yet again another request to remove censors

Bimps · 2017-02-12 21:16:27

diff has said he doesnt care the the irc has swearing and is linked at the top of the page. then n1kf **** about it. let's kill two birds with one stone

1 woot = 1 vote

kubapolish, Slabdrill, Kkay, Gosha, Evilbunny, Luka504, TaskManager, mrjawapa, Onjit, Kirby, shadowda, Raphe9000, Master1, Vinyl Melody, 21Twelve, Swarth100, Shadow, XuanhuyEverybodyEdits, Hostage, iPwner, dcomet, Dencc, Pingohits

N1KF · 2017-02-12 21:31:10

I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!

In another topic I wrote:

If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.

BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!

WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT

1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM

Kirby, 21Twelve

Bimps · 2017-02-12 21:43:46

N1KF wrote:

I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!
In another topic I wrote:
If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.
BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM

k im not gonna be le wacky like you are being right now because i dont always need to be ironic:

you say that 90% of swearing is unneeded. that argument is really stupid. having a hobby is unneeded, but people still have hobbies. playing ee is unneeded, but some people still play ee. playing kirby is unneeded, but you still play kirby. just because it is unneeded doesnt mean it is bad. people use swears because they want to. you play kirby because you want to. i dont understand your point

the disable censors thing doesnt work because that would require tagging images and videos, which is pointless. however we could just have atilla make a script that censors words on here, which would solve everyones problems

if you are gonna bother responding, please dont be stupid and actually make serious points.

kubapolish, Kirby, Master1, iPwner

Kkay · 2017-02-12 21:48:06

N1KF wrote:

I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!
In another topic I wrote:
If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.
BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM

0 woots kek

Kirby

Bimps · 2017-02-12 21:48:30

Kkay wrote:

N1KF wrote:
I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!
In another topic I wrote:
If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.
BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM
0 woots kek

>not even wooting my post
tbh fampai what

Kirby, iPwner

Kkay · 2017-02-12 21:51:09

Bimps wrote:

Kkay wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!
In another topic I wrote:
If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.
BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM
0 woots kek
>not even wooting my post
tbh fampai what

k wooted happy

Kirby, iPwner

Bimps · 2017-02-12 21:51:42

Kkay wrote:

Bimps wrote:
Kkay wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!
In another topic I wrote:
If you're suggesting we remove all the censors, I think that's a bad idea. Like 90% of swearing is unneeded. We don't need to see people referencing feces, sexual activity, and incest every argument or funpost as "sentence enhancers". Even if you still want to see that, there could be an option to disable censors under profile settings.
BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM
0 woots kek
>not even wooting my post
tbh fampai what
k wooted happy

very

Kirby

Kkay · 2017-02-12 21:52:16

Bimps wrote:

Kkay wrote:
Bimps wrote:
Kkay wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I'm here to give my obligatory N1KF response!

BIMPS TYRANNICALLY WANTS TO FORCE SWEAR WORDS ON EVERYBODY!
WE ALL NEED FREEDOM AND I WILL FIGHT FOR IT
1 WOOT = 1 VOTE FOR CENSORS TO THOSE WHO WANT THEM
0 woots kek
>not even wooting my post
tbh fampai what
k wooted happy
very

you should be, that was my soul

Kirby, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 21:54:22

Bimps wrote:

k im not gonna be le wacky like you are being right now because i dont always need to be ironic

The problem with being serious is that people tend to shrug off my opinions. So if I make my posts comically over-the-top people may actually listen to what I say. I'm not really sure what to do about that other than conforming and having the opinions everybody agrees with.

you say that 90% of swearing is unneeded. that argument is really stupid. having a hobby is unneeded, but people still have hobbies. playing ee is unneeded, but some people still play ee. playing kirby is unneeded, but you still play kirby. just because it is unneeded doesnt mean it is bad.

