Quote of Truth, by the one and only Omicron.

Truthiness. Omi's word is so truth here.

Meh. I only complian about minor stuffs.

*Like havng the search feture to everyone.... It causes so much lag, I can hardly get on some days...*

Well said Omi, very, very well said.

I've seen forums without as many rules as Bzp, and it was not a pretty sight.

-Ax-

..."As a final request from me"

lolwut.

good entry, btw!~

~Sunneh

*Obligatory devils advocate*

I'll admit most of the rules have a reason. There are a few I'd like to see changed or gone though. The filter is one of them. Frankly I'm a believer that a word is a word, a simple construct of letters used to connotate sound in various languages. If you have to give certain words' formations in the English language offensive meanings so that you can censor them, then that is pitiful.

In short, I think the censoring of words is stupid. Their words, their not hurting anyone, and taking away seven or so words is not going to change anyone's life drastically for the better.

To be fair it also won't change it drastically for the worse to remove them, but at the same time I have my reasoning on why I think their removal is stupid, as well as it'd be a lot more convenient not to have anything that talks outside he filter butchered.

As for the saying, screw dealing with the weather, it's raining, bring an umbrella. It's hot, wear something thinner and lighter. It's windy, close the door or window. Think outside the box, and don't jus say it like most of society does, actually do it.

Just a note though, I really do believe censorship is stupid, I don't just say that for the devils advocate role.

I'll admit most of the rules have a reason. There are a few I'd like to see changed or gone though. The filter is one of them. Frankly I'm a believer that a word is a word, a simple construct of letters used to connotate sound in various languages. If you have to give certain words' formations in the English language offensive meanings so that you can censor them, then that is pitiful.

 

In short, I think the censoring of words is stupid. Their words, their not hurting anyone, and taking away seven or so words is not going to change anyone's life drastically for the better.

 

To be fair it also won't change it drastically for the worse to remove them, but at the same time I have my reasoning on why I think their removal is stupid, as well as it'd be a lot more convenient not to have anything that talks outside he filter butchered.

 

As for the saying, screw dealing with the weather, it's raining, bring an umbrella. It's hot, wear something thinner and lighter. It's windy, close the door or window. Think outside the box, and don't jus say it like most of society does, actually do it.

I don't think you'd feel the same if you were, say, a Mormon, who abstain from bad language. And in addition, how would you feel if you were a parent who walked in your son's room and saw that he was on a kid's site with a foul word in a post?

Also, let's take that reknown four-letter-word and put it in front of the typical American family. Chances are they will consider it a bad word and maybe even hurtful. You are incorrect is thinking that those words are not harmful, and you must realize that if they were not harmful, they would not be tagged as 'foul language' or 'bad words' by society.

BZP is meant to target any person of any background with any share of belifes. You can not deem something appropriate just because you think so, because while your say does have ears listening, that voice is not echoed by the general public.

~EW~

I'll admit most of the rules have a reason. There are a few I'd like to see changed or gone though. The filter is one of them. Frankly I'm a believer that a word is a word, a simple construct of letters used to connotate sound in various languages. If you have to give certain words' formations in the English language offensive meanings so that you can censor them, then that is pitiful.

 

In short, I think the censoring of words is stupid. Their words, their not hurting anyone, and taking away seven or so words is not going to change anyone's life drastically for the better.

 

To be fair it also won't change it drastically for the worse to remove them, but at the same time I have my reasoning on why I think their removal is stupid, as well as it'd be a lot more convenient not to have anything that talks outside he filter butchered.

 

As for the saying, screw dealing with the weather, it's raining, bring an umbrella. It's hot, wear something thinner and lighter. It's windy, close the door or window. Think outside the box, and don't jus say it like most of society does, actually do it.

I don't think you'd feel the same if you were, say, a Mormon, who abstain from bad language. And in addition, how would you feel if you were a parent who walked in your son's room and saw that he was on a kid's site with a foul word in a post?

 

Also, let's take that reknown four-letter-word and put it in front of the typical American family. Chances are they will consider it a bad word and maybe even hurtful. You are incorrect is thinking that those words are not harmful, and you must realize that if they were not harmful, they would not be tagged as 'foul language' or 'bad words' by society.

