The Lemon Fool

We have introduced a new Rule;

Swearing is actively discouraged. Automatic filtering of some swear words and manual removal of others may be done without discussion. Where users are asked to moderate their language, they are expected to comply.

The new rule has been kept deliberately simple. However, we will preempt some possible questions ...

• This new rule is to make clear what is generally understood and adhered to anyway. It is not being introduced to solve a problem.
• We understand that people have different definitions of what constitutes swearing, so it will be up to individual Admins and Moderators to make judgements based on appropriateness and context. Although we always strive for equitable treatment and consistency, this may occasionally mean that a word is accepted by one moderator but the same word in another post might be deleted by another.
• Admin and Moderator decisions are final. However, you can use existing routes to raise a question about a specific moderator decision by sending a polite PM to the Mod. Thereafter you can raise with Admin by PM or via Room 101.
• Any swearing directed at another individual or group breaks existing rules and will be deleted.
• Replacing key letters with asterisks (*) is better than spelling out the full word, but will not guarantee it will remain unfiltered or unedited.
• It is acceptable to quote a 3rd party who has sworn, if it is relevant to the discussion, providing asterisks are used.

I will leave this topic open for any clarification questions, but will not enter into debates about any specific situations or what constitutes a swear word.

All the best
Clariman

B****y H**l, we are becoming very prescriptive, n'est-ce pas?. As Clariman says it does not seem to have been a problem anyway, so why bother?

Dod

Dod101 wrote:it does not seem to have been a problem anyway, so why bother?

Sometimes when we remove or edit swear words, posters argue that there is nothing in the rules to prevent it. So we are making it explicit that we discourage it.

Thanks for the prompt response. I agree with your sentiments; I am not intending to challenge them in any way. Any civilised conversation or discussion ought not to have swear words anyway.

Dod

As a comment about this, not a complaint, I hope that any automatic filtering is done when either previewing or submitting a post, not just when submitting. Basically, when I preview a post, I want to see exactly what will appear when it's submitted, to give me a chance to detect any unfortunate wording arising from automatic filtering! For example, automatic filtering could drastically alter the meaning of a post that mentioned a Bloody Mary cocktail... ;-)

Gengulphus

I hope you've factored in a work round for any [expletive deleted] fans living in Scunthorpe.

Joking aside, many years ago we had a computer system that required all new customers to be input onto the system manually initially, which was then difficult to make amendments to. All customers were allocated an "appropriate", as far as the system was concerned, 4-letter acronym as its customer dealing code. Everything went fine until somebody input South Humberside Investment Trust as a counterparty.

Well done Clariman. I fully support your stance on this. You would've thought that we were all adults here, quite obviously that may not be so.

Keep up the great work,

Ian.

I hope our US friends are allowed to say f***y

AiY (Not American)

Gengulphus wrote:As a comment about this, not a complaint, I hope that any automatic filtering is done when either previewing or submitting a post, not just when submitting. Basically, when I preview a post, I want to see exactly what will appear when it's submitted, to give me a chance to detect any unfortunate wording arising from automatic filtering! For example, automatic filtering could drastically alter the meaning of a post that mentioned a Bloody Mary cocktail... ;-)

Gengulphus

The existing profanity filter works on preview as well as submission. A word being allowed by the filter should not be seen as approval though.

Dod101 wrote: Any civilised conversation or discussion ought not to have swear words anyway.

There's nothing wrong with a little Troth and Affirmation in the right context. Anybody who attempts to discuss the use of language by reference to the 'e-word' and the 'z word' isn't civilised they are infantilised, and don't have nearly a wide enough lexicon.

How does it work when the LD party actually had the slogan "[expletive deleted] to Brexit" as widely covered in the public domain, without censure:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rty-slogan

Bizarre that TLF turns testicles to turnips, but The Guardian, with a huge readership does not!

Or our current PM using the F word:

https://www.businessleader.co.uk/boris- ... ess/74379/

?

Hopefully moderators will understood that whilst such words may have been used in offence + insult in the reported current affairs, they may not necessarily be being used in that manner when forum members partake of objective debates in PD. This is an important difference, which I hope is not missed by the overzealous.

Matt

Matt,

The points you have raised are covered by the bullet points at the top. Namely ...

We understand that people have different definitions of what constitutes swearing, so it will be up to individual Admins and Moderators to make judgements based on appropriateness and context.

and

It is acceptable to quote a 3rd party who has sworn, if it is relevant to the discussion, providing asterisks are used.

TLF's guidance and rules may differ from those used elsewhere. If that disappoints some people, so be it. If anyone wishes to discuss it further, feel free to private message me.

I said on my initial post that I would leave this open for clarification questions but would not get into debates. I've allowed some debate and banter to appear but I think now is the time to lock the topic.

Just to summarise, these are the rules of the site - like it or not.

Regards
Clariman