That's true, but people are going to overuse swearing anyway. If people treated swearing like how they treated Pingohits overusing stuff like "egg" and "nerk" people would get reasonably annoyed at swearing. Swearing annoys me, and it does to many others.

people use swears because they want to. you play kirby because you want to. i dont understand your point

People also flame because they want to. That doesn't make it any better. If that were my only argument as to why we should censor swearing, then you're right, but I also made another point that you haven't addressed.

the disable censors thing doesnt work because that would require tagging images and videos, which is pointless.

Why is that pointless? I think my complaints on the forum would be more annoying than take the occasional few seconds to tag of images, which means that it would benefit users to tag their images. Even then, putting swearing in images is really uncommon if you exclude the "images of EE" topic by marking that topic as a whole.

however we could just have atilla make a script that censors words on here, which would solve everyones problems

That makes sense, but that would make the assumption that everybody wants to read swearing by default.

if you are gonna bother responding, please dont be stupid and actually make serious points.

I wouldn't have nearly as many posts though.

Krosis, Kirby

Bimps · 2017-02-12 22:04:02

N1KF wrote:

you say that 90% of swearing is unneeded. that argument is really stupid. having a hobby is unneeded, but people still have hobbies. playing ee is unneeded, but some people still play ee. playing kirby is unneeded, but you still play kirby. just because it is unneeded doesnt mean it is bad.
That's true, but people are going to overuse swearing anyway. If people treated swearing like how they treated Pingohits overusing stuff like "egg" and "nerk" people would get reasonably annoyed at swearing. Swearing annoys me, and it does to many others.

you completely ignored my point. no one cares if little jimmy doesnt like it when people play tennis, people are gonan keep playing tennis no matter how much little jimmy whines about it. that's you and swearing. pingo is allowed to say stupid stuff even though many find it annoying. they dont get an option to censor him

you cant say that people overuse swearing. that is a personal measurement, subjected to opinion. that point is void.

people use swears because they want to. you play kirby because you want to. i dont understand your point

N1KF wrote:

People also flame because they want to. That doesn't make it any better. If that were my only argument as to why we should censor swearing, then you're right, but I also made another point that you haven't addressed.

swearing != flaming. flaming is derogatory, swearing isnt. swearing, when used to to flame, is against the rules. swearing, when not used to flame, should be allowed.

N1KF wrote:

the disable censors thing doesnt work because that would require tagging images and videos, which is pointless.
Why is that pointless? I think my complaints on the forum would be more annoying than take the occasional few seconds to tag of images, which means that it would benefit users to tag their images. Even then, putting swearing in images is really uncommon if you exclude the "images of EE" topic by marking that topic as a whole.

what if you do want to see the image/video? even if you are against swearing? you would have to go into settings and disable it, view the video/image, then go back and re-enable it. it's really stupid. just point it in spoilers, or make a new tag:

censor tag. [censor][/censor]. have a setting ala "show censored content in [censor] tag" on profile. if checked, it will show in the tag. if not checked, itll show without the tag, on the page is if nothing was there

however with text swearing a script would work much better. im just throwing out ideas

N1KF wrote:

however we could just have atilla make a script that censors words on here, which would solve everyones problems
That makes sense, but that would make the assumption that everybody wants to read swearing by default.

you are the minority in this case

N1KF, Kirby, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 22:17:15

Bimps wrote:

N1KF wrote:
you say that 90% of swearing is unneeded. that argument is really stupid. having a hobby is unneeded, but people still have hobbies. playing ee is unneeded, but some people still play ee. playing kirby is unneeded, but you still play kirby. just because it is unneeded doesnt mean it is bad.
That's true, but people are going to overuse swearing anyway. If people treated swearing like how they treated Pingohits overusing stuff like "egg" and "nerk" people would get reasonably annoyed at swearing. Swearing annoys me, and it does to many others.
you completely ignored my point. no one cares if little jimmy doesnt like it when people play tennis, people are gonan keep playing tennis no matter how much little jimmy whines about it. that's you and swearing. pingo is allowed to say stupid stuff even though many find it annoying. they dont get an option to censor him
you cant say that people overuse swearing. that is a personal measurement, subjected to opinion. that point is void.
people use swears because they want to. you play kirby because you want to. i dont understand your point

That's fair.