 

 

BZP is meant to target any person of any background with any share of belifes. You can not deem something appropriate just because you think so, because while your say does have ears listening, that voice is not echoed by the general public.

 

~EW~

Alright, I'll give you the Mormon bit, but if I were a father, saw my son looking at something with a swear in it, it's his choice, he'll learn them eventually anyway, and it's just a word.

Do you think your protecting people by removing a few four-letter words, a three-letter word and an occasional five-letter word? And again, they'll learn it eventually.

Again, fair enough. All I'm saying is that the entry sounded like those of us who complain about the rules are complaining just to complain, and not because we think their wrong, which I honestly do with the filter. I'm a member on a few forums where only the one that starts with an F is censored, one of which often has it's filer bypassed to use that without alteration by the staff, two of which have a few years on BZP. None have ever erupted into spam and flame, or at least moreso than BZP does occasionally. If they could do this, surely we could too.

I think some rules here are kind of silly, but that's ok. Staffers and most members have a thing or two that bug them as well.

As far as language, things have certainly relaxed on this site during my hiatus from here.

I was (pleasantly) surprised to see great numbers of "this blows" or "this sucks" in conversations. Tame, but I doubt either would easily pass the "grandma test" that used to be the template for what was and wasn't acceptable.

My real gripe is equality though. If a staffer can do it, by golly so should peasants errr, members be able to.

I know I don't need to whip out links to describe this during the recent flurry of political debates, yes?

Y'see, constrictive rules are one thing. Sucky, but it can be made to be understood.

But constrictive rules only the "lessers" must endure? No.

That sends the message that the rules were so ludicrous that even the enforcers couldn't keep up.

It also makes people look elitist, even oppressive if they give themselves freedoms others get punished for expressing.

Similarly, contests. Professionalism could probably be jacked up a notch in regards to that. Same thing... the "lessers" are workin' it by building mocs, only to find that those above them were not as into it, protocol-wise. It shouldn't be that way.

It's exactly why I ditched back in October 2005.

Enough doom n' gloom though. The staff now is lightyears ahead of where it's been at certain points in the past. You guys are (for the most part lol), all right. B)

Do you think your protecting people by removing a few four-letter words, a three-letter word and an occasional five-letter word? And again, they'll learn it eventually.

I have nothing against swears, but I will never want my kid being around someone who uses it, whether it be in public or on a site that they come to just discuss toys.

Seriously some kids are banned from internet usage because of content. To prevent that, BZP censors it. And they have the right the censor whatever they feel is not needed on BZP.

How would you feel that a member cannot go on BZP anymore for the remainder of his childhood just because you said a swear?

EW is 100% correct on the matter.

If they could do this, surely we could too.

No we can't, and here is why. BZP is more diverse than the selection of Jelly Bellies. Not to mention the fact that the large portion of members are kids, who are (no offense, it is proven fact) do not have the right mind of maturity to engage in civil discussion. If you have to break out a swear just to talk, then the civil discussion just automatically ends.

So those forums you bring up are probably filled with an older group.

-Omi

From what I can tell, the problem mainly stems from people refusing to look beyond their own personal beliefs and accept that you can never have things the way you want. The world doesn't work that way. (BZPower isn't the only way you'll ever encounter a rule or law you don't like - life is like that. What Omi is saying comes across more as a life lesson to me more than anything else, because it can be applied to many situations.)

Necro, you may think something is acceptable, and you are entitled to your viewpoint, but the simple fact of the matter is that most people disagree with you. I see you as being one of those people Omi said need to "tolerate and deal with it." That's the only way you'll ever get anywhere - in life, really.

As the saying goes for New England "If you don't like the weather, then get out".

I though it was "If you don't like the weather, wait five minutes." :/

But yeah agreed. These people make it seem like they're forced to be here against their own will.

Do you think your protecting people by removing a few four-letter words, a three-letter word and an occasional five-letter word? And again, they'll learn it eventually.

I have nothing against swears, but I will never want my kid being around someone who uses it, whether it be in public or on a site that they come to just discuss toys.

