Is it against or within board guidelines to type a substitute for an expletive where the intended word is clear as day? I am hoping it is indeed within board guidelines since that will free me up to be more colorful in my rants.

For example, is the following against or within board guidelines:

As long as you don't talk about using egg ######ers to make hard boiled eggs.

I would imagine that while they do not go against the actual guidelines,they certainly go against the spirit.

Even if it's not, I made that takana when I reached "gadol hador" status

(as if that has any power)

People have received Warning Level Increases for inserting symbols to circumvent the swear filter.

Not that I care, adherence to written forum guidelines is overrated.

[post ellipticated]

I actually have no clue what was in place of the #### that caused you to start this thread.

Depends on the person and the context.

On the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, just to play Devil's Advocate, sometimes leaving it to the subjective whim of the poster or the intuitive sense of the poster can lead to confusion when two posters do the same thing and only one is warned on account of it.

Look, I'm fine if expletives are permitted. As I said in the opening post, it will free me up to be more colorful. I just want to know if I do so, if that is going to be used as an excuse to issue me warnings. I try very, very hard, with mixed success, to stay within board guidelines, so I want to know where I stand with regard to use of expletives substituted by symbols where the intended word is clear as day, such as

Subjective or intuitive whim of the poster? No mods in here? If there were mods, would it be different?
Anyway, as much as people pretend not to, most people on here have enough intuition to figure it out.

OK. Got to run.

I'm tempted to put "then $%^& her! she was a *itch to begin with" in my signature.

Is hashkafah.com a respectable site where anyone can look up information about important and relevant issues and get authoritative sources with a touch of humor, or is its informality an excuse for orthodox jews to exercise their yetzer hara anonymously?


Is this what you want your children reading?

What about you? Would you want your child reading this? And what qualifies as a child?

Does your mother want you reading hashkafah?

9

It's neither.

It's a message board geared toward Orthodox Jews. How it is utilized is entirely up to the individual.

I disagree about having expletives unconditionally allowed on H.com. For starters, an occasional expletive shows passion; too much just dumbs things down and makes people not fully express what they mean. For starters.


Why not?


I wouldn't want my children reading this website anyway. Although at this rate...
And an occasional expletive is not 'an excuse for orthodox jews to exercise their yetzer hara anonymously'.

Its 10pm do you know what thread your child is reading?


-------------------

i can't ###### understand why the ###### we need to have a ###### Bad Word Filter in the first ###### place.

It's so ###### ###### up!

Are you sure we are talking about the same board?

The Tur is pretty authoritative. So is the Mesilas Yesharim.
I didn't mean that the posts themselves are authoritative, but they are a place where one can find authoritative sources.

Unless I hear otherwise within two working days, I'm going to assume that it is within board guidelines for any member to use expletives on h.com, including words that are automatically otherwise censored, as long as at least one letter of the word is substituted with a non-alphabetic character.

it's not ok.
eta: on second thought, maybe wait for silent j to answer. perhaps he can enlighten us as to why it was ok for one member when the rules clearly state it's against the guidelines.

Good thing you edited. I didn't think it was ok either and I couldn't figure out why nothing happened when I reported a particular post once. So far my record is 5 and 6 I think, with 5 of eleven reports resulting in action and 6 nothing. I couldn't figure out some of the 6 - some I was clearly wrong, some were arguable and of course I accept the ultimate decision of those who make the decisions, but some I am still convinced I was right. Maybe it was yet another "computer glitch".OK, fair enough. Again, thank you kindly for taking the time to respond.

Spot: Can you see now why I asked in the other thread about the signature rules even if it's seemingly obvious to me? On the one hand, the argument in the signature thread is if people do it with impunity, it must be ok and why am I even asking, but here I am hearing that is not necessarily so.

i don't believe there's any requirement to defend the reason for asking a question. whatever the reason behind it, if something is unclear it's better to get it straightened out than leave it hanging.

That's right. But you implied rhetorically in the other thread that because people do it, and do it with impunity, it must be ok and therefore you assumed you must have misunderstood my question.
In any event, it's moot, because I agree that there's no harm in asking for a clarification especially before doing something on h.com even if the answer is seemingly obvious.

it wouldn't suit you



why?

It's nice to be idealistic as long as possible.

We've setup a bad word filter to prevent posts from coming through with obvious foul language. And the intention of the rule is that members should not find ways to get their words through the bad word filter (by means of placing spaces or special characters between letters). However, If a member writes "%^&&*$#@", we understand that sometimes a point can be made with foul words, but it is OK because those special characters represent the intent for foul language but aren't inherently foul.

And no, I'm not covering up for the member you quoted.


Does that help?

It helps somewhat. Thank you.
So basically, "she is a *itch" is perfectly acceptable? Can we just be clear for the record that it is within board guidelines for any member to use expletives on h.com, including words that are automatically otherwise censored, as long as at least one letter of the word is substituted with a non-alphabetic character.

Again, given the past history of lack of responses to my questions, I am forced to state that if I do not receive a reply within 2 working days I will assume that indeed it is within board guidelines for any member to use expletives on h.com, including words that are automatically otherwise censored, as long as at least one letter of the word is substituted with a non-alphabetic character.