N1KF wrote:
People also flame because they want to. That doesn't make it any better. If that were my only argument as to why we should censor swearing, then you're right, but I also made another point that you haven't addressed.
swearing != flaming. flaming is derogatory, swearing isnt. swearing, when used to to flame, is against the rules. swearing, when not used to flame, should be allowed.

I didn't mean to compare swearing to flaming as if they were equally severe. My point was that how much people want to do something doesn't make it anymore excusable.

N1KF wrote:
the disable censors thing doesnt work because that would require tagging images and videos, which is pointless.
Why is that pointless? I think my complaints on the forum would be more annoying than take the occasional few seconds to tag of images, which means that it would benefit users to tag their images. Even then, putting swearing in images is really uncommon if you exclude the "images of EE" topic by marking that topic as a whole.
what if you do want to see the image/video? even if you are against swearing? you would have to go into settings and disable it, view the video/image, then go back and re-enable it. it's really stupid.

They could be linked to instead of shown, like how images are currently shown when disabled in profile settings.

just point it in spoilers

That's a decent idea.

or make a new tag:
censor tag. [censor][/censor]. have a setting ala "show censored content in [censor] tag" on profile. if checked, it will show in the tag. if not checked, itll show without the tag, on the page is if nothing was there

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Even if there were a notification near a post if it's censor, I wouldn't know the contents of the censor which is problematic. If I'd want to see a censored video, but not just a single censored word, that wouldn't work out. The current system (and the other two suggestions made in this topic) makes it pretty clear what the censored thing is.

however with text swearing a script would work much better. im just throwing out ideas
N1KF wrote:
however we could just have atilla make a script that censors words on here, which would solve everyones problems
That makes sense, but that would make the assumption that everybody wants to read swearing by default.
you are the minority in this case

Yeah you're right, but what if this game becomes more mainstream and normies come to this forum? I think it would be beneficial to consider what they might want.

Kirby, iPwner

Evilbunny · 2017-02-12 22:21:24

N1KF wrote:

Bimps wrote:
k im not gonna be le wacky like you are being right now because i dont always need to be ironic
The problem with being serious is that people tend to shrug off my opinions. So if I make my posts comically over-the-top people may actually listen to what I say. I'm not really sure what to do about that other than conforming and having the opinions everybody agrees with.

That's probably because nobody agrees with you, no matter how you say it.

It isn't our job to be a parent to kids online, they have real parents for that. Get rid of the censors or make it an option to turn off so n1kf can feel like he won, but we shouldn't all have to deal with stupid censors because parents aren't supervising their children online. Also it's not like blocking swear words here is even going to do anything to any potential kid that looks here, they're still gonna hear swearing in their everyday life. It isn't the forums job to protect them from something so common and relatively harmless.

delet censor

Bimps, kubapolish, mrjawapa, Onjit, Kirby, Master1, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 22:23:50

Evilbunny wrote:

make it an option to turn off so n1kf can feel like he won

Yes please.

but we shouldn't all have to deal with stupid censors because parents aren't supervising their children online.

Why do you use "but" if I agree with you there? You're arguing the same thing I am, whether or not you realize it. Reread my original post; I'm for optional censors.

Kirby, iPwner

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-12 22:29:11

It should be optional, and as I said with the previous topic concerning the IRC, use a client that has censors.

N1KF, mrjawapa, Kirby, iPwner

Evilbunny · 2017-02-12 22:30:11

N1KF wrote:

but we shouldn't all have to deal with stupid censors because parents aren't supervising their children online.
Why do you use "but" if I agree with you there? You're arguing the same thing I am, whether or not you realize it. Reread my original post; I'm for optional censors.

It was like: "Do x, or y...I guess, but my main point is to do it because Z.

N1KF, Kirby, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 22:30:31

XxAtillaxX wrote:

It should be optional, and as I said with the previous topic concerning the IRC, use a client that has censors.

I'm not sure how the IRC is relevant here.