 

Seriously some kids are banned from internet usage because of content. To prevent that, BZP censors it. And they have the right the censor whatever they feel is not needed on BZP.

 

How would you feel that a member cannot go on BZP anymore for the remainder of his childhood just because you said a swear?

 

EW is 100% correct on the matter.

If they could do this, surely we could too.

No we can't, and here is why. BZP is more diverse than the selection of Jelly Bellies. Not to mention the fact that the large portion of members are kids, who are (no offense, it is proven fact) do not have the right mind of maturity to engage in civil discussion. If you have to break out a swear just to talk, then the civil discussion just automatically ends.

 

So those forums you bring up are probably filled with an older group.

 

-Omi

I wouldn't see it as a huge problem. I like the site, but it's just an internet forum, it's not like his childhood would be ruined if he couldn't go on it. Plus I guarantee eventually he'll begin sneaking onto it.

On that note, most browsers have a built-in filter, it censors swears without editing the site for everyone else. If they really don't want them seeing that, just use that IMO.

So wait, your saying that whenever a swear is said, the discussion is no longer civil? Hen in that case, most discussions aren't civil, including his one, or for that matter, religion, because I'm pretty sure they don't say "darn" and "heck" to censor themselves.

I will give you that the younger children are not mature enough to have a civil discussion, although I don't see how that is related to he current topic.

And Again, I'll give you that; most people on those sites were at least 13, at the youngest about 12, but most we're a lot older than some BZPer's.

I wouldn't see it as a huge problem. I like the site, but it's just an internet forum, it's not like his childhood would be ruined if he couldn't go on it. Plus I guarantee eventually he'll begin sneaking onto it.

First you say it isn't a huge problem for a member to be banned from internet usage, and now you encourage to have the member go against the parents.

On that note, most browsers have a built-in filter, it censors swears without editing the site for everyone else. If they really don't want them seeing that, just use that IMO.

BZP isn't compatible, I am sure. Besides, we prefer our methods.

So wait, your saying that whenever a swear is said, the discussion is no longer civil? Hen in that case, most discussions aren't civil, including his one, or for that matter, religion, because I'm pretty sure they don't say "darn" and "heck" to censor themselves.

How is this not a civil discussion? Who swore?

I will give you that the younger children are not mature enough to have a civil discussion, although I don't see how that is related to he current topic.

You tell me, you're the one who brought it up.

And just in case you didn't know, parents are actually happy with the way our system and rules are set up.

-Omi

I wouldn't see it as a huge problem. I like the site, but it's just an internet forum, it's not like his childhood would be ruined if he couldn't go on it. Plus I guarantee eventually he'll begin sneaking onto it.

First you say it isn't a huge problem for a member to be banned from internet usage, and now you encourage to have the member go against the parents.

On that note, most browsers have a built-in filter, it censors swears without editing the site for everyone else. If they really don't want them seeing that, just use that IMO.

BZP isn't compatible, I am sure. Besides, we prefer our methods.

So wait, your saying that whenever a swear is said, the discussion is no longer civil? Hen in that case, most discussions aren't civil, including his one, or for that matter, religion, because I'm pretty sure they don't say "darn" and "heck" to censor themselves.

How is this not a civil discussion? Who swore?

I will give you that the younger children are not mature enough to have a civil discussion, although I don't see how that is related to he current topic.

You tell me, you're the one who brought it up.

 

And just in case you didn't know, parents are actually happy with the way our system and rules are set up.

 

-Omi

As nice as it is, the internet is no a necessary part of life. While it isn't a good thing, it's not a huge deal if they do. Plus you said BZP, not the internet. And I never advocated going against their parents, but to face facts, everyone rebels eventually. I never said it was proper though.

>> It's not a site-specific thing. Much like the BZ filter searches for specific words, so does this filter. And I suppose I'll give you that you prefer your methods. All I'm saying is you could edit them to be a bit more friendly to those not restricted by words, while still "protecting" those who are.

Fair enough. The religion and other arguments points still stand though. Saying that a single swear makes anything uncivilized is just stupid. There's plenty of civilized stuff that swears or has swears in it. Their just words, saying it doesn't lower something from an elegant occasion to a gathering of people held in low favour.