(While I have your attention, I have been waiting for literally months for replies from you to other posts on h.com. I gave up on ever getting replies to the PM's long ago).

Edited to add:
####
yup, just checking: it's indeed a censored word.

There's always an alternative way to skin a cat...

You bring up a good point. I think there are some words which are more of a problem than others. Some words are really not bad words but can be used in a bad way. A good example is "darn". When I was growing up, using that word would earn a slap to the face. Now, kids can say openly in class and it's not a problem. I think the same goes for the word *itch. Not truly a bad word, but used in a bad way.

If someone were to use a special character to bypass the filters with a word that was REALLY bad, I would say that they had intention to bypass the filters with a foul word. However, if they used a special character with a not-so-bad word, I would say that they were just trying to diminish the strength of a word.

Sometimes, the special character is used to make something that isn't foul, foul. Like when some members write *nlysimchas.com or fr*mspace.com.


Also, I don't think that you should automatically assume something just because you have not yet received a response yet. In general, you can more easily ask for forgiveness than permission. But in doing so, you run a risk. No one writes to the president that they assume it will be OK to assassinate him if he doesn't respond in 24 hours.

I hope this helps a little more.

As for the no-response to your other posts, we're working on solutions to the issues you've brought up.

Indeed it does. Basically foul language including words automatically filtered, is fine provided it's a little modified. Just not really bad words.
Is that correct?


Except in this case I have every reason to believe it is within board guidelines since the post was reported and nothing was done. I am asking for clarification just to be machmir so it's reasonable to assume the default answer is that it's within board guidelines if nothing is said to the contrary.

Your example of assassination is different because that is clearly illegal.


Not all the posts that continue to be ignored by you required solutions. Some just required a response from you.

While we're on topic, Request:

Please unfilter the words d1ck and cr@p. Are those really so bad? And D1ck is actually a name and usually gets filtered for no reason.

You should try posting a poem by Emily D*ckinson.

In case my edit wasn't seen, or there was some other "computer glitch", I am repeating my question.

And "##### her" is also completely fine, even though it's a really bad word, because it's completely modified?

And pr1ck too!!!

Give me a break! Someone was thinking waaaaay to hard when they built the word filter.

So you were ignoring my PM's and continue to ignore my posts because you've been formulating a response...for months?
Can you kindly give me an example of an issue I have raised in one of my ignored posts for which you have been working on a solution?

And what would you do in that case?

I have given out warnings to those who substitute one letter with a symbol to bypass the filter. However, and this might be a "gemarah" on J's post above, but I think that while posting a one letter substitution is not OK, when the entire word is ^%$^$%#^#$ that might be permissible because there's no word that is being filtered. It's just a Oh pffffft! post. You leave it up to the reader to put in a word, whereas by a substitution you're still posting a bad word, albeit slightly modified.

To me at least it seems like there is no "hard fast rule", and it is really dependent upon the individual mod, so you might be lucky or unlucky depending on which mod sees it etc.

Individual poster, I think you must mean.

Then is warningable according to you. It's a one-letter substitution for a filtered word. Is that correct or incorrect?
Secondly, when the intent of " ^%$^$%#^#$" is clear as day, as in "^%$^$%#^#$ her!", that's ok?
If it is ok, then what about "f^%$^$%#^#$ her!", because my understanding is that in the past warnings have been handed out for substituting all but one letter of that word. So is accolade correct that the real issue is the individual poster, or is it incorrect that anyone has ever received a warning for substituting all but one letter of that word?

Are you really pushing for MORE censorship???? You can't even say ######ens, ###### for Tat, or ######ly around here....
And things that are not even curse words (and that I would say and have HEARD said in shul) are censored out...

That is not the point of this thread and not why I was harping on this.

I would take a look at the post and see what the context is, but I would not rule out a warning.

Again, I would look at the post and context. If someone just posts, "Boy, I had a %#$@%@# day." I probably won't warn, but if someone would post "Boy, I saw this girl and I want to ^%$^$# and then ^%$^$% and then %^#$%^$ her." I'd probably give a warning.
As far as Accolade, all I can tell you is that I have given out warnings for one letter substitutions when the intent is clear as day, and I also look at the poster. If the poster never had a warning, is generally a good poster, I might just edit the post or PM. But if the poster is constantly getting warned for foul language and is constantly on our radar, I MIGHT, depending on the post and follow up posts, issue a warning or just delete/edit the post.

Like others have said before, it also depends on the moderator. We are all human and we all have different tolerances. So YMMV.

Also, KR, do you honestly think I care if there are expletives on h.com that are contextually valid? This issue and thread is obviously a proxy for a different issue. But please keep that to yourself and don't tell anyone.

It's seriously refreshing to hear a moderator admit that.

Which is indeed one of several goals of the thread, to flush out that admittance.

I realize that, but the inevitable result is going to be a crackdown and at least for a period of time, strict enforcement in this area....

You read PM's!?!?!? Now I'm ticked!

Good point. I hadn't fully considered that unintended consequence.