When longstanding members criticize staff it is usually meant constructively and we give it because we care too. It's not meant to insult (although some of us are more tactful than others). Being in a leadership position means being criticized (and often also being insulted). I think the more open the dialogue is, the more healthy the social dynamic of the forums.

So I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, Shlup. And I usually don't correct anyone's typing but you use that word a lot and it's kinda funny.

To get back to the topic a bit, I think the issue is not so much that we have a swear filter (although some of us wish that we didn't), but the way it is treated. I think we make too big a deal about it and try to "punish" people for fighting it.

I think the best solution would be to leave the swear filter as is, leave anything that makes it through as is or discreetly edit it, clean up anything horrible, warn/politely-ask-to-stop excessive offenders privately, and let it keep a low profile. Ideally, we should have a swear filter without it really being obvious we have one. I like less obvious filters like "smurf" better than skulls because skulls stand out while replacing the f-word with smurf often is indistinguishable from someone self-censoring themselves by using smurf in the first place. Eventually we might get to the point where people just always type smurf instead of the f-word anyway, although that might make Smurfette cry.