Member Council #1: Censorship

Hey guys, welcome to the first ever Member Council.

Before we move on to the subject, here are some added rules besides the Member Council ones:

So we have a nice subject at hand, and I've been doing a bit of my own research, so I think this subject will be interesting to most.

CENSORSHIP AND ACCEPTABLE CONTENT

We have certain rules when it comes to what content can be allowed on KH-Vids.Net. But recently the thoughts on what should be allowed or not seem a bit blurry. Here's what the rules say:

Now then, let's talk about this.

Don't be shy. You can post even if your overall view isn't popular or different. The point of this is to discuss things and hopefully get things happening on the site. I repeat, don't be afraid to state your opinion as long as you follow the member council guidelines, you should be alright.

Don't be afraid of being controversial or direct as long as you don't target specific people or groups. So have a it!

COUNCIL BEGIN!!!​

 

I believe that this is more about what falls under the PG-13 rule. It's very vague, as there are different levels of PG-13? It's not like all films that are rated PG-13 all have the same amount of sex, violence, etc. There have been some complaints lately regarding certain images, such as Vivi's signature, which had a topless women covered in blood, but there was no nudity, just a bare back. To my knowledge, this was considered inappropriate and was removed. There were no breasts showing. Could that be in a PG-13 movie? probably. probably not. what makes a movie rated PG-13 vs rated R are the combination and severity of different scenes, both individual and taking the whole tone and message of the film into account as well. The whole PG-13 guideline is just too vague and it needs to be specified as there seems to be discrepancies in what is considered to be appropriate or not, and when action is taken, there's been some backlash from the community because "Member A has this, and I consider it on par with what was removed from Member B." It needs to be specific. Because right now, it's what is CONSIDERED inappropriate, and maybe not what actually is inappropriate in accorance with the rules. Again, it's just too vague.

There's also the issue of censoring cuss words. This is what it says according to the rules:

What is the purpose of having cuss words censored? If the post is attacking another member, it will be removed regardless. And if somebody wanted to make a thread with the word "fuck" repeated over and over again, they can. There are ways to bypass it. But generally, people don't. Having cuss words censored is absolutely pointless because they can be bypassed, and hostile posts will be removed because they are hostile, not because they have cuss words in it. It could say

and that's pretty damn hostile, but it doesn't have any cuss words in it. The forum is already pretty lax about having cuss words tossed around, having the asterisks up is just unnecessary.

 

Essentially the problem with these rules is they aren't really even rules. Just vague statements warning people what will and will not be tolerated without ACTYUALLY warning them about what will and will not be tolerated. It's just a fuckton of general statements.

"Avoid making your posts overly sexual: this includes the use of overly graphic images or text. This rule applies to allsections. If a post is excessively perverted or obscene, it will be removed and punitive action will follow.

• Regarding the line for what is appropriate and what isn’t: we realize that this is a bit of a gray area and it is difficult to apply a stringent rule to it. A good rule of thumb would be that things should follow a PG-13 rule—if you wouldn’t see it in a PG-13 movie, it is unwelcome on our site. This means no nudity; keep what needs to be covered covered."

This part here for example talks about things being "excessively perverted"....um what the hell does that ACTUALLY MEAN?

Which one of the statements do you draw the line at?

Spoiler: Examples of Sexual Wording (OPEN AT YOUR OWN RISK)

"She has nice tits"

"Her breasts are so nice and voluptuous"

"Oh the things I would do to her behind closed doors with tits like that"

"I would greatly enjoy having rough sex with her and those tits of hers"

HOW FAR EXACTLY CAN I GO EXACTLY? Saying that I should keep it "PG-13" is very vague considering you'll see everything up until the nipple of a large breasted woman in some PG-13 movies. You'll see strongly implied sex scenes, and you'll even see bare ass. Basically according to these rules I can go post a picture of a man's bare ass cheeks all over the spam zone and I could argue any punishment because the scene is from a PG-13 movie.

And then what is exactly excessively obscene?

