Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Wait, Wat?
  • Subject: Wait, Wat?
Subject: Wait, Wat?
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

♫ & ☮
平和と愛

I can still see what a user meant with using "-blam!-" in a sentence so I just don't get why "f***" or anything like that is ban-able.

  • 09.11.2011 2:38 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: LordOfBlah51
So censoring is bypassing? If anything, I thought it should be good he's blocking it?

The point is, he shouldn't have put that when there is already a censor in place. Granted, I don't think he should have been banned, but a moderator should simply changed it and simply warned him not to do it again.

  • 09.11.2011 2:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet


Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: LordOfBlah51
So censoring is bypassing? If anything, I thought it should be good he's blocking it?

The point is, he shouldn't have put that when there is already a censor in place. Granted, I don't think he should have been banned, but a moderator should simply changed it and simply warned him not to do it again.


I'm telling you, the only reason it was so extreme was because of the Recon thing.

  • 09.11.2011 2:40 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

"I wonder how much blood you can lose from superficial wounds before you die."
-Shishka

"A hero need not speak. When he is gone, the world will speak for him."
-Believe

All counter-arguments to evolution are based on a gross misunderstanding of the theory.

This whole situation is nuts and I don't see why this form of self censoring matters in the first place.

-my two schillings

  • 09.11.2011 2:43 PM PDT


Posted by: drummer0702
Posted by: coolmike699
I agree.

I mean, Recon Number 54 turned into an angry child when confronted about actually bypassing the filter. When he used internet slang, then he bans himself?


Rather, you're a little -blam!- looking to cause trouble.


If it takes stirring up a little trouble to get myself an answer, then so be it.

  • 09.11.2011 2:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Steeel Woool
You know what, hop off the moderators -blam!-s (since apparently we can't censor with asterisks). In this thread you've done nothing but called people who've made valid points against the mods doo-doo heads. This isn't third grade, I'm sure you're able to hold an argument past name calling.


I actually haven't seen an argument for the other side of things... Maybe you can try and give one?

I think the blam filter is retarded, however, there are children on here that can't handle the ability to use "bad" words in a civilized manner. I think what was done was fine because the thing with Recon was so friggin retarded in the first place.

  • 09.11.2011 2:46 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything

Alright, unless the OP was one of the people who called for Recon to be banned, I see no reason to take such an immature approach to this. He censored it, that's what matters--he did NOT bypass the censor.

  • 09.11.2011 2:46 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: drummer0702
I'm telling you, the only reason it was so extreme was because of the Recon thing.

I say good, I don't think it's that bad. I'm neutral on it being allowed though, but I think that some of the users on this forum need to grow up, and at the same time the mods need to be more lenient.

  • 09.11.2011 2:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: drummer0702
I'm telling you, the only reason it was so extreme was because of the Recon thing.

I say good, I don't think it's that bad. I'm neutral on it being allowed though, but I think that some of the users on this forum need to grow up, and at the same time the mods need to be more lenient.


I think they need to be far more strict. There is so much bull-blam!- that goes on in the Flood everyday that should be banned or ended sooner, however, a lot of it still goes on.

Or this -blam!-

[Edited on 09.11.2011 2:52 PM PDT]

  • 09.11.2011 2:49 PM PDT

"I don't care if it's God's own anti-Son of a -blam!- Machine or a giant hula-hoop!"

I fail to see Bobcast's logic on this one.

  • 09.11.2011 2:57 PM PDT

Dianna Agron is the epitome of perfection.

Quinntology.

Posted by: drummer0702
Posted by: Steeel Woool
You know what, hop off the moderators -blam!-s (since apparently we can't censor with asterisks). In this thread you've done nothing but called people who've made valid points against the mods doo-doo heads. This isn't third grade, I'm sure you're able to hold an argument past name calling.


I actually haven't seen an argument for the other side of things... Maybe you can try and give one?

I think the blam filter is retarded, however, there are children on here that can't handle the ability to use "bad" words in a civilized manner. I think what was done was fine because the thing with Recon was so friggin retarded in the first place.


Your arguments in this thread make as much sense as banning you for using the word "retard" in the context that you used it in.

There is no book on Bungie.net moderating. One has to use his/her own knowledge and interpretation of the rules to successfully do so. In this case, I would suggest that bobcast's own interpretation of the censoring rule would include self-censoring. However, Duardo, Foman, or someone else may not consider that a ban-able offense.

  • 09.11.2011 3:10 PM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

I find myself not surprised.

  • 09.11.2011 3:11 PM PDT

Posted by: Changsta inc
Racism isn't wrong if it's funny.

Yup. It's bull-blam!-. I've been banned for it. Twice!

