Avatar?

[Neil Pickup]

Regarding the offensiveness of the word concerned, have a look at this report by the Advertising Standards Authority, more particularly page 13 (unless you're offended by swear words...)

Basically, It ranks at 8, and "crap" is 26. 57% of people think it's "severe" or "mildly severe".

Logistically, that means same rules for posts as avatars.

 

[Pratters]

Regarding the offensiveness of the word concerned, have a look at this report by the Advertising Standards Authority, more particularly page 13 (unless you're offended by swear words...)

Basically, It ranks at 8, and "crap" is 26. 57% of people think it's "severe" or "mildly severe".

Logistically, that means same rules for posts as avatars.

A ginger nerd.

 

[PY]

He didn't do the survey though I'm sure he would do if he could bring himself to detach himself from the sofa.

 

[Tom Halsey]

This is your final warning, before you will be banned. If you don't lose the complete disregard for the bad word filter, you will face a ban.

Fair enough for the rest, but I don't think Steds has bypassed the swear filter yet.

 

[Jamee999]

He did in a different thread, allthough I agree, that he hasn't in this thread.

 

[Shounak]

The issue for me, would be kids LEARNING the swear words (not necceserily the view of Cricket Web, the BBC or any other large powerful corporation) on the site.

From usi*ng t*he filt*er like that they can.

From FFS, it's less likely.

Cheers.

I didn't know what FFS meant, before I heard Nibbs use it.. A simple question was all that was required..

 

[Blaze]

******** isnt much of a swear word.. I mean come on.

 

[sledger]

if your mother could hear you blaze.....tsk.

 

[Blaze]

if your mother could hear you blaze.....tsk.

lol.

 

[superkingdave]

Regarding the offensiveness of the word concerned, have a look at this report by the Advertising Standards Authority, more particularly page 13 (unless you're offended by swear words...)

Basically, It ranks at 8, and "crap" is 26. 57% of people think it's "severe" or "mildly severe".

Logistically, that means same rules for posts as avatars.

Although that is a British report and CW is an international site - people in different countries would produce different results in the survey - this would logically imply that the list of 'banned' words would be larger.

 

[cric_manic]

Ahhh... i love my avatar

 

[Matteh]

Best way to see if words are acceptable is to watch the simpsons....if it's allowed on that then it's ok;
therefore crap is ok amongst others

 

[marc71178]

Logistically, that means same rules for posts as avatars.

I'd say that would have to be a given to be fair - as for images people post.

 

[Pratters]

Why isn't there more consistency with the enforcement of the bad word filter? Why doesn't Steds have a first filter warning in his title?

I've seen heaps of people bypass the filter like th*s in the last week or two. Why have not one of them been disciplined or been given a warning?

Shounak has brought out important points here.

1st filter and 2nf filter warnings and then bans are not being carried out. Also on the very few ocassions people are being warned it is not being put above their avatars.

People are not being warned for blatant filter breaches quite consistently. If the excuse is too many posts/threads to check out:

1) Then get more moderators.
2) And why is action not taken even when the report post option is used to report filter breaches.

CW should strive to be a family forum. I agree with the policy. Am very dissatisfied with the implementation.

 

[Shounak]

Quite right. I'm also not happy with my message being ignored. It's simply showing inadaquacy on part of the mod or Admin team.. I've asked this about 3 times and I'm certain moderators have read it..

Is an answer too much to ask?

 

[James]

Quite right. I'm also not happy with my message being ignored. It's simply showing inadaquacy on part of the mod or Admin team.. I've asked this about 3 times and I'm certain moderators have read it..

Is an answer too much to ask?

**Edited**

We take note of people's filter warnings outside of the user titles now rather.

If you report a post, a judgement call on whether it warrants a warning is made by the moderation team.

 

[Pratters]

If a filter breach occurs, it is a filter breach. Senior members should be more aware. So a warning should be put in place and there is not much question of judgement calls in my opinion.

For a pointer Australia qualified for the World Cup and a lot of members breached filter in that thread. Maybe warning periods can be limited and if it is seen member is not breaching filter for a length of time again the warning can be revoked.

I definitely see the need for action on filter breaches more vigilantly.

Any way that is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Shounak]

What's the judgement call based on? I personally felt Pratyush's was rather innocuous, I've seen words used in a far worse context since then..

But fair enough. If everyone's being treated with the same (what I consider to be a) hard line, then I've got no problems whatsoever..

Cheers..

 

[Buddhmaster]

Let me get this right. Instead of saying sh*t, we have to write it out properly, ****. That's just stupid, causes confusion.

 

[marc71178]

If a filter breach occurs, it is a filter breach. Senior members should be more aware.

Why should senior members be more aware?

It's only the moderators who need to know.