Ship Names and Their Incorrect Labelling as Profanity

calidhris

A couple of days ago, I made the following report through the ingame system:


Private correspondence moderated out - BMR

The support was polite but generally unhelpful, though they suggested I should post this issue here. I was also asked for my understanding and cooperation with them essentially doing nothing about it. Maybe this is because I've been talking to the wrong people.

However, I am neither understanding nor cooperative on this issue. It is highly offensive that the name of the island is being censored because some socially TRIBBLE bigots can't come to terms with female homosexuality existing and being referenced openly. While it is true that Star Trek in particular has always had an issue with portraying homosexual characters (and that we've basically only seen cop-outs in the form of an androgynous species or Trill symbionts changing hosts), don't you think the time is right to change that? This is an issue not only of free speech (which I do understand needs to remain civilised, so I'm not trying to open an 'expletives are free speech' debate here), it is more so an issue of morality. Is it justified to deny people who happen to be homosexuals a perfectly innocent way of referencing that?

This is not what I intended to do when I picked that name, but this is (let's be honest) why that name is on the 'profanity' list.


Flaming accusations moderated out - BMR

More worryingly, there are people whose ship names make direct references to TRIBBLE crimes. I've recently seen a ship called U.S.S. Bormann", no doubt after Martin Borman, a TRIBBLE chief administrator in charge of executing the Jewish holocaust. Yet, there is no automatic filter in place to prevent those from being used. But a Greek island is considered too offensive? What kind of weird standard is that?

calidhris

Flaming and political comments moderated out. - BMR

angrytarg

As much as I am with you on the core matter and as much as I am offended by colloquial terms for homosexuality of both sexes being censored as if it was "profanity" check your arguments. "Free speech" only concerns the government not limiting your expression. Nothing else. If PWE wanted they could limit your ability to say anything as it is their house right.

Also, there is no religious extremism. It's just a probably automatic filter that censores everything remotely able to be used as any form of "taunt". If just a human beimg would check and modify the list of terms the issue would be resolved, but no employee can be bothered to do that. And in regards to this forum, Cryptic/PWE isn't even able to, it's a third party software ('Vanilla').

But we can ping @ambassadorkael#6946 - they'd be the person most qualified to help here.

cestovatelka

I agree with Cali's point. Another example of suppression via pandering to the lowest common denominator.

warpangel

Profanity filters are stupid, but not as stupid as people who scream at the sight of a "dirty" word so lesser of two evils I guess. They're not going to remove it.

calidhris

angrytarg wrote: »

"Free speech" only concerns the government not limiting your expression. Nothing else. If PWE wanted they could limit your ability to say anything as it is their house right.

I was making a moral, not a legal point.

saurializard

Immediately connecting typical overzealous profanity filter to the nutzees is quite the quick escalation.

In my opinion, these things should go away in an ideal world (both the overzealous filters and the nutzees), but with how sensitive, easy-to-trigger and prone-to-sue some people are, it's becoming harder to blame companies for taking more certain drastic legal precautions (not all of them, though, because some are simply ridiculous).

calidhris

saurializard wrote: »

Immediately connecting typical overzealous profanity filter to the nutzees is quite the quick escalation.

In my opinion, these things should go away in an ideal world (both the overzealous filters and the nutzees), but with how sensitive, easy-to-trigger and prone-to-sue some people are, it's becoming harder to blame companies for taking more certain drastic legal precautions (not all of them, though, because some are simply ridiculous).

I've made the connection because those names don't get filtered, but innocent ones do. And I dare say this one does fall into the ridiculous (and offensive) category.

mirrorchaos

Some words needs filters, general rude words. but from what i know it is a matter of defintion if they get to the right people to warrent a censorship. a round door handle in british english would be k nob, but it is censored because one could interprit it as be rude to someone by calling them that word. it is censored without any consideration on the matter and yet other words can escape the filter so completely even though they have a less than glamourous meaning in another country.

lasonio

The answer is quite simple. You cannot say what you want, do what you want, nor impress what you want upon a world governed by another while using the intellectual rights and property of a privately owned or publicly traded company. They have the right to and can exercise that right to the furthest extent. As when you agreed to and accepted the terms of conditions when creating an account.

You cannot all of a sudden after signing a binding agreement to adhere to the rules that you probably didn't know existed, after the fact. It makes no sense.

And secondly, they are not going on the morals and facts that you yourself hold. That has no bearing on the company nor it's agenda. And as people love to point out Freedom of speech is not ever freedom of speech. And thirdly that clause in itself is the first thing everyone clings to when they feel that they should be able to express themselves to their content. Not all countries have this right. And without a doubt not all humans have this right.

You can't in one breath state Freedom of speech which is a law, a legal term as defined by the law as the right to express ones opinion. And then in another breath say it's not legal its moral. Makes no sense. You have no leg to stand on.

In this case, in which you, a single individual would like to use a derogatory word as the name of your ship, where lets face it, just because it is the isles in many legends is also a deragotory slang term, where you want to use it in one instance there are 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 other people ho will use it in another.

In this case you need to come down from your position on high and live in the internet age that really exist. You will be denied this on grounds of common sense. The sooner you accept it the sooner you can move on and name your ship after another island.

Or in the end be a little creative.

jonsills

Also, for someone sensitive about the misuse of the name of the isle of Les.bos, you certainly seem eager to toss around derogatory terms related to human developmental issues. Sounds just a tad hypocritical to me...

duncanidaho11

Oi...for those complaining about the moral issues of prohibiting the word Les.bos, drop the S at the end and see if the profanity filter still picks it up. It will because what you have there is a derogatory pejorative commonly used to disparage relevant folks in the LGBT community.

The profanity filter is a simple one and it will ignore accompanying spaces and letters to prevent some of the easiest methods of scooting around it.

angrytarg

"Profanity" filters are unable to determine context. None of the terms mentioned towards homosexual women are in my opinion offensive or have to be derogatory and can even be used to identify oneself. Used in a different context however, they suddenly are. Intention can be deducted from context of use. Since Nobody has to time to actually moderate these forums on a regular basis (that's why it's self-moderated by community volunteers in the first place) it uses the automatic solution which in turn however doesn't allow the regular use of words and even worse, somehow suggests they are "offensive" terms which is very offensive by itself.

My personal opinion is that there is no need for such filters. If people have to rely on "colourful metaphors" to express themselves it reflects on them, not on the person reading it. And people should really not need someone to hold their claw and "protect" them from language, that's something adults should be able to do themselves and moderation should be applied where necessary.

Since that is unrealistic due to the region the company and provider are based in I'd ask kindly to at least remove the proper terms for homosexual and TRIBBLE people from the filter list and don't force them to not use these terms because they seem "profane" to anyone.​​

postagepaid

Freedom of speech is worthless without knowing when its best to simply shut up and say nothing.

Plenty of greek islands to chose from so why was this particular one such important name for a ship?

angrytarg

postagepaid wrote: »

Freedom of speech is worthless without knowing when its best to simply shut up and say nothing.

Plenty of greek islands to chose from so why was this particular one such important name for a ship?

Awww, come on that's nonsense. There is no need to justify the desire to use Lesbos as a ship name. The term, neither as the isle or as a 'slang' term for homosexual women, requires any justification to be used, they are not inherently derogatory. They can be, but that depends on the context.​​

baddmoonrizin

This thread is a minefield and a flame war waiting to happen. /Thread