Why the new filter?

[Iggy]

I hate "LOL.". I really hate it.


Being a neoboard addict, 95% of the "LOL." in there are totally unjustified. The post will make sense without it.

I can see how people can be upset but, really, LOL. isn't a great loss for intelligent discussions. I'm not going to mourn it.

(By the way, yes, I got filtered all three times.)

[dandelions]

So what should we have done? Made a post in Site Suggestions with a poll asking "Do you think people should be allowed to end sentences with l<b></b>ol and if so, why? If not, what should be done?"

I am attempting to juggle this forum and rebuilding the site itself with some very important exams and frankly, if there is a quick fix, I am going to use it.

There are three main things to remember here:
- l<b></b>ol is displaying as laugh out loud. I'm not even sure that counts as censorship, especially when...
- ...you can circumvent it if you actually want to say L<b></b>OL. The entire point of this filter is that the people who are using it mindlessly will be pulled up, whereas if you actually choose to say it, you can.
- if it works it will be removed as redundant.

[Kamil]

Frankly, I agree with Jazzy, in that I don't see the issue here.

l<b></b>ol is, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, short for laugh out loud - which is what now shows on one's posts. So the issue with that is . . . ?

If we'd filtered it to 'I cannot think of words, so watch me use chatspeak' I can see where there might be an issue, but all we did was change it to what the term is standing in for.

And yeah, how would a poll or discussion thread have worked? The people in question probably wouldn't have read it, or realized, hey, we're talking about you - Lord knows they mostly don't read their PMs, so that probably wouldn't have worked either.

So if Jazzy can spend her free time rebuilding the site so there are fewer <strike>whines</strike> complaints about the front page being poofed, I'd rather she spend her time doing that.

And the thing with Joeno had nothing to do with the scripts - he was welcome to do as he pleased with those, it was about not saying anything to anyone here before he told them to go ahead and call themselves Neocolours.

[Monkeyguy]

Seeing the things Jazzy just pointed out, I'm not really miffed about it.

Perhaps a note saying that it was filtered would have been nice, but the post above this one suffices for me. Like Jazzy said it will make people think about using it, instead of just tossing it on the end of a sentence (I'm guilty of it).

[Figment]

The only thing I can think of it make it completely justified would be a note to the FAQ about the filters we have. That way they aren't a secret to the people who weren't around when they've been brought up before. I skimmed through it and did not see a note about chatspeak &c. being generally looked down upon, so that might be a good thing to stick in somewhere.

[Trick]

For what it's worth I agree with Rebelheart. I wouldn't have been much interested in a thread/poll in Site suggestions about it as it's not personally an issue for me. I didn't give it much thought at the time for similar reasons. But I think other people certainly would have had their say and then a decision could have been seen to have been made democratically and as a group.

I have no problem with the filter as it is, but I do agree that things like this (little as it may be, it is still a form of censorship (or punishment if you like) as Rebelheart points out) should be discussed before implementation. Sure there would still be those upset about it if it went through, but at least then they'd be upset about the filter itself rather than how it came about to be implemented.

And saying people are lucky to get what they do with concern to site runnings isn't helpful in my opinion. Open discussion and sharing of opinions is what sets this forum apart from many, and part of that is the continuation of both.

[AngharadTy]

It seems there are a few different issues here. I'm going to use "you" in a general sense, to the community as a whole, not to any specific indivdual.

- You're concerned that it's censorship. However, you can still say the term, and it's not changed it to something like "I am a moron"--it just spells it out. I think that negates the censorship issue. Additionally, it's not going to be around forever. It's a temporary stop to fix something.

- You're concerned that we did it unapproved. I understand that. I see it as such a minor issue (because I don't see it as censorship) that it didn't occur to me to worry about public approval. No one was aghast when we changed the "no offense" bit. Should we not have changed that, too? If you're against this, for that reason, then you should be against all the filters. (And perhaps you are--but make sure you formulate your argument against it well, so we can discuss it openly.)

