being offended by swearing, when the filter's purpose is to not subject the many younger users on Dakka to unnecessary obscene language, and to help keep discussions friendlier by removing a lot of words for which their sole use is to escalate and inflame.

Also bear in mind that a lot of filtered words are only filtered because they have been proved to be detrimental to the forum. The filter list isn't just something Lego decided to enact one day, it's there because issues have arisen often enough in the past to warrant it.

Remember that just because a word is not censored doesn't mean its use will not be punished under certain circumstances; it likely means that it's simply not a large enough issue to warrant a blanket filter. Any content that is offensive to you can be reported and dealt with as required. The background of the moderators has nothing to do with anything, nor do they necessarily have any influence on how the site is run outside of enforcing the rules. They are unpaid volunteers, not secret police.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Your post seems to focus on being offended by swearing, when the filter's purpose is to not subject the many younger users on Dakka to unnecessary obscene language, and to help keep discussions friendlier by removing a lot of words for which their sole use is to escalate and inflame.

Yeah...no. The reason for the word filter is /not/ to "protect" younger users. Noone seriously uses this argument and if people claim to do so, they are delusional and not aware of how the world around them actually works...have you /been/ to an Elementary School lately?

The word filter has the same use as it does on every / most forums: pretend to improve the board's languge. That's all there is.

...and for the rest, as a wise man once said:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Don't question the rules. They are a guideline, but ultimatively, it's the guy with the gun on the trigger finger who decides whether something is bannable or not.

Move on, citizen!

 insaniak wrote:


The language filter tones down the language, to keep things a little friendlier for all.

There doesn't have to be more reason than this.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 insaniak wrote:


The language filter tones down the language, to keep things a little friendlier for all.

There doesn't have to be more reason than this.

Yet other forums manage this perfectly well without resorting to censorship and the replacement of venerable words with made up gibberish.

Its not a public section of Internet, its a private forum. They can do what they want and ban the word yellow if they felt like I.

The rules are pretty minimal and hey not massively problematic.
So it makes writing fiction require a tad more creative wording at times but eh pretty minor.

 Palindrome wrote:

Yet other forums manage this perfectly well without resorting to censorship and the replacement of venerable words with made up gibberish.

Well yes, some other forums 'manage' it either by allowing that sort of language, or by aggressively policing its use. Most, from my experience, employ some level of language filter, because it saves a lot of manual work.

Ultimately, the owners of this site prefer things to remain relatively family-friendly, and just asking people to leave the potty-talk at the door doesn't work. So the filter is required.

If you feel that your discussions about a game of toy soldiers are simply unsatisfactory when your ability to cuss like a fishmonger's wife has been curtailed, then a different forum may well be more to your taste than this one.