  • 09.11.2011 3:16 PM PDT

Moderator Response: The rules state that you should not bypass the profanity filter. Placing special characters in words so -blam!- doesn't come up is considered bypassing the profanity filter (the same can be said by putting @ in "-blam!-" so it doesn't get censored... and yes, I know that will end up being censored and therefore a pointless example). bobcast did what was within his rights as a moderator of Bungie.net.

If it hasn't already been mentioned, maybe you should just PM bobcast and see if he wouldn't mind giving you an explanation. Of course, he doesn't have to explain why another member has been banned (banned/banner confidentiality and all... right?).

Personal Response: Meh.

  • 09.11.2011 3:21 PM PDT

Yep. I got banned for it a bit ago.

  • 09.11.2011 3:22 PM PDT

Thus I refute thee


Posted by: dmbfan09
Moderator Response: The rules state that you should not bypass the profanity filter. Placing special characters in words so -blam!- doesn't come up is considered bypassing the profanity filter (the same can be said by putting @ in "-blam!-" so it doesn't get censored... and yes, I know that will end up being censored and therefore a pointless example). bobcast did what was within his rights as a moderator of Bungie.net.

If it hasn't already been mentioned, maybe you should just PM bobcast and see if he wouldn't mind giving you an explanation. Of course, he doesn't have to explain why another member has been banned (banned/banner confidentiality and all... right?).

Personal Response: Meh.

All this is a little over the top don't you think?

  • 09.11.2011 3:26 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything


Posted by: dmbfan09
Moderator Response: The rules state that you should not bypass the profanity filter. Placing special characters in words so -blam!- doesn't come up is considered bypassing the profanity filter (the same can be said by putting @ in "-blam!-" so it doesn't get censored... and yes, I know that will end up being censored and therefore a pointless example). bobcast did what was within his rights as a moderator of Bungie.net.

I completely disagree. I was under the impression that "Placing special characters in words so that -blam!- doesn't show up" meant that the intention of adding said characters was to make the curse word appear. This was different as it was designed to make the curse word not appear. I understand that bobcast did not abuse his powers, but I believe there is a serious misunderstanding regarding the rules here that needs to be clarified.

Is it against the rules to censor oneself? Specifically, is it against the rules to censor oneself in that manner (using *'s to block out all but the first letter)?

From what I've seen so far, that is against the rules, however I really do not like this. I understand that my dislike for the rule is not very conducive for it to be changed, but I think that the community should have some say in this matter. For example, I think that the intentions of the OP in censoring his title was honorable, and I don't think that should have been punished.

This whole situation seems to have stemmed from the incident where Recon banned himself because The Flood -blam!-ed at him for bypassing the filter (in a similar manner as the thread in the OP of this thread). I do not believe that Recon should have punished himself in that case. However, if this whole situation did stem from that post, then his ban is unjust because Recon used special characters to make the curse word appear, and then banned himself. The OP in the thread in the subject of this thread used special characters to censor the curse word, and was then banned for it.

  • 09.11.2011 3:41 PM PDT

I find the fact that typing asterisks is still considered to be bypassing the profanity filter a little ridiculous.

"Swear words" are offensive because of the words themselves, not the meanings. Looking at the uses of swear words purely by their actual definition, they are usually misplaced to the point of being ludicrous. The impact of a swear word is in the word itself, which is what sets it apart. In "normal" conversation, it's the meaning that your words invoke that matters.

So when you remove the characters, you are removing the very worth of the swear word itself. Only being able to type the first letter de-claws the word and reduces its impact to nothing.

And, let's be honest, allowing asterisks as an adequate substitute for -blam!- is not going to increase the usage of swear words in the first place. People who want to type them will type them, period. People who won't type them just won't.

I understand that black-and-white rules make it easier for moderators to enforce and members to understand. But when those rules defy sense, I think it's fair to question them.

  • 09.11.2011 3:49 PM PDT

Posted by: Kickimanjaro
Is it against the rules to censor oneself? Specifically, is it against the rules to censor oneself in that manner (using *'s to block out all but the first letter)?
What about using asterisks for censoring out only the first letter? What about only 2 letters? Is there a certain percentage of letters per words that we should allow special characters, or should we just say that you cannot bypass the profanity filter at all? I really think we should just keep it the same.

I just really think the -blam!- filter needs to be revamped altogether (start with George Carlin's seven dirty words and increase as necessary), but I don't know when or if that will ever happen.

  • 09.11.2011 3:50 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet


Posted by: Killed by Pasta
Posted by: drummer0702
Posted by: Steeel Woool
You know what, hop off the moderators -blam!-s (since apparently we can't censor with asterisks). In this thread you've done nothing but called people who've made valid points against the mods doo-doo heads. This isn't third grade, I'm sure you're able to hold an argument past name calling.


I actually haven't seen an argument for the other side of things... Maybe you can try and give one?

