• This issue has been left unresolved for too long.
    The ever increasing volume of words that are taboo is ridiculous.
    The idea that language needs to be controlled should be the antithesis of this site.
    Censoring words or phrases because you have deemed them offensive is despotic and has little effect on the nature of conversations.
    We can still argue, upset, attack and offend people without those words.
    So why in essence do you continue to use this tactic as a way to regulate the tone of conversations that, to be honest have nothing to do with you as a website.
    The nature of some of the words we cant use is becoming more disturbing.
    Lesbian for example is no longer allowed to be said in the lobby.
    This makes your intentions on regulating language seem confused.
    It seemed you were basing your decisions purely on optics, and that would explain why your blunt tool hasn't cut to the core of your issue, but your intent runs deeper than just an attack on the cruel delicacies of foul mouths and ruffians.
    The offence seems to be taken by you, and not given by us.
    Why are you so offended by some words?
    There is a sniff of God-Botherer in the Admin here that should be swiftly cut out. It is not your place to judge how we argue or compliment or joke or insult.
    That is the job of our peers, and a natural regulation is what will work best.

    You seem to take your cues from a higher power.

  • @sparks Apologies for any inconvenience caused to you. We appreciate your feedback. We will try to add more variations after discussing them with our development team.

  • @sparks I've said it before: ditch the filtering and word censorship entirely but make it slightly easier to mute (and unmute) those that abuse it.

  • @sparks you are crude to high heavens, infer vulgar innuendoes and could be called a lobby pervo, so its no wonder you want to have words unfiltered, you are the most unfunniest crudest idiot in that lobby having read your idiotic nonesense in the past was the reason you was on censor as I can use the censor option without suffering from bouts of FOMO unlike others there who shall remain nameless MAP. So to see you here begging amin to allow you to perve the lobby is not only incredulous but funny too as you really believe adding a profantiy you can easily allure to will enhance the idiotic drivel you post.

    Admin should not bow down to trolls and perverts the filters work just fine and only potty mouthed perverts think otherwise.

  • @dan You did some crawling and butt licking to get unmuted one sees. its only a scrabble site, you could have knocked up another id Mr/ms mitchycrybaby.

  • @sakamvari Add more variations of what tho? It's the filtering of certain words that's the the problem.

  • @sparks I don't like censorship either.

    Also, I'm not sure if lex still does this, but in the past they would just drop whole lines that had 'offending' words. The problem was that they didn't notify either the sender or the reader that something had been removed. Which can be confusing!

  • @anexparrot Yeah that is correct, so as we often have portions of conversations removed it seems to cause more frustration, and often a loss of context.

  • @anexparrot At one time, the offensive word would be replaced by dots so you could still get the gist of the thought. I'd like that back again. I posted about it a couple of months ago, and @sakamvari said they'd look into it.

  • I guess we are mainly talking about hate speech.

    This is discussed in an article at:

    The article quotes Bill Ottman (founder and CEO of Minds.com, an alternative social network) who says that he thinks "it’s the job of the social networks to make it very clear to you as a user how to control your experience ... giving you as many possible tools to control your experience as they can" including "the ability to proactively block hateful comments or contacts."

    One such tool is suggested in this thread by Dan i.e. "make it slightly easier to mute (and unmute)".

    I think Sparks has it right i.e. "natural regulation is what will work best".

    Incidentally, no one should be in any doubt that Lexulous has covered most of this ground in its TOS anyway. We are not talking about human rights and freedom of expression here. As on many other websites, using the site constitutes agreement with their TOS. Thus:

    8.2 We will remove uploaded Content from our Games if we decide in our sole discretion that it is capable of breaching any part of these terms, or that it may bring us or our Games into disrepute. However, you acknowledge that we do not actively monitor Content that is contributed by people that play our Games and we make no undertaking to do so.

    8.3 You agree not to:

    • upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, may incite violence, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
    • use our Games to harm anyone;
    • (etcetera)

  • @mistertoad Some of that may be valid. But when words such as die, silly, death, lesbian, ridiculous, and other innocuous words one might use in a friendly convo are banned, it can make conversation difficult.

  • @mapmakere

    I'm glad not to have run into this. I can comment, however, that it sounds like another case of someone's spending an inappropriate amount of his or her time on something fairly useless rather than on improving the game and the website per player suggestions.

  • @roymccoy To clarify, I mean those and other words are banned in the lobby, not in a game.

  • @mapmakere

    Right. That's why I haven't run into it. It would sorely tick me off. I'm slightly ticked off, even not having run into it personally. Not only does it suggest a waste of time that could be put to better use, but... oops, I forget the other thing, lol.