Spoiler: Examples of Obscenity (OPEN AT DISCRETION; TRIGGERING MATERIAL)

"fuck you"

"fuck you cunts"

"fuck you dirty motherfuckers, eat dicks all of you"

"victim, victim, honey you're my fifth one, rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome"

where does the line get crossed???

And then the swear filter is pointless and should be done away with because everyone bypasses it, even some staff. It's not stopping anything from being said, just making it require more pointless effort to say it. If a post is too obscene you can edit it yourselves but if I want to offend you, I can do it and this filter isn't going to stop me. Shit needs to go.

 

//INTERMISSION : A POST HAS CROSSED THE LINE

Breaking the rules to prove a point is not allowed when it's not meta enough. (which is why I went through the trouble of placing spoiler tags the exemplary, but possibly borderline material. INSTEAD OF deleting it)

Moreover, I will not tolerate any imagery. Text descriptions are fine. Be mindful of trigger material next time and put it in spoiler tags.

If you want there to be some change in the rules, then you need to follow said rules first. Humor me now, and don't **** this up (oh look the censor kicked in).

No penalties ensued as no malicious intent was detected​

Thread can be moved to the Suggestions section earlier if:​

• A request on the thread wins 2:1​
• No more than Five (5) replies happen in the first week​

//INTERMISSION : END...​

 

I was simply pointing out the fact that all of the censors can be bypassed and thus are useless, to support my final point. You saying "don't **** this up" is essentially the same as if I were to put in the work to bypass the filter in that same sentence. It delivers the same meaning. The filters are only censoring the visual aspect of it, which is essentially pointless if the meaning still gets across. It's just a lot less aesthetically pleasing.

 

Plus, whether words and censored or not, they still get the meaning across; if the meaning is negative and insulting, it can be dealt with by the staff either way.

 

//INTERMISSION : thread moved to the general member populace


Now everyone can partake. For a thread to remain in the Prem Section for the allotted two week time, it needs to have enough replies.

• Staff can reply.
• Normal Members can reply.

//INTERMISSION : END...​

 

oh look, another thing us normies can do. hooray~

I'm not going to go into the swearing/excessively obscene section. It seems to have already been covered. I have another part I want to bring up.

In the Roleplaying Arena as well as Writer's Nook, I have seen and written posts that have included violence(not so much gore) and I do not know if it is clarified what is "too violent" (I feel like with gore it is a bit more obvious)

Is it too violent when the entire thing involves just killing and fighting? Or is it too violent when someone details a death in a more gruesome way? Or when "minimum" is said, do you mean the quantity of posts with violence. I just want clarification with that.

Okay... imagine there is a group called the Broccoli Eaters. And let us say people in the Broccoli Eaters... burned a pile of celery and it gets on the news because everyone was so upset about the celery.

Now we have the section for current events, and lets say someone posts it here, and I am in the Broccoli Eaters and I post defending the situation or something without saying I am a Broccoli Eater, and another person posts back saying, "All Broccoli Eaters are vicious cold-hearted celery burners."

Is that considered an attack on the Broccoli Eaters?

 

I'm unsure if this is currently reflected in RPA/Nook rules (mods help me out), but I believe we are more lenient for those sections. Like, for example, the art sections allow occasional nudity as long as it is tasteful and not gratuitous. I believe the same goes for violence in either of the mentioned sections. From there, it's a case-by-case basis--for example, if a moderator deems the content in a particular story excessive, they can ask the user to edit it, ask the user to include a disclaimer, etc.

Again, the mods of these sections can probably expand better on the subject, but if you're ever unsure about whether what you're posting is okay or not, you can always run it by a staff member first.

 

this is accurate. before extreme violence or mature content, a warning must be placed so people can skip past it, etc.

 

Okay so the rules feel vague. This is a point I can get behind.

I don't know if we can make them super detailed, but a general guideline on certain things like nudity, gore, sexual acts, ect. Can be made clear.

discussions on evaluating the rules are underway between staff and hopefully we can come up with something that doesn't follow movie rating vis-a-vis because that clearly is causing certain issues on the matter of what's acceptable or not.