I think the blam filter is retarded, however, there are children on here that can't handle the ability to use "bad" words in a civilized manner. I think what was done was fine because the thing with Recon was so friggin retarded in the first place.


Your arguments in this thread make as much sense as banning you for using the word "retard" in the context that you used it in.

There is no book on Bungie.net moderating. One has to use his/her own knowledge and interpretation of the rules to successfully do so. In this case, I would suggest that bobcast's own interpretation of the censoring rule would include self-censoring. However, Duardo, Foman, or someone else may not consider that a ban-able offense.


Yet again, you're confusing what I'm saying with I agree with the profanity filter. I think it is stupid because I know I'm more than mature enough to not use it excessively. However, those are not the rules. Therefore, I'm trying to explain why the rules were interpreted as they were. And it just so happens to make sense...

  • 09.11.2011 3:53 PM PDT

“Oh, it’s a little bit of everything, it’s the mountains, it’s the fog, it’s the news at six o’clock, it’s the death of my first dog, it’s the angels up above me, it’s the song that they don’t sing, It’s a little bit of everything.”
- Dawes, A little bit of everything


Posted by: dmbfan09
Posted by: Kickimanjaro
Is it against the rules to censor oneself? Specifically, is it against the rules to censor oneself in that manner (using *'s to block out all but the first letter)?
What about using asterisks for censoring out only the first letter? What about only 2 letters? Is there a certain percentage of letters per words that we should allow special characters, or should we just say that you cannot bypass the profanity filter at all? I really think we should just keep it the same.

I just really think the -blam!- filter needs to be revamped altogether (start with George Carlin's seven dirty words and increase as necessary), but I don't know when or if that will ever happen.

I see what you mean, and I do believe that is a good suggestion, however I still disagree with your stance on using *'s to censor oneself. Censoring the first letter is specifically what I was talking about. If one were to censor any less (as you suggest, censoring only two letters), then I believe it would fall under the category of bypassing the censor because that is basically the same thing as typing ass with an @ sign. When one types just the first letter and then censors it, I honestly believe that it is easier to read as I know what is meant and don't dwell on that -blam!- thinking, What could that mean?. I also see how this is almost hypocritical because I've just explained that when one used the * method of censoring themselves it makes it clear what they meant, which is almost the same as bypassing the censor all together.

I feel like I'm starting to talk in circles, and I'm starting to see that there's not a very easy way to solve this, but I still hold to the belief that it should have been acceptable to censor oneself in the manner that the OP of the thread mentioned did.

[Edited on 09.11.2011 3:57 PM PDT]

  • 09.11.2011 3:57 PM PDT

Amen!
Posted by: Kickimanjaro

Posted by: dmbfan09
Posted by: Kickimanjaro
Is it against the rules to censor oneself? Specifically, is it against the rules to censor oneself in that manner (using *'s to block out all but the first letter)?
What about using asterisks for censoring out only the first letter? What about only 2 letters? Is there a certain percentage of letters per words that we should allow special characters, or should we just say that you cannot bypass the profanity filter at all? I really think we should just keep it the same.

I just really think the -blam!- filter needs to be revamped altogether (start with George Carlin's seven dirty words and increase as necessary), but I don't know when or if that will ever happen.

I see what you mean, and I do believe that is a good suggestion, however I still disagree with your stance on using *'s to censor oneself. Censoring the first letter is specifically what I was talking about. If one were to censor any less (as you suggest, censoring only two letters), then I believe it would fall under the category of bypassing the censor because that is basically the same thing as typing ass with an @ sign. When one types just the first letter and then censors it, I honestly believe that it is easier to read as I know what is meant and don't dwell on that -blam!- thinking, What could that mean?. I also see how this is almost hypocritical because I've just explained that when one used the * method of censoring themselves it makes it clear what they meant, which is almost the same as bypassing the censor all together.

I feel like I'm starting to talk in circles, and I'm starting to see that there's not a very easy way to solve this, but I still hold to the belief that the circumstance at hand should have been acceptable.

  • 09.11.2011 3:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

OT: meh. Its a ban on an Internet forum. Everyone will get over it.

More importantly, I think its high time to get rid of the blam filter all together. Because of it, the stupid "blame stosh" meme has overtaken Stoshisms as the primary Stosh related hilarious screw up meme.

Don't be use -blam!- is not correct. It, along with all the other incidences of intense banality due to a completely uneeded profanity filter need to be done away with. As is the point of this thread, a user's ability to bypass it is so readily apparent that kind of bypassing it via self-censoring is now an issue again.

No more ban filter = no more of this crap. As with now, if people overdo it, a moderator can still take care of it should they decide to. Its true that it will probably cause some more "i got banned for saying -blam!- while no one else gets banned for it" whining, but look at the beginning of this post. Meh to being banned on an internet forum.

  • 09.11.2011 4:01 PM PDT