The abusive word filter here is absolutely ridiculous - General Discussion Discussion

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

TESTING ONLY

You are unwise

You are stupid

You are a fascist

You are an idiot

They all went through.....

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

It seems to only be a problem when it's a short, quick sentence. Like when we were trying to say "Eyes Wide Shut".

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

How feeble minded!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Darn it!

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Dang it!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Dratting heck!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Dagnabbit! (Excuse my oldcootism)

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Great googly moogly!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

It seems the word slovenly comes up as a problem as I used it as an adjective prior to calling you a sloth in the emojii game thread and the automated process wouldn't allow for it old bean.

Can you Adam & Eve it?

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Slovenly.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I was given the notice:

Uh oh! Your post appears to violate the MovieChat Community Standards. Please consider rephrasing your post and try again.

For the following sentence "I called you a slovenly sloth!"

Try repeating it back and we'll see if it is consistently applied.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Sloth is the bad word LMAO!!!!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I managed to call you a sloth in the emojii thread and so it can't be that I don't think.

I wonder where they bought their word bank from...the 1930's?

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Try typing just sloth.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Sloth.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Sloth

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Maybe Jim or the mods are reading these threads and making some adjustments accordingly.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I don't know the workings but from what I understand the place is updated by a first timer to websites and message board administration and so I'm more than happy to cut some slack and help out by pointing out.

Some official word would be nice though, just so we know we're not being trouble makers (That's why I responded in the TESTING ONLY conversation at first).

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

I just read MC Community Standards. Can someone explain to me what rule does the word "shut" break? There's no such a rule.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I'd imagine it applies alongside "up and stop asking questions..." by the looks of it all.

In all seriousness though, it's probably to stop people being silenced by verbal cue - because that makes babies cry and stuff and that's why it's bad you big booger head :p

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

Strange thing is... websites usually apply the profanity filter when there are no moderators. We have moderators, therefore no need for profanity filter.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Perhaps they're just trying out a little bit of everything.

I'm not willing to give up on MC just yet but a nice set of consistent principles to follow would be nice (And they will be bypassed with in-speak as every community does anyway and so there must be leeway too).

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

But what's the point? Why try to fix something that ain't broken?

Remember some time ago when we talked about having moderators here, and trolls were trying to persuade Jim not to appoint moderators but to use the profanity filter instead? Well, seems they got their wish.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Can't people police themselves as we generally do in real life?

Big time offenders getting a visit and warning for punishments appropriate for their level of troublemaking.

If people can't say eyes wide shut then we've got an issue on a site where that movie (With its directors personal history) can't be discussed as well as it could be elsewhere.

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

Problem is not in "eyes wide shut", problem is that someone might use the word "shut" to tell someone "shut your mouth". But seriously, why is even that offensive? We are not children. If someone is offended by that, he/she should develop a thicker skin.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

We may not be children but it would seem that currently we are lab rats and helping tweak this place to be a better experience for potential future users.

Maybe we'll get a badge or something?

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

We all know exactly why this happened. Ben and his troll buddies created a set of socks that wrote insults, and another set of socks that reported those same insults. Until Jim thought that the site has a problem with profanity.

But it doesn't. It has a troll infestation problem. Eliminate those and there will be no need for profanity filter.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I see a lot of people being called Ben and so I'm guessing he was a thing for a while here (I didn't do GD when I arrived) but it seems attention gets what it wants either way and restricting general usage might not be in the long term interests of people looking to pitch a tent here and make it a home as they did with IMDb.

This place has a lot of potential, it just needs to tighten up on the means to be a member is all I should think.

That didn't help much with IMDb I suppose but the sheer volume of trolls and trouble makers made it a lot easier to have proper conversations with those wanting them and ignoring those just wasting your time.

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

This place has a lot of potential, it just needs to tighten up on the means to be a member is all I should think.

That's the biggest problem. It's impossible to ban Ben for good. He just changes his IP and creates another sock. I wish there was a way to somehow block the entire country he lives in. I suppose he's the only one here from that country so there would be no collateral damage.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Adding a mobile phone number into the mix always helped make IMDb a bit tighter.

It wasn't perfect but it did some good and made people behave more because they'd run out of banned numbers before too long.

I remember reading about someone who used the same mobile number for multiple accounts and when one of them got banned they all got banned.

That's the type of fear you want to induce once you've got a rollicking membership with lots of activity.

Making the place approachable and balancing that with verification is the harder part, too much either way too soon and it won't take off as well as it could.

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

The phone number worked for IMDb cause people had no choice but to comply if they wanted to participate in IMDb activity. But I'm afraid there are too many competing forums now and people won't be bothered by entering a phone number, they would just go to another forum instead. That's not the solution either.

reply

[–] Drmccormack (743) 7 years ago

I was a member at IMDb and I don't remember having to add my phone number to join. Did that happen later? Maybe I did but it was so long ago, I can't remember? I'm just curious, I'm sorry it has nothing to do with your conversation. Although, these are some great points you're making!

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

I registered with IMDb in 2008. If you registered before that year, maybe they didn't have a phone number rule in place yet?

Anyway, I had to send them an SMS message and they replied, sending me back SMS with a code number, which I entered during the registering process. That was the first and only time I had to use that code.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

That's the same year I joined, but I didn't have to give them a cell phone number to register. Which is a good thing, because I didn't have one ;)

Instead I had to give my credit card number.

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

Were you the member of IMDb-pro? They never asked me for any credit card numbers. I guess there were several options to register and I chose the one that seemed easiest.

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

Just keep reporting little bennie's socks as soon as you see them. Notice 2 of them appeared today and have already been removed.