And then it becomes a problem when we can't go to our rules and pin-point why something was over the top or 'bad' then the rules don't really help.

Now, for the point about the word filter.

Part of why we have it is because of the culture we live in. Some words have either racist, homophobic or hate connotations. And I can't really ----personally with a conscious mind---- favor removing the censor from those kinds of words. I realize it's a form of censorship.

However, our memberbase is teenagers to young adults. And constantly calling someone names or insults can have adverse effects. Some members deal with a lot of stuff back at home, and then to come here and unwind to then have to put up with slurs that they feel uncomfortable around just....I really can't get behind that.

So the censors are there to demonstrate that we do not condone certain speech. Not that cussing or cursing (as long as you don't fancy yourself a sailor) isn't allowed, but that if you do decide to use certain words, you need to exercise caution because it's a censored word on our site.

We're not gonna go after you if you slip a few words in (in the spamzone, mind you; that's why staff curse sometimes, I guess)

But the words themselves have cultural connotations and if directed at someone, it could turn into an insult. I realize this puts a damper on some, and that you can still bypass it. Or that you can still use a proper vocabulary and insult or threaten a person.

But the argument I'm reading is that because it can be bypassed---there's no point in having it. Or that because hostility can happen -without- using cussing, that it should be removed (If I missed the point let me know lol)

Those in itself don't present a compelling argument as to why the censor might be pointless or useless.

That's my take on it, but I don't pretend or expect the censor to remain should it be deemed not useful.

 

If the word filter can be bypassed, it's pretty much useless because it is no longer doing it's job. It's also not filtering out every cuss word either, so it's a weak system to begin with. There's also the matter of, as you were saying, cultural connotations. We do have members from all over the world. But, really, the only words censored tend to be the basic, everyday ones used in the English-speaking world. It doesn't include, let's say, wanker, a term from the UK. It's more American-oriented. There's also the matter of the nature of the filter itself. The asterisks bring attention to the words rather than protect the user from it. Because it can still make a member feel offended or uncomfortable knowing cuss words are being thrown around. I think another issue are the racist terms. N***** and c**** is censored, but is kike censored? No. And when is it considered racist? If there's a thread about the etymology of the word in the Discussion board, isn't having the filter counter-intuitive? Also, no one here really has much of a sailor's mouth to begin with. When it is used, and almost exclusively in the Spam Zone, it's used for emphasis or as a joke. Instead keeping a broken system intact, wouldn't it be more efficient to take the situations case-by-case? Especially when that is how issues are already handled? The word filter does not prevent those situations from arising. And merely demonstrating that it isn't allowed doesn't keep people from letting loose on one another. People typically don't go bananas with cuss words. The whole thing should just be dropped entirely. The intention of the words are very contextual, and typically, are used casually and for filler or emphasis. The matters should just be kept on a case-by-case basis, instead of keeping this broken system.

Edit:
Also, I'm not trying to pick on Misty here, but I just came across this post:

If the staff aren't utilizing the word filter to demonstrate that you do not condone language, and bypass it instead, that kind of takes away the whole point. Personally,I don't think it matters that she bypassed and it's just another reason as to why the whole thing should be removed.

 

I'm going to be very very short on this subject, for I am tired at this moment and therefore cannot give the energy to post anything more detailed. Forgive me.

But would you want your 13 year old, a child who loves Kingdom Hearts quite a lot, to go on google and look up things about their favorite characters to be directed to this site for instance and to find vulgar language or imagery? What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the people who play Kingdom Hearts are kids. I understand there are a lot of older people playing, but you still need to understand that there are kids who play these games.

I don't know where I'm going with this.

 

More kids play halo and call of duty than Kingdom Hearts and they're all perfectly fine

 

I dunno, I've seen plenty of kids who get really rude when you don't do everything to their standard of play or call you a hacker if you are better than them. However, there is a difference in what parents deem acceptable, so we simply just need to cater towards the majority.

Also, I'm all for with having a word filter that replaces words.

