FREE SKULL[CENSORED]

[ZeTurd]

Let me preface this post by saying that I fully understand that 2+2 is a privately owned website, and that I support our supreme overlords' right to institute whatever arbitrary rules they want to.

However, I must admit I fail to see the purpose of a profanity filter on a site that caters exclusively to people old enough to play poker. I'm not aware of any online poker room or brick & mortar casino that allows players under 18 years of age. While it's not always readily apparent, the posters frequenting this site should be old enough to drive, vote and have sex (or legally purchase porn if the former is lacking.) So what's the problem with a little profanity?

Legal reasons? If I remember correctly, the TOC should free 2+2 from any legal consequences for posters' actions. It strikes me as absurd to believe that 2+2 could possibly be facing legal repercussions for allowing profanities. But then again, I'm no lawyer, so what do I know.

Decorum? I find it hard to see this as a legitimate reason. I doubt I'm mistaken if I say that close to 100% of the posters on this site are able to substitute [censored] with the appropriate profanity when seeing it in context. It seems like an empty gesture.

I'm not going to loose any sleep over not being able to see [censored] and [censored] in their uncensored glory, but I think there are a couple of good reasons to let the profanity filter go:

- As evidenced in the recent FREE THAC thread, it can be really easy to miss profanities if you mix profanities with other words (skull[censored] being the case in point.) I'm used to the profanity filter babysitting for me, so I'm not really too conscious on the profanities I'm including in my posts; I just assume the filter is going to take care of them. I highly doubt that THAC tried to circumvent the filter on purpose. I got a 3-day ban myself for posting a picture with a profanity in it. It never crossed my mind that there was something wrong with it when I posted it. These things will continue to happen, which means two things:

1) Extra care is needed from the posters on the site to avoid accidentally circumventing the profanity filter.
2) The work load for the mods is increased.

Do we really need that?

- The second reason is a bit more technical, but a valid one I think. I don't know how many words that are currently included in the profanity filter, but surely it has to be 100+. For each post being posted or previewed on the site, a script has to run to check for these 100+ words in the post and replace them with [censored] when encountered. Depending on exactly how this is implemented it might take a noticeable toll on 2+2's already fragile servers.

In conclusion: Free skull[censored]!

[Suigin406]

[censored]

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored]

[/ QUOTE ]
QF[censored]

[goofyballer]

From a technical standpoint I don't think it's a very big deal.

Even despite the mess with thac, I actually like the profanity filter. I think it keeps things a little more civil around here when the forum software keeps people from being able to insult each other in even more mean-spirited and derogatory ways than the current censoring allows them to. People have a pretty crappy attitude on this site a lot of the time and giving them free reign with swear words would probably make the problem much, much worse.

That said, the filter is pretty [censored] ridiculous in some spots. "Blow job" (1 word) is filtered? Seriously, are we all [censored] 12 years old here or something? I think the filter accomplishes the goal of stopping what I mentioned above quite well, but making sure the plural of "tit" does not grace the pages of 2+2 does not serve that goal in any way/shape/form and just stops us from being able to more aptly appreciate the beauty of the female body, which doesn't help anyone imo.

[miajag]

hi, I'm here for the free skull[censored]

[daryn]

the profanity filter is basically mason's call. LOL @ "legal reasons".. it's just the way mason wants it. and it's his site.

[ZeTurd]

[ QUOTE ]
the profanity filter is basically mason's call. LOL @ "legal reasons".. it's just the way mason wants it. and it's his site.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, whatever, I respect that. I just think it's kinda silly and would like to hear what the reds have to say about it.

Re "legal reasons": Libel, racial epithets, inciting hatred, etc. Not exactly sure about American law here, but it's not inconceivable that it's a concern. The TOC should absolve 2+2's responsibility and place it on the posters though, so I think it's a misplaced concern.

[ReptileHouse]

Personally, I don't find it unreasonable that I'm expected to exercise some self-control around here with regards to my choice of vocabulary.

[daryn]

i agree and i think most do, that the profanity filter is silly. it's just not up to us all.

then again just because i think it's silly doesn't mean i have a problem with it.

[metsandfinsfan]

i used to agree that it was silly
until i read sites without a filter, and actually made me want to come back to 2+2