Kirby, iPwner

Bimps · 2017-02-12 22:31:47

N1KF wrote:

I didn't mean to compare swearing to flaming as if they were equally severe. My point was that how much people want to do something doesn't make it anymore excusable.

well swearing is harmless and wont hurt you so get over it

N1KF wrote:

They could be linked to instead of shown, like how images are currently shown when disabled in profile settings.

that's really stupid and pedantic

N1KF wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about it. Even if there were a notification near a post if it's censor, I wouldn't know the contents of the censor which is problematic. If I'd want to see a censored video, but not just a single censored word, that wouldn't work out. The current system (and the other two suggestions made in this topic) makes it pretty clear what the censored thing is.

well then you look at it and see if you want to continue looking at it. **** the whole censor tag idea it's stupid

it wont hurt you to look at someone saying "****". you already saw it in irc when i was still active there. you said yourself swearing is pointless, so therefore it doesnt hurt or help in your opinion. just stop ffs.

Kirby, iPwner

XxAtillaxX · 2017-02-12 22:33:08

N1KF wrote:

XxAtillaxX wrote:
It should be optional, and as I said with the previous topic concerning the IRC, use a client that has censors.
I'm not sure how the IRC is relevant here.

You mentioned it in literally the first post.

N1KF wrote:

diff has said he doesnt care the the irc has swearing and is linked at the top of the page. then n1kf **** about it. let's kill two birds with one stone

Kirby, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 22:46:44

Bimps wrote:

N1KF wrote:
I didn't mean to compare swearing to flaming as if they were equally severe. My point was that how much people want to do something doesn't make it anymore excusable.
well swearing is harmless and wont hurt you so get over it

So are bad manners, yet people get offended if you have bad manners. Chewing with your mouth open is subjectively disgusting, just like swearing is subjectively disgusting. While your point may stand that making objective rules over subjective matters might not be such a good idea, I don't think just getting over swearing like you say would be a good idea. Swearing in itself may be harmless, but it shows other issues in society whether or not people want to ignore them.

N1KF wrote:
They could be linked to instead of shown, like how images are currently shown when disabled in profile settings.
that's really stupid and pedantic

How so?

**** the whole censor tag idea it's stupid

I agree but with less swearing.

it wont hurt you to look at someone saying "****". you already saw it in irc when i was still active there.

That's because you say it so much that it somehow becomes endearing and comical in a way whenever you do it. Whenever people do it out of bitterness it kind of bothers me though.

you said yourself swearing is pointless, so therefore it doesnt hurt or help in your opinion.

What does hurt is the response to it. Like I said earlier, normies might be bothered by swearing so I think the censors should be an opt-out feature. Regular folk who want to come here and visit a family-friendly forum (other than all the much bickering) can do so, while those who actually care about really getting into it can turn off censors if they want.

XxAtillaxX wrote:

N1KF wrote:
XxAtillaxX wrote:
It should be optional, and as I said with the previous topic concerning the IRC, use a client that has censors.
I'm not sure how the IRC is relevant here.
You mentioned it in literally the first post.
N1KF wrote:
diff has said he doesnt care the the irc has swearing and is linked at the top of the page. then n1kf **** about it. let's kill two birds with one stone

That's Bimps's post, not mine.

Kirby, iPwner

Bimps · 2017-02-12 22:53:13

"So are bad manners, yet people get offended if you have bad manners. Chewing with your mouth open is subjectively disgusting, just like swearing is subjectively disgusting. While your point may stand that making objective rules over subjective matters might not be such a good idea, I don't think just getting over swearing like you say would be a good idea. Swearing in itself may be harmless, but it shows other issues in society whether or not people want to ignore them."

this isnt school, you dont get in trouble for bad manners irl. who cares if you are offended? that's your problem. live with it. be offended but dont show it.

"How so?"

you are complicating it so much for no reason

"That's because you say it so much that it somehow becomes endearing and comical in a way whenever you do it. Whenever people do it out of bitterness it kind of bothers me though."

once again no one cares that it bothers you. get over it

"What does hurt is the response to it. Like I said earlier, normies might be bothered by swearing so I think the censors should be an opt-out feature. Regular folk who want to come here and visit a family-friendly forum (other than all the much bickering) can do so, while those who actually care about really getting into it can turn off censors if they want."

if people swear in a workplace you cant just go to your boss and say "this person was swearing and it bothered me" "well were they being rude (aka flaming)?" "no" "well get over it"

"That's Bimps's post, not mine."

he's talking about how you brought it up in the other topic

Kirby, iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 23:03:40

Bimps wrote:

this isnt school, you dont get in trouble for bad manners irl.