 

The word filter as I understand it exists as a warning. Bypassing those words should be done sparingly or in sections less likely to reach the public eye. Not to mention, a word filter that cannot be bypassed hampers civil discourse about or using the filtered words. If I want to discuss the social and cultural effects of the word 'nigger', for example, yes it's a harmful word but it should be accepted by any rational mind that it must be said eventually to be discussed; it's possible to live in a world without it, but it's not practical. That said, the filter also serves as a barrier to entry that prevents any ignorant jerk from signing up and immediately flooding the boards with hate speech. In other words, a sensible person shouldn't even know it's there, but that doesn't mean it's not doing its job. Some rules prevent, some merely deter.

Also, the system isn't weak just because it doesn't account for every word. We just need to discuss the words that are filtered and inform the staff when someone discovers a word that probably should be filtered but isn't. I will say that it can be indiscrete in the case of words with multiple meanings, e.g. kinda hard to talk about the Chronicles of Riddick when 'dick' is censored. But again, that could be bypassed.

In my experience the only true abuse of word filter bypass is in the Spamzone, where the rules are far more lax. The Spamzone also makes clear this lax attitude from first entry, and it is where most people first learn how to bypass the filter, so it has become a sort of cultural benchmark there. This is how it should be, if you ask me; it's a section frequented only by a core group that knows the risks, mostly unknown to casual passersby.

The fact that the word filter does not hamper discussion between those who are conservative in their cussing and smart enough to use discretion is an aspect I like and wish to keep about the current word filter. Basically, if you're stupid enough to bump into it, you probably don't need to be saying those words; and if you're smart enough to bypass it but dumb enough to abuse that knowledge, you get burned. Otherwise, people are not adversely affected. To sacrifice that would be an unacceptable step backward, but any system that improves upon what exists without eliminating that aspect is fine by me.

My only gripes with the current system are the lack of coverage for certain words—Though the exact words escape me right now, so I'm no help at anything lol—and disproportionate distribution of warns over issues of offensive language in the past. I'd like to see the rules written more clearly, even though that may not solve the problem so much as change the dimensions of it. It's at least a step in the right direction.

I'd rather the asterisks. They're jarring and ugly, which is exactly what they should be, because that discourages people from cussing. Replacement words will just make people laugh or warp the forum's perception of those words, and then they will be abused to the breaking point. See: SomethingAwful, 4chan, Pogo and every site like it, etc. Also, in cases where you mean to discretely bypass the word filter, a word replacement would make it harder to find the filtered word and correct the mistake.

 

The censors aren't there to ban words completely. People can still throw around the words in the Spamzone (in moderation) or when discussing said words in a serious, non-insulting discussion. In that sense, the censor isn't really useless.

If it's purpose was to completely erase words from the site, then I'd have to agree that there wouldn't be a point in having it. As Ghetto said, if you want to insult a person---or in this case, say a word you can still do it. No filter will stop you.

I know this was already replied to, but the filter usually doesn't cover every word. Words can be added. Not having the words inputted doesn't make it an inherently 'weak' system. Just not updated properly.

This is a good point. Because in truth, not everyone curses or cusses in the site. And when they do it's hardly to insult one another.

I already mentioned this, but the word censor isn't to remove words completely. Specially not in the spamzone (where the post originated from)

We don't remove the words, but rather trust that the more saavy members know how and when to employ them. I didn't say we don't condone language or words. I said speech. Which I realize now was too vague.

But that doesn't really refute the point you're trying to make. It's just more explanatory babble.

 

Also to add because I don't think it's been highlighted much, but this would create a much greater workload for us if harsher scrutiny is wanted and generally is already in place on a lighter amount.
To be harsher we would have to filter each individual post using said collection of words before they would be allowed to be seen by public users. Not only would this be bad for us but it would be bad for the members. It's inefficient and too big brother. And it is being done on a lighter scale, with sectional moderators browsing and posting in threads. If the censorship is being bypassed in a way that is needed to take action against, we will.

 

that was not my point at all. removing the filter means removing the censorship entirely. those words would just remain uncensored. if it was offensive/uncomfortable/threatening/etc, that is when the issue would be dealt with.