How did I bring it up?

I never said they were, but frankly, as much as I respect them, parents aren't the wisest in the affairs of the child once the child is old enough to understand enough that he or she can avoid getting into a large amount of trouble, breaking things, causing a fuss, etc. Even if they have parents, the child has free will and a mind of their own and, while there are things the parents know the child doesn't yet, the parent is doubtlessly going to be overprotective, but these are just words, it's not a huge deal if they see them after age, say, 13. BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

Anyone can lie about their age.

~EW~

As nice as it is, the internet is no a necessary part of life. While it isn't a good thing, it's not a huge deal if they do. Plus you said BZP, not the internet. And I never advocated going against their parents, but to face facts, everyone rebels eventually. I never said it was proper though.

I am talking about kids who are under the age of 12. No one rebels under that age. It isn't even the rebelling age.

>> It's not a site-specific thing. Much like the BZ filter searches for specific words, so does this filter. And I suppose I'll give you that you prefer your methods. All I'm saying is you could edit them to be a bit more friendly to those not restricted by words, while still "protecting" those who are.

I didn't say it was site specific. However not all sites are compatible with browser features.

Fair enough. The religion and other arguments points still stand. Saying that a single swear makes anything uncivilized is just stupid. There's plenty of civilized stuff that swears or has swears in it. Their just words, saying it doesn't lower something from an elegant occasion to a gathering of people held in low favour.

It may be stupid, but it is true. Read up on civil debates. Notice any swearing? Watch Obama and Mcccain go at it. Did they swear at each other?

Swears are not a form of elegance, and never will be. We made them that way, and with that, it won't ever change. And uh I'd rather respect someone and not drop a few words then just outright disrespect them and say what I feel is on my mind.

How did I bring it up?

I quoted you, so you must have brought it up.

I never said they were, but frankly, as much as I respect them, parents aren't the wisest in the affairs of the child once the child is old enough to understand enough that he or she can avoid getting into a large amount of trouble, breaking things, causing a fuss, etc. Even if they have parents, they have free will and a mind of their own and, while there are things the parents know the child doesn't yet, these are just words, it's not a huge deal if they see them after age, say, 13. BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

They live under their roof, thus under their rules.

BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

 

Anyone can lie about their age.

 

~EW~

You don't even have to set your age.

-Omi

I don't believe that it is just being one of the first Bionicle-dedicated websites that have made BZ popular.

It's largely it's unorthodox rules.

Those rules are to allow parents to KNOW their kid can come here and not run into pictures of a guy showing how far an organic rubberband can stretch, pics of old men who REALLY like each other, pics of a woman who doesn't know how to shower correctly (lol, if you understood all that).

The internet, just about anywhere you go, will inevitably lead to run-ins with things of that nature. Except here.

I look at it all as an experiment really. And if it was an experiment, then the results were positive. Even shearing away all the unpruned dead accounts and such, there really is actually a ton of traffic here. It didn't happen accidentally.

Granted, I do think things could be even more lax and the site would still function just as fine while continuing to grow, but that's my opinion. Rich or whoever's running the place doesn't need to implement any rule changes because of me, because the formula is still working.

It's not to say that there aren't some things that aren't broken which need fixing. What I mention above with contests and equality, as well as the (dumbfounding) state of the site itself. It's down so often. People still complain of a topic or a post vanishing. Weird stuff.

But as for swearing, it doesn't need to be increased.

Necro, I like your rebellious spirit and whole-heartedly agree that cursing does NOT mean a conversation has become uncivil, but it is an integral part to BZ's success.

It's a part of the formula that made the site HUGE and there's no telling what might happen if it's altered.

Good and bad, this is NOT a normal website.

Necro, I just went up to Meaghan, and spoke to her, but emphasized with some hardcore swearing.

The results are exactly what I was talking about. The discussion was uncivil, and she was put off by it.

-Omi

BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

 

Anyone can lie about their age.

 

~EW~

Fair enough. Still, all I'm saying is it's a bit unfair to the older members. Even then there are some words that aren't even swears hat I don't get the reasoning behind being in the filter.

