| |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > > If you do not ask for a cancel, it is our view that you are in violation
> > > of the LUGNET terms of use. It is your choice whether to be in violation or
> > > not, because LUGNET does not censor,
>
> I guess I'd probably change the phrasing Larry used here-- Posting profanity IS
> a violation of the TOU, no if's about it. This speaks it better:
>
> > > but if you choose to remain in violation,
>
> No two ways about it, you're already in violation. Question is whether or not
> you want to make amends by asking to cancel your post. Kinda like a traffic
> ticket. You can choose not to pay it, but there's consequences.
>
> Really, I like Dave K's proposal-- by default, detected swears are auto-stripped
> and replaced with something else. And members may or may not have the ability to
> actually flip off the filter (Ok, I didn't intend the pun initially, but I like
> it).
>
> I think in the past the argument was that it was impossible to catch
> *everything* since some things are egregiously offensive without even containing
> "swear words", and there's more than one way to spell out profanity other than
> using the specific letters (ASCII art, interspersed characters, improper but
> similar charaters, etc).
>
> But regardless, I think it would probably be a Good Thing, just to catch what it
> can (which would probably be the majority of it).
>
> Another option is to have auto-detecting *before* you post something. Hence (for
> the sake of less CPU usage), you'd only be adding time when the post was being
> added. Effectively, you'd change the post authentication page (or web form) to
> alert you to the fact that you were about to post material that is in violation
> of the TOS, and gives you a chance to correct it before submitting. That could
> also be an easy way to have it alert admins to anyone who went ahead and
> submitted profanity anyway, regardless of the warning.
>
> Hm, perhaps the default option would even be to replace your post contents?
> Something like:
>
> > Your post appears to contain inappropriate language disallowed by the LUGNET
> > TOU. The LUGNET system has autocorrected your text:
> >
> > > a library with almost 3000 files gives you plenty room for errors (being
> > > the maintainer of the mlcad.ini file containing only mini###### parts I know
> > > exactly what I'm talkin' about ;-)
> >
> > [x] Post corrected version
> > [ ] Post original version
> > [Submit]
>
> DaveE
I was thinking about the 'various ways' that people could get around the
built-in filter (if there was one).
Then I started thinking that if the filter turns specific words into #%##$, and
people know that, so they type S P A C E D words to get around the filter, then
that person *knows* they're in violation of the TOU and had to work consiously
and specifically to get around it, therefore appropriate measures would be used.
So it's not as if we need to include a word, and every derivative thereof, in
the database.
The other concern that people have raised, and I see no way of getting around,
is the appropriate and inappropriate use of words depending on locale--us in
North America can say in public, "We went to see 'Austin Powers and the Spy who
Shagged Me'", and have no regard for offending others around us. That said, fly
across the pond and say it in the town square--not so much without offense.
So do we have different language filters for different regions, or do we just go
to the lowest common denominator and add words that would be offensive in any
part of the world to the database?
'Tis an interesting dilemma...
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) A well crafted set of regular expressions would make this simple evasion harder to do. (...) IMHO regional filters would be difficult to do effectively. You'd need to know what region the reader is in as well as the region the poster was from (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I guess I'd probably change the phrasing Larry used here-- Posting profanity IS a violation of the TOU, no if's about it. This speaks it better: (...) No two ways about it, you're already in violation. Question is whether or not you want to (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
