"Abusing" the swear filter

[Shlup]

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.

We're very aware that being in a leadership position means being criticized. Very aware. I just think it wears some of us down sometimes. Its not an excuse for poor behavior, but it happens.

Its true that an open dialogue is good, but both staff and non-staff have to be willing to work towards solutions. I don't think that happens a lot of the time. Like right now, I think the dialogue is open, but the problem isn't being solved. I don't think the problem has so much to do with the swear filter as it does differences of opinion.

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.

Its okay. I'm used to having my spelling corrected. xD

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 agree that the issue isn't so much having a swear filter as it is how its treated, but I just don't see many or any of the complaints about the way its treated coming from any actual situations. I see people saying "this shouldn't happen" and it doesn't happen so there should be nothing to complain about. How do we "punish" people for swearing? Have we ever banned anyone? That's about all we can do.

We "punished" ed once for repeatedly swearing in his sig by taking away his sig entirely. Was that wrong? I don't think it was.

I think the best solution would be to leave the swear filter as is

That's the plan.

leave anything that makes it through as is or discreetly edit it

Define "discreet." See, there's a conflict here too. We can edit it and not say anything for the sake of being discreet, but then someone complains that we've changed their words. We can say that we changed the words and then we get complaints that we've "made a big deal" out of it.

warn/politely-ask-to-stop excessive offenders privately

I'd have to see an example where we didn't do that because that's what we do. I'll bet half the PMs Leeza sends is her (being "Nicest Member") nicely asking people to tone it down.

and let it keep a low profile

I think it would be pretty low profile, except no one discreetly mentions it when a staff member does something they don't agree with. They wait until they see it two or three times, then make a thread about the general topic so that none of the past issues actually get solved.

Ideally, we should have a swear filter without it really being obvious we have one.

I thought we did.

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.

I agree. ^_^

I don't like skulls either Can we replace that with smurf?

We did like a week or something ago. Hehe

Also what makes the four :love: smileys come up?

I think that's just people censoring themselves with it... *shrug*

EDIT:
Nevermind, Kishi wins. You've pretty well described the current policy as it is, eest. Whether you feel we follow it or not I can't really comment on, since no one has given me any reason to believe any staff member is doing otherwise.