As nice as it is, the internet is no a necessary part of life. While it isn't a good thing, it's not a huge deal if they do. Plus you said BZP, not the internet. And I never advocated going against their parents, but to face facts, everyone rebels eventually. I never said it was proper though.

I am talking about kids who are under the age of 12. No one rebels under that age. It isn't even the rebelling age.

 

>> It's not a site-specific thing. Much like the BZ filter searches for specific words, so does this filter. And I suppose I'll give you that you prefer your methods. All I'm saying is you could edit them to be a bit more friendly to those not restricted by words, while still "protecting" those who are.

I didn't say it was site specific. However not all sites are compatible with browser features.

Fair enough. The religion and other arguments points still stand. Saying that a single swear makes anything uncivilized is just stupid. There's plenty of civilized stuff that swears or has swears in it. Their just words, saying it doesn't lower something from an elegant occasion to a gathering of people held in low favour.

It may be stupid, but it is true. Read up on civil debates. Notice any swearing? Watch Obama and Mcccain go at it. Did they swear at each other?

 

Swears are not a form of elegance, and never will be. We made them that way, and with that, it won't ever change. And uh I'd rather respect someone and not drop a few words then just outright disrespect them and say what I feel is on my mind.

 

How did I bring it up?

I quoted you, so you must have brought it up.

 

I never said they were, but frankly, as much as I respect them, parents aren't the wisest in the affairs of the child once the child is old enough to understand enough that he or she can avoid getting into a large amount of trouble, breaking things, causing a fuss, etc. Even if they have parents, they have free will and a mind of their own and, while there are things the parents know the child doesn't yet, these are just words, it's not a huge deal if they see them after age, say, 13. BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

They live under their roof, thus under their rules.

BZP has a thing to monitor people's age, can't you set the filter to work until someones so-and-so years old?

 

Anyone can lie about their age.

 

~EW~

You don't even have to set your age.

 

-Omi

Yes, but if their forbidden from going on BZP, eventually I have no doubt that once they are in a rebelling age, at one point they'll remember BZP and go behind their parents back and go back on.

Well, with the same logic, I've quoted you and EW, so one of you brought it up. =/ You said that younger kids are unable to participate in a civilized discussion. I'll admit most cases that's true, but I don't see how it was relevant is all.

When did I say they were a form of elegance? What I'm saying is their words. No more, no less. The fact one word can be more offensive than another word with the same meaning is beyond me. And no, they didn't swear, because America has the belief that these words are harmful somehow, and neither wanted to hurt their campaign.

Children around this age often eat snacks when told not to. Does this mean their living fully under those rules? Everyone breaks some sort of rule eventually. And often times this is an honest mistake, a missing of a rule, something forgivable. here are other cases where it's deliberate. You can't just say a child lives under their parents rule and if not they should be punished, and expect it to be an absolute that works in every situation.

You can make that a mandatory step of the process I think.

@Jinzoningen; Thank you, and I suppose you have a point. I guess I can accept the filter, though there are a few things I want to work out with the staff, as well as a few words that make no sense to be in the filter.

Edit; Response to Omi's second post; >> Not as in using heavy amounts of the more "innapropriate" swears. If you say what heck is a censoring of, it's not going to make people stare at you like a madman. There's a difference between shouting a bunch of it at someone and using it sparingly to occasionally emphasize a point or something along those lines.

Still, all I'm saying is it's a bit unfair to the older members. Even then there are some words that aren't even swears hat I don't get the reasoning behind being in the filter.

Deal with it.

Every filtered word has an explanation. You will find them if you did some searching.

Yes, but if their forbidden from going on BZP, eventually I have no doubt that once they are in a rebelling age, at one point they'll remember BZP and go behind their parents back and go back on.

Memberswho leave BP tend to forget about it. Members come back after 5 years saying how they forgot about it.

Well, with the same logic, I've quoted you and EW, so one of you brought it up. =/ You said that younger kids are unable to participate in a civilized discussion. I'll admit most cases that's true, but I don't see how i was relevant is all.