- You disagree that it's a bad term. But I think there are two different ways it's used. First, to express genuine amusement, and rarely: that's all right. I'd never use it, myself, but I don't mind it. Second: to express... uh... anything. That's moronic. That's what we want to change. I hardly think it's a negative thing that we want to keep NC as unlike the Neoboards as possible.

(edit: between my slow typing, overthinking, and bad connection, all these points had been made before my post, but I suppose I'll leave it anyway. =\)

[Huggles]

I didn't think it would be an issue either. It certainly wasn't done with members like Rebel in mind. But now that it apparently does bother some people who weren't misusing it, I don't think it's necessary to leave it in any longer. I'd be quite happy to stalk the people the filter was intended for instead.

[FaerieInGrey]

For what it's worth I agree with Rebelheart. I wouldn't have been much interested in a thread/poll in Site suggestions about it as it's not personally an issue for me. I didn't give it much thought at the time for similar reasons. But I think other people certainly would have had their say and then a decision could have been seen to have been made democratically and as a group.

I have no problem with the filter as it is, but I do agree that things like this (little as it may be, it is still a form of censorship (or punishment if you like) as Rebelheart points out) should be discussed before implementation. Sure there would still be those upset about it if it went through, but at least then they'd be upset about the filter itself rather than how it came about to be implemented.

And saying people are lucky to get what they do with concern to site runnings isn't helpful in my opinion. Open discussion and sharing of opinions is what sets this forum apart from many, and part of that is the continuation of both.

Emphasis mine, I agree whole-heartedly here.

I don't mean to come across like I don't like, or trust, any of you. I do. And I would have voted with you, posted informally in agreement with you, or even just nodded in agreement at the notice where it was stated that the filter came about, though I would have preferred either of the former choices to the latter.

But since when have there been clique decisions here? I always used to feel that even on the littlest, stupidest things, my opinions were encouraged, and everyone else's.

I had more to say, but... no, that's it I guess.

[EofS]

But I think there are two different ways it's used. First, to express genuine amusement, and rarely: that's all right. I'd never use it, myself, but I don't mind it.

And therein lies my personal issue with this filter. I know that with the spelling etc filters, they're only put in place if the 'wrong' version will never be right. Sequel will never be spelt seq<b></b>uil. (The effectiveness/appropriateness of these filters is another kettle of fish entirely in my opinion, but one to address on another day.) If there is a case for a legitimate usage of the 'wrong' version then, at least to my knowledge, you don't put a filter in.

But l<b></b>ol can be used correctly. And yet... filter. It's easy to evade the filter if you're thinking about it (and know it's there) but it seems a bit... frustrating to make people jump hoops if they want to use it correctly. Haven't we all complained many a time about Neopets punishing those who are in the right just to catch those who are in the wrong?

Don't get me wrong, "l<b></b>ol" as punctuation has been a pet peeve of mine on the internet for years now, and I had complained about it right before the filter was implemented.

(The evolution of the term l<b></b>ol is another matter entirely of course. Language can be a quite personal matter, especially on the internet. I know I personally do not see *smiles* as conveying amusement, but conveying happiness. In the 8 years I've been chatting online, I have seen l<b></b>ol usually as synonymous with "haha" or "heehee" - you can bet when I type "hee!" I have probably not actually vocalised "hee" any more than I have laughed out loud when I say l<b></b>ol. The most honest thing to type would usually be "that was an amusing remark" but it doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. In real life if someone says something which is amusing, but doesn't actually provoke roaring laughter, I suspect most people would make some indication that the comment was still appreciated. I don't see why the internet should be any different.)

Incidentally though, if we're not using the term l<b></b>ol so as not to confuse non-native speakers etc, I think we should stop using noob as well. I fail to see how one is more comprehensible than the other.