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

Yeah, I reported one of those socks. Good riddance.

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 7 years ago

Actually, I saw the opposite happen with the allowing of swearing. Hardly anyone apart from the trolls really used it. When given the freedom to say the c word, we mostly didn't. It's when it's taken away that people want to just write it a thousand times and be done with it. lol

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Hey, Catsidhe!

Can't say I observed the same. There are some people who regularly cuss and/or use insults, rules or no, and they're not all necessarily trolls.

In a certain way I understand what you're saying: rather like getting otherwise inexplicable giggles at an inappropriate time, like at a funeral. But what adult *needs* to call another C-word, or an idiot, moron, etc., whether those words are disallowed or not?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

But what adult *needs* to call another C-word, or an idiot, moron, etc., whether those words are disallowed or not?

I completely agree but it does seem to be the nature of people to do just this at times.

I say live and forgive for those who only do it on occasion and for those who do it for bravado to be punished to some way like IMDb did with reduced posting allowances of something similar.

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 7 years ago

It's not so much a need as a compulsion, the same way as a DO NOT PUSH THE RED BUTTON makes us want to do nothing more than push the red button. LOL

To be fair, I only very rarely hang out in General Discussion. I'm an individual movie/series/actor/director poster for the most part. I find gen-pop a bit more "troll-ey", if that's a word. (it isn't, but it should be!) :D

reply

[–] Apis (1624) 7 years ago

True, suddenly I have the urge to write the "s" word a lot (shut). hehe

reply

[–] klownz (478) 7 years ago

The C word you need to take into account isn't so heavily frowned upon in some places as it is in the USA... in the USA it seems to ultra offend people but in the UK & Australia (depending on who you hang out with or work with) using that word no one would bat an eyelid like if you used the F word or S word.

Its not even a insult call someone a c sometimes because you are just playing around but with forums its not always easy to tell when someone is playing around.

People are so sensitive these days you can't say anything anyway though.... only a matter of time before certain letters of the alphabet become deemed "offensive" :D

reply

[–] catsidhe (1649) 7 years ago

Agreed wholeheartedly. I'm one of those to whom the c word isn't offensive. Or rather, it's all in how it's applied. Most of my firnds are Irish, and they call their friends c words, and their enemies mates.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

People are so sensitive these days you can't say anything anyway though.... only a matter of time before certain letters of the alphabet become deemed "offensive" :D

AAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!!!!

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

You can't even use a word that is similar to "race" here that ends in "ism." That's insane. Also, you can't use words that call someone "unknowledgeable."

testing
that was such a stupid movie
It was made for idiots
parts of it were kind of racist

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Hmm it all went through.

I think these words are only blocked when they are in a very short reply with less then a certain number of characters

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

shut up, popcorn

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

But the filter is too easy to be bypassed it isn't even funny.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Shut up

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Stupid idiot

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

It does seem rather pointless. More of an annoyance than a functional tool.

you can add more words to get past the character # that triggers the bot, and then immediately edit out those extra words.
The filter bot is not applied when editing posts, only when making a new post.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Yup, pointless. Any word can be made to show up. It's not even worth the time it takes to implement it nor fix it. Just pointless. A proper ignore/block feature is what's really needed ASAP!!

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Why bother having profanity filter if it's broken.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I wouldn't call it broken, I would just say poorly designed.
I've worked with enough engineers to know they make a big distinction between those 2 things.
If it does what they designed it to do, but they just didn't design it very well and didn't stress test it before pushing, then it's not technically broken.
Engineers care about technicalities. :)
It's like deliberately making a pair of jeans with 3 legs. It's not a bug if you did it on purpose, but it just won't be very functional for most wearers.

I guess us using the site *IS* the stress testing.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

The day that engineers stop caring about technicalities, we're screwed!

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 7 years ago

Now you're just pulling an arvin... Stahp!

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

hahahha now that is an insult they should add to the bot filter!

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Forget the naughty word filter, what we need is a grammar corrector!!!

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

A grammar corrector would not allow you to use 3 exclamation marks in a string like that.

reply

[–] Mahrez99 (236) 7 years ago

Abusive word filter is not the way to go at all. As one other wrote here, it's also something we don't need when there is mods around.

Testing: "Stupid"

This word I was not allowed to reply with the other day. Don't remember the exact sentence, but it was intended to be VERY far from offending anyone. But as I was not allowed to use it I had to delete the whole sentence, as it was the only word fitting there really.

I can understand words that in ANY context are offensive. But words like "stupid" or "shut"?!? C'mon Jim. This is very sad as moviechat was so liberal with this in the beginning, which I saw as a good thing despite some trolls abusing it.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Commencing test....

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that most of the fighting and venom and insults took place on topics concerning politics or religion, neither of which has a place on a site named MovieChat, so forbid them from discussion.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Tried to post both "shut" and "stupid" singularly and it would not go through either time. This shit is STUPID!!!!

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

stupid

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Did they go through for you the first time, or did you have to do a little editing?

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

edit.
the bot only filters new posts, you can say anything in an edit.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Exactly. The whole language filter thing really is pointless (I know, I keep saying it lol). Weird too. And unnecessary. People are going to say what they want regardless of it.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Especially if they weren't even saying anything bad.

reply

[–] April-151-CT (10210) 7 years ago

Yeah really. Can't even say a simple movie title? Smdh...

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

shut

reply

[–] napsdufroid (2077) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guitar King (4890) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guitar King (4890) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Guitar King (4890) 7 years ago

The work around doesn't work on News Rumors and Gossip. Weird!

reply

[–] therefdotcom (964) 7 years ago

why are all of those other morons driving towards the wrong direction on this highway?

reply