I addressed exactly that:

N1KF wrote:

[...]your point may stand that making objective rules over subjective matters might not be such a good idea

Bimps wrote:

who cares if you are offended?

I care if I'm offended.

you are complicating it so much for no reason

I do have a reason, the reason being that it makes things more convenient as I don't have to constantly change my profile settings to see what I want to.

if people swear in a workplace you cant just go to your boss and say "this person was swearing and it bothered me" "well were they being rude (aka flaming)?" "no" "well get over it"

It'd be more like if you advertised a family-friendly video game with swearing. This game is a business, and it needs to make money. Having swearing on its forum by default won't look good for it.

he's talking about how you brought it up in the other topic

I'm not sure why atilla isn't discussing it there then.

Krosis, iPwner

Bimps · 2017-02-12 23:05:42

"I care if I'm offended."
well no one else does
"I do have a reason, the reason being that it makes things more convenient as I don't have to constantly change my profile settings to see what I want to."
if you care that much make a script that helps you feel better
"I do have a reason, the reason being that it makes things more convenient as I don't have to constantly change my profile settings to see what I want to."
no one plays ee

iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 23:10:34

Bimps wrote:

"I care if I'm offended."
well no one else does

Okay.

"I do have a reason, the reason being that it makes things more convenient as I don't have to constantly change my profile settings to see what I want to."
if you care that much make a script that helps you feel better

We shouldn't limit the forum functionality just because my not-so-complex idea is too complex for you.

"I do have a reason, the reason being that it makes things more convenient as I don't have to constantly change my profile settings to see what I want to."
no one plays ee

I think you responded to the wrong part of my post.

iPwner

Bimps · 2017-02-12 23:17:56

"We shouldn't limit the forum functionality just because my not-so-complex idea is too complex for you."
it is pretty complex, having peopel link instead of embed, having a option in the profile, making diff code something when we all know he cant code good. all just so you can be satisfied

iPwner

N1KF · 2017-02-12 23:28:29

Bimps wrote:

it is pretty complex, having peopel link instead of embed

I think you misunderstood. People would embed their images, but they would have some way to tag their image as censored. It would only appear as a link to those who either have the censors on or have the "show images" feature disabled.

having a option in the profile

We have many other features with options in profile settings.

making diff code something when we all know he cant code good

That's a fair point. I'm not sure there would be any programming wizards that would be willing to help out so that may be a problem.

all just so you can be satisfied

I'm stubborn like that, but think of the potential normies!

iPwner

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2017-02-12 21:16:27

yet again another request to remove censors

#2 2017-02-12 21:31:10, last edited by N1KF (2017-02-12 21:34:07)

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#3 2017-02-12 21:43:46

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#4 2017-02-12 21:48:06

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#5 2017-02-12 21:48:30

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#6 2017-02-12 21:51:09

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#7 2017-02-12 21:51:42

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#8 2017-02-12 21:52:16

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#9 2017-02-12 21:54:22

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#10 2017-02-12 22:04:02

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#11 2017-02-12 22:17:15

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#12 2017-02-12 22:21:24

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#13 2017-02-12 22:23:50

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#14 2017-02-12 22:29:11

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#15 2017-02-12 22:30:11

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#16 2017-02-12 22:30:31

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#17 2017-02-12 22:31:47

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#18 2017-02-12 22:33:08

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#19 2017-02-12 22:46:44

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#20 2017-02-12 22:53:13

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#21 2017-02-12 23:03:40

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#22 2017-02-12 23:05:42

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#23 2017-02-12 23:10:34, last edited by N1KF (2017-02-12 23:10:44)

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#24 2017-02-12 23:17:56

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

#25 2017-02-12 23:28:29

Re: yet again another request to remove censors

Board footer