I think the rules should be changed when it comes to filters.

I understand that it can’t be a common word, but then what would be the point of buying one?

You’d get more people purchasing filters if you lightened up on the rules.

Here’s what I propose, which is subject to change at any time.

Allow common words, but only to a limit. The whole fun of having a filter is for people to use it, take ‘lmao’ filtering to ‘Please ban me for one week.’ for example. Clbumic. There could be a limit of how many common words that can be filtered, because if there’s too many, communication would be difficult. If anything, being a little lighter on the rules would probably bring in some more filters.

Questions? Comments? Complaints?

I was going to say.

Duca and scitard do not a filter list make.

I’m guessing the rationale for not allowing common words to be filtered is because they can’t be turned off (because people pay for them) and they get really annoying. I’m fine with the current policy because I don’t want to have to type “H ello”.

sdgrbbum09 Posted:

I’m guessing the rationale for not allowing common words to be filtered is because they can’t be turned off (because people pay for them) and they get really annoying. I’m fine with the current policy because I don’t want to have to type “H ello”.

You know you can avoid filters right? After you see the filter, accidentally use it, and the fun is over, you can just avoid it.



Type ”& shy ;” without the spaces and quotation marks INSIDE the word
Teh Cezar edited this message on 05/31/2010 3:03AM

Is this filtering for the chatbox ?

Maybe common words should get filtered a percentage of the time. The more common the less chance. Would make it totally weird, too :-D

You could sell filters that expire after x numbers of uses of the word in question, but that’d be open to people getting rid of a filter they don’t like by using the word over and over again.

To do it properly you’d need stats on word frequency in IDC, which I can only imagine being infeasibly costly in terms of computer time to break down and count the words in every IDC message.

Maybe something similar drawing on canned statistics for word frequency… if such statistics exist. But I doubt they’d include all the words that are common around here even if they do exist.

DG-Root Posted:

For simplicity’s sake I think a scale from 1 to 20 and a rough estimate would speed things up at the expense of finely-tuned accuracy.

You’re still talking about clbumifying every possible word… unless it’s done on a case by case basis when the filter is approved. That could work. Although people would probably accuse whoever does the approving (mods? or just admin… I don’t know) of bias… not that that’s anything new.

maybe more people would buy filters if et were more open to rule talk

Adapt edited this message on 05/31/2010 5:30PM

­­I would like to point out my irritation about the current wordfilters. The were > where filter was refunded because it was dubbed “too common”, yet the current filters: bum, ****, woman's genitals, fabulous person, ****, and ****, Aren’t apparently “common”. I find this to be pretty ****ing very special, and I’d either like for the were > where filter to be reinstated, or these filters refunded.

Catt although Posted:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=were&word2=****

­Catt, if you would also keep in mind what words are common in flamebate and idc, and not just the whole internet. Of course were is going to be a more common word, but when it comes down to it, **** is a pretty common word in IDC, along with most of the other filters that are currently in place.