Removal of the link to the Matelot thread.

[Getragdogleg]

I am really stuck as to why it was removed, it linked out to another site, that sites content is none of PH's concern, worry or responsibility, I can understand if someone had posted a link to a porn site but this was not porn.

If the pandoras box of moderating links that might contain swearing has been opened then you better ban ALL YouTube links from now on then, youtube contains swearing.

[TheHeretic]

That does seem a bit draconian.

[Getragdogleg]

It is positively puritan.

Probably has more to do with preserving user numbers on here to watch all the big adverts we get thrust at us TBH.

[Papa Hotel]

What word evades the swear filter? Arrse? Please. Arrse has hundreds of links from PH and has never been a problem before.

[Grenoble]

I agree, it was a good link to an interesting life's tale.

Oh, but we can't guess moderation, however inane, banal or minor in this forum, lest we breach rule 347 subsection xiii...

[sleep envy]

Big Al said:

Our dictate only applies to the written word images and text that would be censored by our sites swear filter are to be removed.

Just for ref if you wish to kick off about moderation etc. then that is also covered in the rules

"If you wish to speak to someone regarding forum conduct or moderation issues please contact Paul Garlick ([e-mail])"

And with that, as this thread can't exist without links to the subject website there is no point in this thread remaining open.

Just so we're clear are you suggesting that any link to any website which contains adult language anywhere in it is now considered verboten?

[TheJimi]

Papa Hotel said:

What word evades the swear filter? Arrse? Please. Arrse has hundreds of links from PH and has never been a problem before.

Not only that, but Big Al's rationale for removing the link in the OP was that the link contained a word that evaded the swear filter.

You then subsequently posted a tinyurl link, which contained no such word - yet Big Al deleted that link, with a further shift of the goal posts, stating "unless you can censor all the swearing"

err - the tinyurl link didn't contain any swearing.

Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.

[TankRizzo]

It LOOKS like from what Al was saying that the link text itself broke the swear filter? As in the worse Arrse? If so I don't see why the OP couldn't be allowed to just tinyURL it or something like that.

If it really was the content on ARRSE from the link, then that is bloody silly.

[Papa Hotel]

I'd be interested to know how the tinyurl I posted had evaded the swear filter.

[Big Al.]

sleep envy said:

Big Al said:

Our dictate only applies to the written word images and text that would be censored by our sites swear filter are to be removed.

Just for ref if you wish to kick off about moderation etc. then that is also covered in the rules

"If you wish to speak to someone regarding forum conduct or moderation issues please contact Paul Garlick ([e-mail])"

And with that, as this thread can't exist without links to the subject website there is no point in this thread remaining open.

Just so we're clear are you suggesting that any link to any website which contains adult language anywhere in it is now considered verboten?

I think that's what I said didn't above, we have removed thousands of links and images over the years, the ones that do get through are either not reported or we haven't seen them.

[TheHeretic]

But arise isn't an attempt to evade the swear filer. It is the name of a website, and is itself not a swear word.

[Big Al.]

It matters not WE ARE INSTRUCTED TO REMOVE! the swear filter is in place because the owners of the site want it.

If the text in the link/image has swearing don't post it, or don't get irate when it gets removed.

[Papa Hotel]

Big Al. said:

It matters not WE ARE INSTRUCTED TO REMOVE! the swear filter is in place because the owners of the site want it.

If the text in the link/image has swearing don't post it, or don't get irate when it gets removed.

The links didn't have swearing in them, neither the original nor the tinyurl.

[TankRizzo]

Al just to be clear, when you say "the text in the link", do you mean the actual text in the link, as in "www.someswearyword.com", or the content displayed by the third-party site when the user clicks on the link?

[TheHeretic]

But arrse is not swearing. It stands for ARmy Rumour ServicE. It is a website for Army types. Would you ban

Www.shorpe-united.com,
Www.thisisshorpe.com,

And so on? It is absurd.

Would you ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8D_stsu ?

[sleep envy]

www.arsenal.com

Is this link not allowed?

[Papa Hotel]

Arse.

Just checking it.

Checked... it's not even fking censored! So what's the problem?

Al, either you're clutching at straws or we're all misunderstanding the problem, can you spell it out please?

[TheHeretic]

Papa Hotel said:

Arse.

Just checking it.

So that is not even censored?

Shorpe = censored.
Arse = Perfectly fine.

Odd.

[Big Al.]

TankRizzo said:

Al just to be clear, when you say "the text in the link", do you mean the actual text in the link, as in "www.someswearyword.com", or the content displayed by the third-party site when the user clicks on the link?

Sorry perhaps I didn't explain, it's not the text in the link title.....

It's to do with the any swear words in text/images that can be read/seen once inside the site.

Hope that clarifies.

[TheHeretic]

So what does 'evading the swear filter' have to do with anything?