New Filters

[desmalia]

My apologies for starting this thread as as I am not an official member of CC. But I thought you all might find this thread to be of interest:

http://christianforums.com/t6505756

Words which are not censored, but are considered violations


Usage of the following, in other than Biblical context:

damn
hell
bastard
ass

will result in staff edits and infractions.

The improper usage of God, Jesus, or Christ is already covered in an existing rule, but such usage will result in a staff edit, and an infraction.

************************************************************************

If should be noted that staff still have some level of discretion, and infractions may not be automatic, especially in the case of new members, or possibly for the first violation.

The above is not considered a rule change, but more so a clarification of the existing rules, specifically in the case of words which are not censored, and how violations will be handled.


Frankly, I find it very interesting that there is so much resistance to such a simple and respectful decision. It seems to be a rare bright spot in the recent changes, no?

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

My apologies for starting this thread as as I am not an official member of CC. But I thought you all might find this thread to be of interest:

http://christianforums.com/t6505756

Words which are not censored, but are considered violations


Usage of the following, in other than Biblical context:

damn
hell
bastard
ass

will result in staff edits and infractions.

The improper usage of God, Jesus, or Christ is already covered in an existing rule, but such usage will result in a staff edit, and an infraction.

************************************************************************

If should be noted that staff still have some level of discretion, and infractions may not be automatic, especially in the case of new members, or possibly for the first violation.

The above is not considered a rule change, but more so a clarification of the existing rules, specifically in the case of words which are not censored, and how violations will be handled.


Frankly, I find it very interesting that there is so much resistance to such a simple and respectful decision. It seems to be a rare bright spot in the recent changes, no?

I'm all for it. I have no problem with that at all. I think it's a good idea. With all of the changes lately, this is one "new" thing I'm happy about and can get behind.

 

[Tenebrae]

My apologies for starting this thread as as I am not an official member of CC. But I thought you all might find this thread to be of interest:

http://christianforums.com/t6505756

Words which are not censored, but are considered violations


Usage of the following, in other than Biblical context:

damn
hell
bastard
ass

will result in staff edits and infractions.

The improper usage of God, Jesus, or Christ is already covered in an existing rule, but such usage will result in a staff edit, and an infraction.

************************************************************************

If should be noted that staff still have some level of discretion, and infractions may not be automatic, especially in the case of new members, or possibly for the first violation.

The above is not considered a rule change, but more so a clarification of the existing rules, specifically in the case of words which are not censored, and how violations will be handled.


Frankly, I find it very interesting that there is so much resistance to such a simple and respectful decision. It seems to be a rare bright spot in the recent changes, no?

Na, the problem is the application of American standards to an international membership

 

[HisKid1973]

Amen

 

[desmalia]

Na, the problem is the application of American standards to an international membership

But does that matter? I mean wouldn't it be just as fair to represent the same sort of thing as it relates to Aussie or Kiwi words? I for one would not take issue with refraining from using certain words that you might find offensive. I'm not a fan of censorship, but shouldn't some degree of respect be taken into consideration here?

 

[Tangeloper]

Don't forget the clarification part, please! Just so there is no confusion... -- Tange

******************** Clarification ********************
Originally posted by Constance on December 3, 2007
Added to this post by Tangeloper - Dec. 3, 2007
​

OK, cussing has been addressed under several different categories (blasphemy, triggering the filter, and non-filtered cussing). I'm readdressing it now to get rid of the inconsistencies between categories.

ALL instances of "cussing" will be moderated in a like manner. If reported, at minimum, a staff or member edit is required.

If someone posts "R-O-F-L-M-A-O" or "Hell!", moderators have the discretion to edit to "R-O-F-L" or "Heck!", or send an RFE, or warn, or infract, but at minimum it should be edited.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that "poop" is a horridly vile word. If a member posts p00p or p**p or poo-hoop or calls a member a [washmymouth][washmymouth][washmymouth][washmymouth]ybutthead, mods will send an RFE, or warn, or infract, but at minimum it should be edited.

Heck, darn, shoot, etc, are OK. In regard to abbreviations like SNAFU or LMAO, first, care should be taken because sometimes people use these abbreviations without knowing what they mean. Enough research should be done to make sure that we don't give someone an infraction for using the word asinine, an innocent acronym, etc.

If a mod contacts you about an ambiguous acronym or word, please educate them and provide them with information about the word or phrase.

In Summary:
1) All word violations are to be treated similarly.
2) Mods have discretion as to how they are treated.
3) All instances that are reported will at minimum be member or staff edited.