Site Language Censorship

[youlots]

Firstly the concessionary praise: This is a very well run and much loved site; simply the best insofar as our beloved Chels is concerned. An opinionated fact if you like. In the recent past and even where the old CSR was concerned the discretion shown by Admin/Moderators as far as the day to day censorship of various posters has been, in the main, admirably done and usually exercised at times only after a great deal of forbearance.

Notwithstanding the above, I have of late noticed that a decision has seemingly been taken by Admin/Moderators to selectively euphemise certain common and frequently used words in all posts. In particular, the words c**t and f**k and their derivatives seem now to be the subject of rigid censorship on this site notwithstanding the fact that both these words have a long etymological history in many languages (and especially English) and the fact that both words and their derivatives can, through their use, encapsulate meaning when used in certain contexts, as precisely and aptly as any other words.

This seemingly recent blanket censorial decision is, in my view, pretty f****n objectionable on a number of bases.

Language, in all its forms, whether written or character based is the lifeblood of expression and it is trite that but for language this site would not exist. History has repeatedly shown that it is dangerous and insidious once you start shackling freedom of expression in any guise regarding the methodology of the social contract. And, at least to me, any strict doctrine of euphemisation that is consciously employed (whether it be by the US military or on an elective site such as this) is probably the most insidious form of censorship there is.

My question to Admin etc is why has this decision been seemingly taken? On what basis has it been taken? Why has no-one been consulted? Why has site rule No.1 not been updated or changed to reflect the new "rule" regarding conscious euphemistic replacement/substitution?

Perhaps it is not my place to question this, perhaps I'll receive some rather tart missives in confirmation of that and perhaps some retrospective polemic as to why this decision has been taken. Fully expected and possibly warranted and possibly met with some empathy by other posters on this site who have held different views than mine on Chels issues over the years.

But I would like a response all the same.

[heckel]

I think most people on the forum accept that the moderators do not run things according to universal principles as though this site were a model for a democratic state, but are pragmatic:

some opposition fans are banned without having, strictly speaking, broken any forum rules because they can generate reams of negative, pointless posting.

sometimes old forum favourites break forum rules but are given latitude because their continuing presence gives the site its distinctive identity.

similarly, programming in euphemisims is not designed to get rid of swearing altogether (because *s do the job just as well) but, pragmatically speaking, serve to keep the general tone of the site from becoming overly crude.

Sure the guiding principle isn't democratic, but in this particular case a purely democratic approach usually dissolves internet communities by inviting in wind-up merchants and petty teenagers who write posts like 'Grant is a noobie c*nt, he can suk my kok', who keep interesting posters away.

[dkw]

doesnt bother me in the slightest. im sure the moderators have more things to think about than to have to vet peoples posts for swearing etc. i know loz does...... and im still worried. this probably just makes their jobs a bit easier.

[Mod]

My question to Admin etc is why has this decision been seemingly taken? Because words used more and more in posts were being reported to moderators.

On what basis has it been taken? See above.

Why has no-one been consulted? Because they don't need to be.

Why has site rule No.1 not been updated or changed to reflect the new "rule" regarding conscious euphemistic replacement/substitution? Because it's a Chelsea forum, and not a building site where health and safety and other issues need to be laid down firmly on a set of rules.

[Tim W]

I do like it when you're all manly and dominant Mod

[Mod]

You tart, I just thought I'd answer the questions, gives me something to do while I wait for this download to finish and I don't have 3 words in mind for the 3 word thread.

(who's the bloke taking a sh*t in your avatar)

[Tim W]

(who's the bloke taking a sh*t in your avatar)

No wonder you can't find BlueBeard if you don't recognise him

[ethicalstrategy]

But I would like a response all the same.

I refer you to the response below:

I think most people on the forum accept that the moderators do not run things according to universal principles as though this site were a model for a democratic state, but are pragmatic:

some opposition fans are banned without having, strictly speaking, broken any forum rules because they can generate reams of negative, pointless posting.

sometimes old forum favourites break forum rules but are given latitude because their continuing presence gives the site its distinctive identity.

similarly, programming in euphemisims is not designed to get rid of swearing altogether (because *s do the job just as well) but, pragmatically speaking, serve to keep the general tone of the site from becoming overly crude.

Sure the guiding principle isn't democratic, but in this particular case a purely democratic approach usually dissolves internet communities by inviting in wind-up merchants and petty teenagers who write posts like 'Grant is a noobie c*nt, he can suk my kok', who keep interesting posters away.

Also what Mod said!

