- Sep 2, 2006
- 24,625
- 6,011
- 136
lol
well i thought maybe you could post them since you are an admin
or somehow creatively get around the filter
or pm them to me
Can't you enclose them in (code) (/code) blocks?
what i dont get it why it does not include swares like the f word, which is the worst word of all
what i dont get it why it does not include swares like the f word, which is the worst word of all
Hooray for censorship!
They are globally censored, including pm's.
And we have a rule regarding defeating the censor, I'm not brazen enough to attempt an end-around
And if it wasn't obvious, my list above was completely fabricated, Excel's RandBetween FTW. For dramatic effect only but I think it got the point across all the same(there is no way to post the list since the listings themselves would be censored)
TBH I don't even know where "the list" is kept or how to audit it, but I do know we won't ever publish it (even if we could) because the trolls and asshats would just use the list to come up with ever cleverer ways to defeat the censor filters (as they do now).
It is generally used to censor spammers, their websites and affiliates and so on. And a few verboten words that are particularly hateful and hurtful.
Seems like a silly request, given the obvious outcome of posting such a list when the words themselves are censored by definition, but here goes:
********
...
********
Damn. I was going to organize them by character length "because we can't arrange them alphabetically."Had I done it it would have been immediately obvious that it was randomly generated due to the number of censored three-letter-words. Honestly, how many COULD there be?
Oh, and...
...REPORTED!
I can't believe the 'manahan himself missed doing that!
Why is ****.info censored?
Why is ****.info censored?
Repeated efforts on behalf of their affiliates to direct ATF traffic offsite in ways that violate our "no self-promotion" expectations.
If individuals affiliated with MSNBC.com, for example, joined our forum and kept spamming the forum with links to their website, attempting to harness their access to the web traffic here for their own benefit then we'd spend time attempting to convince them to cease and desist (as we did with ****.info).
If MSNBC.com failed to respect our good-faith efforts to convince them to play by our rules then we'd ultimately be forced to censor MSNBC.com.
****.info is not the first site to force our hands and censor them for their relentless spam efforts, and they won't be the last either.
It is no different than any of the other spam links we are ultimately forced to censor.
If we didn't employ this tactic then these forums would be rendered absolutely useless to the general membership within a matter of months as spamming hordes descend in efforts to harvest the web traffic that exists on this forum.
Web traffic that exists thanks in part to our volunteer mods investing their own time and efforts to keep the forums cleaned up, inviting, and productive for members to spend time within. And likewise thanks in part to the members themselves who spend a portion of their time reporting spam posters and such to the mods.
It takes everyone working together to keep the forums cleaned up for everyone's benefit. The mods can't do it alone, and we'd certainly never succeed in doing it if we could not censor words and websites.
I'd like some clarification, if possible. I've seen a certain member that has a hardware review site (not Anandtech) linked in his signature. Is that allowed?
Our sig policy is that members are allowed to embed one (1) offsite link in their sig provided it is discrete and not over the top advertisement (mod discretion applies), and there are limits within that. Ebay world links and so on are not allowed for example.
Folks most commonly use this opportunity to incorporate a link to their personal blog, employer blog, etc.
And yes, if done tastefully and discretely, we do allow for members to incorporate one link in their sig to a competing review site (Alienbabeltech is one example that comes to mind) provided, naturally, that the website in question is in good standing with the establishment here.
I'd like some clarification, if possible. I've seen a certain member that has a hardware review site (not Anandtech) linked in his signature. Is that allowed?