Forum:Adding word censors to the chat.
I notice many people in Special:chat including mods and admins often cannot tolerate any type of vulgar language; even if it's used to direct to another user, to insult someone, to joke around, etc.
Adding a word censoring system to Special:chat will replace any word filter with phrases such as: "[Censored]" or replace the whole word with astericks "*".
This is a favor for people who can't tolerate vulgar language, but I predict other people will not approve this idea. Do you think we need this type of system?
Feel free to discuss it.
00:48, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, it's S:C. Well, it's outside my realm of caring, then. But good luck -- I don't think it will be easy to obtain consensus to censor certain words in the official chat. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
You haven't given any examples yet. Remember that we have a logging bot.
Oil4 I made this 00:49, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, I can clearly think of situations where this happens (as in, it happens every day). 01:02, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I got caught up with bringing this discussion up; I forgot to revise it. This applies to [[Special:Chat]] apparently. Allow me to revise this.
00:52, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Technically we have no rule against swearing, and I doubt we would ever manage to get consensus to implement such a rule. Currently all we have is RS:UTP which means that bad language is not tolerated when directed at someone. We extend that to cover things like homophobic or anti-semitic language (both of which I have memory of), but this is a common application also used for blocking accounts with unacceptable user names.
Creating a rule to stop any bad language is a waste of time in my opinion. Each moderator has a different interpretation of what counts as 'crossing the line', and for the rule to be consistent the rule needs to be all or nothing. In reality small amounts of swearing hurts no one. Yes, there are more appropriate ways to express yourself, and we should be mindful that not everyone is comfortable with such language, but the situation is not so bad that we need to implement a filter like this. Just use common sense to determine what is acceptable and what is not. cqm 01:13,1/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Oppose - I've gotten on Ansela a bit for this and she brought up a point, which I agree with, where she said we are a mature chat and not all swearing needs to be punished or whatnot. As stated, we are a mature chat and we should not disallow or censor all swearing, unless it's things such as homophobic language, racism, an uncalled for amount of swearing or anything RS:UCS may cover for. -- 01:17, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose - We don't have any rules against swearing and pretty much everyone tolerates it as long as it doesn't violate RS:UTP. If you can't well, ignore it and live with it, or leave the Chat. Also, I hate any form of censorship in general. 222 talk 03:50, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - there isn't actually a rule against swearing in chat. There is general consensus not to do so in the main chat, and most people abide by that (mostly due to the dogpile that ensues if they do). This would unnecessarily restrict what is said in private though, which is a level of censorship I am not comfortable with..06:22, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I agree that some swearing is ok but sometimes it goes a little too far. I don't agree with censoring since like other people have said it a mature chat, but there should be a punishment for going a little bit over the edge. Like maybe a kick or a day ban if it gets really bad, but there shouldn't be a censorship. Smartman294 06:38, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- So, basically, the system we have now? 06:40, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorta of, but have it auto run by a bot for 2 reasons. 1. Sometimes mods aren't on 2. I know i'm probably going to have everyone saying no to this but allow the same system to mods because I have seen some mods almost cross the line, and currently they can do what ever they want with no consequences. Smartman294 06:44, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Don't assume just because nothing is said in public. Private messages exist for a reason. 06:47, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- @Smartman294. When Forum:A Bot for Chat was created, I originally had suggested that the bot should be able to kick people who are repeatedly spamming. I later scraped this idea as it was "unnecessary and likely impossible". So yea. Haidro 09:08, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Swearing isn't against the rules, unless it violates the user treatment policy. So there is no real reason to censor all swearing, imo... Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 11:47, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Changed to Neutral - I get yer point, but it won't work that well on chat. Therefore I really cannot support. Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 16:26, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
Questions + Oppose - How would the censor work? Would it take a blacklist of words and censor any occurrence of them? And how would it deal with non swear words that contain swear words eg Arsenal or Scunthorpe? Would it be able to differentiate between private and public? Seriously, if you don't like somebody swearing just ask them to stop11:49, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I assume this would work through regexes in a similar way to Joey's existing badword script. If I remember correctly, the script is triggered in private messages too, so unless anyone has found a way to differentiate between private and public messages, then this is likely to affect both. With the existing script I mentioned, Joey has 'de-listed' words that would normally trigger the script, such as cockroach. I seriously doubt this could be run by a bot as the censor would need to activate as the message was being posted, whereas a bot can only act after it has been posted.
- One problem with a censor of this type is URLs. Sometimes URLs unintentionally contain a trigger word which is just down to the way the site names the page. Think of how imgur randomly assigns letters to files. Eventually they are going to make a word that triggers the script through no fault of the person who posted the link in the chat. Yes, this is something unlikely to be a huge, incapacitating problem, but it can, and no doubt will, happen. cqm 13:04,1/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
Partial support/Mostly oppose - Censor certain slurs, there is never a need for those MolMan 16:21, July 1, 2012 (UTC)