[Barn]

This will offend some people but I've always thought swearing is for the ignorant and uneducated. That said I have over the last couple of years started swearing a lot more than I ever did before - that's not a good thing because I now have two little 'uns and I'll clump either of them if I hear them swear. But there are very few occassions when you cannot express your feelings and the strength of those feeling without the need for F**kin' this and c**tin' that.

That said I do understand that it's a state of the modern laguage, in much the same way that although on this site we have so far resisted the kids that post on here using their txt tlk, we will eventually succumb to the younger generation. The only way to ensure that people continue to use the English language to it's full is not for the moderators to spend their lives checking each post (as is done on some forums) but to deucate the youth.

For the record the mods on this site are the best of any site that I've ever used, old CSR or new.

[abramovich]

I actually find it kind of entertaining.

'Bar stewards having a delightful intercourse' - now that's poetry censorship style!

[Mike O]

I wouldn't want to see swearing allowed on the site becuase I too have kids, one of which is an 11 yr old blue and gets very interested as to what I'm reading / writing.

However, I can't be doing with the 'poetic innuendo' replacements. They are twee and irritating (actually, if they are intended to reduce swearing per se, then they're probably a good long-term move).

Let's just stick with asterisks and go with 'f***', 'c***' and 'bar****'.

[loz]

Mod and Abe have pretty much hit the ail on the head.

We tightened up on it because it was becoming excessive and we chose some of the substitutes for the very reason that they might provide a little comedy at the same time thus avoiding people getting the hump and also maybe persuade people to just use different language in future.

[Lofty]

Hmm let me see ... pillock, git, prat, toerag, areshole, arsewipe, SCOUSER... just a few alternatives to be going on with.

[Mr Chelsea]

i like the censorship its funny

if you dont like the censorship dont type swear words its that simple really

[bonetti]

I wouldn't want to see swearing allowed on the site becuase I too have kids, one of which is an 11 yr old blue and gets very interested as to what I'm reading / writing.

However, I can't be doing with the 'poetic innuendo' replacements. They are twee and irritating (actually, if they are intended to reduce swearing per se, then they're probably a good long-term move).

Let's just stick with asterisks and go with 'f***', 'c***' and 'bar****'.

I agree with Mike but equally appreciate that yours is a thankless task - so do whatever is easiest for the web Team - its a small price to pay and reckon everyone can live with it.

[loz]

Although I must say that youlots case is quite possibly the most eloquently, and containing of most syllables, one that I have ever heard to defend someone's right to tell someone else to 'go f**k yourself'

[bonetti]

of topic Loz - did you get my PM?

[loz]

of topic Loz - did you get my PM?

Nothing recently - last one was the one about the betting on the CL - have you sent one since?

[Lofty]

Billy Hunt

[youlots]

Thankyou for the response that in the main comprises as follows:

1. Use of expetives is casuative of internet community dissolution;

2. is causative or an attractant to wind-up merchants;

3. Censorship makes the job of Modertaors easier;

4. Use of expletives has been the subject of complaint to Moderators on this site;

5. This site is not democratic/sit moderators don't need to be;

6. Further to 5. above, it is a chelsea site not a building site;

7. Use of expletives is for ignorant and uneducated.

In answer to the above, I say/question as follows:

1. An interesting notion - like to see some empiracl data to prove that;

2. So people come on this site because of the use of expletives? I severely doubt that is the case;

3. Do not necessarliy disagree but don't necessarily agree either;

4. Really? Who has complained then and when and about what content exactly?

5. Absolutely, they can run it any way they f****n want to I suppose and we have now absolute proof of that.

6. Joyce, Beckett, Lawrence, Proust (and others too numerous to mention) are "ignorant & uneducated". But then again there just bourgy trash really aren' they and it's really just a problem of "the younger generation.

Well thank for all of that. And thanks Mod for such a Mugabesque response. Says it all really.

I'm now in a quandery: What is the higher value in my life, my loyalties or feelings for contributing to this site (and continuin gto do so) or my feelings on euphemistic censorship? Mmmm.

Not so tough really. See ya.

[coco]

In this day and age I'm suprised people still get offended.

Bit Mary Whitehouse ?

But do we need a debate on it when Mod and Loz got it pretty much covered.

One of the highlights of the day for me is trying to manoeuvre round Loz's filth filter.

[coco]

P.S. I'm suprised d**khead still gets through....

[loz]

They changed the offside rule you know coco - this would be nothing compared to that.

[Mike O]

I think Youlots may have just won the 'who's just disappeared up his own arse' award for the day.

Did 'arse' get through?

[Mr Chelsea]

Billy Hunt

as in

if its not you moaning then it'ssomeone else