[Joey]

I'm just going to pitch in on this thread to and say that the decision making on this could have been much better. I have no problems with the filter itself, as I honestly don't care, but the lack of notice is what gets to me. First of all, just implementing it without saying anything feels against the way we've always done this kind of mod like thing. Second of all, if you did post something it could also serve as an explanation/warning to the people who started this whole thing in the first place.

My head's not all here today so I'm not making my point as well as I should. But I think this whole mess could have not been a mess if both the issue of the filter could have been more open to begin with, and if other people didn't go shouting censorship about something that really isn't.

[oogabooga]

Might as well chime in, since everyone else is.

I don't particularly care that the filter exists. I was amused when I first noticed it. It never occurred to me to be upset that it had been implemented without consulting the group as a whole. Maybe it would have if it affected me, but I kind of think not.

The thing is - democracy is great, yes. But it takes ages. Jazzy mentioned, way back in the thread, that she'd been wanting a quick solution, because she's busy. Things sometimes need to be done on a forum, and that's Jazzy's job - that's why we chose her. In this case, the forum is more like a republic than a true democracy. It isn't practical for her (and the mods; I'm only not mentioning them for simplicity) to consult the whole forum for every decision that needs to be made. For some decisions, yes. I guess a lot of people think this is one that should have been publicly discussed - and we're back at the beginning

With 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say that it would have been better to at least notify people about it. Maybe it would have. I'm guessing that either way, we'd be having this discussion, because somebody still wouldn't be happy about it. The only difference would be that the thread would be started by a mod and would probably begin with a few posts of amused agreement, followed by maybe one or two expressing concern, followed by a bunch of people piling on to agree with the concerns, followed by a couple people vehemently defending the decision and fiercely arguing with the entire rest of the thread, and then a few people expressing understanding of both sides and calling for calm. (Have I been a member here too long?)

At least the fact that this thread has appeared and that people are discussing the issue shows that the system is working. More or less.

[Wingsrising]

- You're concerned that we did it unapproved. I understand that. I see it as such a minor issue (because I don't see it as censorship) that it didn't occur to me to worry about public approval. No one was aghast when we changed the "no offense" bit. Should we not have changed that, too? If you're against this, for that reason, then you should be against all the filters. (And perhaps you are--but make sure you formulate your argument against it well, so we can discuss it openly.)

I hadn't the slightest idea you had done anything to "no offense," which is why I didn't say anything about it. What does it change to (I supposed I'm about to find out when I post this.)

I have no problems with filters that correct spelling, but personally am not a fan of filters that change the text of what people say. I find them vastly more annoying than the problems they're meant to correct. The other day I posted on a forum about something being a "pussycat" and discovered it had posted as "ex-stripper-turned-singercat." I mean, that's just dumb. And frankly, I'd rather read a lot of LOL's (wonder if that will post) than a lot of "laugh out louds" which I find much more disruptive of the post.

While I'm more than familiar with the decision process that oogabooga describes, I'm not a big fan of having a small group of "important" posters making decisions for everyone else. I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Kamil]

I hadn't the slightest idea you had done anything to "no offense," which is why I didn't say anything about it. What does it change to (I supposed I'm about to find out when I post this.)

That's not filtered (obviously =); the filtered phrase is 'no offense, b<b></b>ut', which is usually followed by a very offensive statement.

Not always, but enough to cause a problem.

Filtered, it looks like this: 'no offense, but'.

[Wingsrising]

That's very cute. I don't like it. Pretty much everyone knows that the phrase in question is virtually always followed by something offensive. I don't see the need for a cutesy filter to replace it with something even MORE likely to escalate a situation than the original phrase was.

I have no problem with spelling filters -- I'm a terrible speller and my word processer is always set to correct me as I go -- but I don't like having to guess how what I say is going to be posted. I also don't like having things I didn't actually say ascribed to me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of LOLs. But I'm even less of a fan of filters that filter for content.