Question

Why doesn't Ambassador turn into Ambretriceador ?

Answer 1

Because it's on the white list.

Answer 2

@Conqueror

Answer 3

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Answer 4

I dun get it,,,

Answer 5

What's not to get

Answer 6

@Jaynator495

Connect a s s and see what it turns into

Answer 7

lel ikr

Answer 8

Ok, so hes calling us... oh good god... @zarkon @nomodson

Answer 9

LOL!!!!!!

Answer 10

I still dont get it... xD
but eh... with that said welp cant be good.

Answer 11

dude, the word @$$ is in there, and when you say it, it says retrice, so you get it now? ._.

Answer 12

smh

Answer 13

$$

Answer 14

idk

Answer 15

Ambassador turn ambassador?

Answer 16

Permision to break this post @sleepyhead314

Answer 17

In t-10

Answer 18

lol

Answer 19

@Jaynator495 is crazy

Answer 20

@sleepyhead314 Can i try>

Answer 21

please just one code

Answer 22

i see you founf the secret #GoshDangIt

Answer 23

lol

Answer 24

Dont tell them -_-

Answer 25

i will post '

Answer 26

No hartnn told me to unbreak it *facepalm*

Answer 27

lol

Answer 28

i know the code >:D

Answer 29

XD

Answer 30

O_O did i read that right? Amb"RETRICE"ador

Answer 31

You sure did

Answer 32

isn't the profanity for butt filtered with the word retrice?

Answer 33

they must have exceptions. I mean words like bass contain the word but do not get filtered.

Answer 34

bass

Answer 35

mass

Answer 36

glass

Answer 37

pass

Answer 38

oh nvm xD i see what this post was made for @conqueror because the filters are only designed to auto correct when they are by them selves for example theres Bass Whore which is a word that has a complete different definition than "whore" Also Jackass means donkey.

Answer 39

XD

Answer 40

@Conqueror the three letter combination of @$$ becomes invalid when in conjunction with other letters because from the start of censoring the devs recognized that many words have that combination of letters "pass" "bass" "mass" etc and it would be a problem to censor all of them

so when the three letter combo of @$s is used within or attached to another word, the word does not censor as it might have with John Hancoc.

I hope this explains this @Conqueror and I apologize on behalf of my fellow users of the immaturity they have shown you.

Answer 41

Here's a plan... Why not just quit worry about, gaming, or abusing the Language Filters.

So far, the language filters have not EVER bothered me. It just happens that I NEVER use any words that are deemed inappropriate. Clean up your thoughts and your language and a discussion of language filters simply isn't necessary. Use real words. It is a great boon to clear communication.

Answer 42

This question was not about gaming or abusing the Language Filter @tkhunny but rather simply an inquiry to why the Language filter acts the why it does for some words.

The term Ambassador is used often here on OpenStudy and there is also a Language Filter for the three letter combo of @$$
@Conqueror was simply nicely inquiring why that three letter combo does not act like ther other filtered words such as when people try to talk about John Hancoc.

It was quite the valid question to ask and I see nothing wrong about bringing the topic forward :)

Answer 43

Thanks @sleepyhead314

Answer 44

\(\color{blue}{\text{Originally Posted by}}\) @Joel_the_boss
they must have exceptions. I mean words like bass contain the word but do not get filtered.
\(\color{blue}{\text{End of Quote}}\)\(\color{blue}{\text{Originally Posted by}}\) @Joel_the_boss
bass
\(\color{blue}{\text{End of Quote}}\)
\(\color{blue}{\text{Originally Posted by}}\) @Joel_the_boss
glass
\(\color{blue}{\text{End of Quote}}\)
\(\color{blue}{\text{Originally Posted by}}\) @Joel_the_boss
mass
\(\color{blue}{\text{End of Quote}}\)
\(\color{blue}{\text{Originally Posted by}}\) @Joel_the_boss
pass
\(\color{blue}{\text{End of Quote}}\)


Now read my first comment.

Answer 45

yep ^_^ saw that @confluxepic :) it's good

I was more worried about the "LOL"ing and mockery after that :P

Answer 46

Okay.

Answer 47

@confluxepic XD Didn't see it... ;-;

Answer 48

@sleepyhead314
@Conqueror

I understand that is the fundamental excuse for the question. I simply don't believe it.

Why do we care how the language filters work? Stop making them work. Simple as that.

No one needs to know the exact workings of the Language Filters except for two groups:
1) Programmers of the Language Filters (and perhaps their managers).
2) Those wishing to get away with as much as possible.

Which group are you?

Answer 49

I want to know simply for knowing's sake.
I am a person who simply wants to know things, for example I am taking AP Physics this year with absolutely no intention of taking the AP test but only for the knowledge.
I am self studying Algebra 2 and Pre Calc in my spare time, simply because I want to know them.