Cuz they lead to spamming, trolling, and flaming. Find any topic that has a sensitive subject and you will see.

though there are a few things I want to work out with the staff, as well as a few words that make no sense to be in the filter

Don't waste your breath. It won't change a thing.

Edit; Response to Omi's second post; >> Not as in using heavy amounts of the more "innapropriate" swears. If you say what heck is a censoring of, it's not going to make people stare at you like a madman. There's a difference between shouting a bunch of it at someone and using it sparingly to occasionally emphasize a point or something along those lines.

No no no. Does not matter what tone it is in. No matter what context it is in. No matter what swear is used. And you are going to be specific about this now after all that is said, nice try.

-Omi

Still, all I'm saying is it's a bit unfair to the older members. Even then there are some words that aren't even swears hat I don't get the reasoning behind being in the filter.

Deal with it.

 

Every filtered word has an explanation. You will find them if you did some searching.

 

Yes, but if their forbidden from going on BZP, eventually I have no doubt that once they are in a rebelling age, at one point they'll remember BZP and go behind their parents back and go back on.

Memberswho leave BP tend to forget about it. Members come back after 5 years saying how they forgot about it.

 

Well, with the same logic, I've quoted you and EW, so one of you brought it up. =/ You said that younger kids are unable to participate in a civilized discussion. I'll admit most cases that's true, but I don't see how i was relevant is all.

Cuz they lead to spamming, trolling, and flaming. Find any topic that has a sensitive subject and you will see.

 

though there are a few things I want to work out with the staff, as well as a few words that make no sense to be in the filter

Don't waste your breath. It won't change a thing.

Edit; Response to Omi's second post; >> Not as in using heavy amounts of the more "innapropriate" swears. If you say what heck is a censoring of, it's not going to make people stare at you like a madman. There's a difference between shouting a bunch of it at someone and using it sparingly to occasionally emphasize a point or something along those lines.

No no no. Does not matter what tone it is in. No matter what context it is in. No matter what swear is used. And you are going to be specific about this now after all that is said, nice try.

 

-Omi

Would you mind explaining those to me via PM or IM? I'm pretty sure whatever posts created those parts of the rules were pruned when the site was pruned for bandwidth.

Fair enough.

But how is that relevant to the filter issue we're debating?

By work out I mean discuss with. And I assume that means that I should just be silent and never raise my voice with a problem? That hitting the report button does nothing?

Removed. You seriouesly don't understand any of the rules here. -Omi

Would you mind explaining those to me via PM or IM? I'm pretty sure whatever posts created those parts of the rules were pruned when the site was pruned for bandwidth.

They aren't pruned. I would know personally. You can find all the answers you need right in the Q&A.

But how is that relevant to the filter issue we're debating?

Again, you tell me, you brought it up.

By work out I mean discuss with. And I assume that means that I should just be silent and never raise my voice with a problem? That hitting the report button does nothing?

Discussing with means you plan on trying to have some things changed around.

And you will obey the rules when you are in my blog.

-Omi

Would you mind explaining those to me via PM or IM? I'm pretty sure whatever posts created those parts of the rules were pruned when the site was pruned for bandwidth.

They aren't pruned. I would know personally. You can find all the answers you need right in the Q&A.

 

But how is that relevant to the filter issue we're debating?

Again, you tell me, you brought it up.

 

By work out I mean discuss with. And I assume that means that I should just be silent and never raise my voice with a problem? That hitting the report button does nothing?

Discussing with means you plan on trying to have some things changed around.

 

And you will obey the rules when you are in my blog.

 

-Omi

Alright then.

How did I bring it up? You said young children are unable to engage in civil discussion. I didn't bring it up.

That's a problem? There are some words that, due to the general consensus of America, I can understand being censored, but there are a bunch that make no sense to be censored IMO.

I take offense to what you edited in there. Would I have said I would've edited it after you responded if I didn't understand them? I'm offended by what you said there, it was uncalled for. You could've just edited it out. And you could've at least responded to that; Removed -Omi. I don't break rules to break them, I break them because otherwise what I say makes no sense, and even then I'll often butcher what I say to fit the filter. >>