Answer 50

I don't believe that there is any problem in having a want for knowledge or being curious in the workings of some things :)

Answer 51

The whole 'No one needs to know' thing is making OS seem shady. Makes me wonder what else you guys have been holding back on us(the users of OS)...v

Answer 52

Take a filters class with no intention of taking the filters exam. Take your curiosity into an environment that you can partially control

The very discussion encourages gaming of the filters. Whether you do the gaming or not, you are granting permission to abusers. You are not acting in a vacuum. Others are watching and you cannot avoid influencing them.

Consider the greater cause. Mere curiosity or WANT to know is a deficiency of our society. There must be a NEED to know in order to invade privacy or to encourage detrimental behavior. If you can control the environment, feel free to discuss whatever you like.

I recommend very strongly that you leave such discussion out of OpenStudy.

Answer 53

I see what you mean, that seeing such a topic would spike the curiosity in other users to test the filter for themselves - thereby causing more people to break rules.

But then how should this topic have been broached? We should be free to inquire of such topics in regards to the site freely. No where in the TaC or CoC does it say that we are not allowed to inquire about such problems. (Preetha would have definitely allowed such questions to be asked with the belief that although some users may become curious and test out the problem, it would not cause harm.)

In schools, they teach us about Existentialism - basically the idea that our lives are worth *nothing* in the vastness of the universe. Then they expect us to not commit suicide.
Perhaps such a mentality should be taken with this topic as well. That information should be put out there and we should hope for the best and simply plan for the worst.

Answer 54

@tkhunny Please provide me with evidence of our intentions, because if you our curiosity is not allowed in the Feedback section of OUR website, then I don't understand where AUTHORITY and EQUALITY comes into play. You are one mod, we are 2 million users. Asking about the website that we use more than you do seems like a fair topic.

Yet again you demonstrate the lack of knowledge some INACTIVE mods have when it comes to the current generation of users. Not only did i find it offending that you would suggest that a question like this would be influential to breaking the rules, you demonstrate how little confidence you have in us.

And by all means, tell me if OUR NEED TO KNOW is bothering you, after all we wouldn't want to make your job an heard than it already is. Please forgive me for trying to learn and understand the system that i have brought into my daily life. Please by all means explain to me when OS became an absolute monarchy and not a reasonable constitutional website. Saying that we have little power over the environment is an understatement am willing to put to the test.

*Everyone just ignore @tkhunny I doubt he will be on any time soon, hes just an inactive mod who doesn't understand how much the 'MINORITY' of openstudy contributes.*

@tkhunny Im not trying to sound disrespectful, but you again use your powers as a mod in a very unequal manner. If inequality on OS is becoming an issue then by all means count me out of this. Im not going to stay on a site that does not allow users to be curious.

Answer 55

Sorry to comment more >,<
but I just wanted to say @tkhunny that:
I personally thought that "Mere curiosity or WANT to know is a deficiency of our society." is too biased and opinionated of a statement and seems to be more of a personal belief than a reason for people to stop voicing their thoughts. I personally believe that questioning is a wonderful and beautiful thing and although there are sometimes consequences to certain ways of voicing such thoughts, I don't think we should ever be squashed to not be allowed to voice our questions.

Isn't that what OpenStudy is here for? to curb our questions and get a better understanding of things?

Answer 56

1) What is the purpose of this discussion concerning the filters? It appears to be ONLY to satisfy your curiosity. This is not an unreasonable goal, but you should also consider your moral responsibility. This is my recommendation to you.

2) What is the effect of this conversation? I did not at any time suggest you would magically turn into an abuser. "Get away with as much as possible" isn't quite an abuser. I have, however, met many abusers and they are constantly learning how to get away with more and more.

3) I am not against curiosity or investigation. I am against doing such with the false belief that you exist in and of yourself and you have no influence on others.

4) I have very much been the "minority" in OpenStudy and likely will remain so. One correct voice can be quite influential. It is NOT the case that up and coming generations magically know more than those who have gone on before. I am all for innovation and change, but not as goals by themselves. Sometimes, retrenchment is the right thing to do. Sometimes, staying IN the box is the right thing to do.

5) You do not have a "need" to know. You have curiosity. You cannot demonstrate the need unless you are one of those programmers.

6) My opinion is only my opinion. You may take it as you wish. I speak nothing of my confidence in you, personally. You should define this "us" you are talking about. Are you including yourself in the group of pathological abusers that mods deal with on an hourly basis? I hope not.

7) Like curiosity and investigation, I have no problem with the free voicing of opinions and thoughts. I do have a problem with the false belief that we can do so without responsibility. Questioning IS a wonderful thing. Voicing true thoughts and opinions - again - a wonderful thing. Just add the personal moral responsibility to that and we do not have any sort of disagreement. If you believe you can say what you wish, investigate what you wish, or publish what you wish, entirely absent personal moral responsibility, then we will have a disagreement.

My views. I welcome others'.