An automated system doesn't understand context.
Not swearing...
Sort:
Feb 18, 2010
0
#3
nuclearturkey wrote:
An automated system doesn't understand context.
This is part of it, but, also, that word is considered pretty offensive by some Americans (it may be viewed differently in the UK, I'm not sure).
Exceptions need to be built into systems.
Even to this day, residents of Scunthorpe, and traders of Shitake mushrooms have exectly this problem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
so do cockneys that like cocktails 
Feb 18, 2010
0
#6
puzzlescot wrote:
Exceptions need to be built into systems.
Even to this day, residents of Scunthorpe, and traders of Shitake mushrooms have exectly this problem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
If you know of an easy, cheap way to make a computer think for itself, and thus make these determinations, feel free to let chess.com staff know. Because, as of right now, I've never heard of a good way to deal with this issue.
Feb 18, 2010
0
#7
RainbowRising wrote:
its easy
if cock is followed by up, dont block it
else, block it
it is really that simple
Perhaps it's that simple for this ONE example, but, in order to deal with the scunthorpe problem as a whole, every possible example in the English language would have to be examined and accounted for, and personally, I don't want chess.com staff spending that much time on a minor issue. Id rather them spend their time making more substantive changes/additions to the site.
Feb 18, 2010
0
#8
I know it's off topic but...can't you find a better phrase? Sounds sorta hillbilly.
on another site, a bunch of us discovered we couldn't type 'cliffs' without it being asterisked out ( for some surreal reason Vera Lynn's "White Cliffs of Dover" had come up ) - we found out that it was cos 'ffs' stands for what u think it does 
and the auto system was subsequently reprogrammed
"ffs"? Guess I would be a poor censor - I got nothing for 'ffs" -
Love the 'Scunthorpe problem' link - didn't realize the issue has this sort of scope/history. Hilarious.
RainbowRising wrote:
if cock is followed by up, dont block it
else, block it
it is really that simple
Erm, I can think of sentences where that most definitely would NOT be acceptable.
Good discussion though...
The funny thing about chat is ive seen people talk about how high they are and nothing is done.
tomjoad, fer feck's sake !
Feb 18, 2010
0
#14
i can understand the arguments for and against here .... as the system is mainly in place to prevent opponents from using obscene (?) or offensive language. However, in the context is did some a little harsh but like someone said if it is automated then it wont understand the context.
smileative wrote:
tomjoad, fer feck's sake !
doh! Is there some international standards board that certifies this sort of thing?
Feb 18, 2010
0
#16
AfafBouardi wrote:
I know it's off topic but...can't you find a better phrase? Sounds sorta hillbilly.
seriously?
tngerb wrote:
CPawn wrote:
The funny thing about chat is ive seen people talk about how high they are and nothing is done. *********************
.......... Don't blame this on weed. No one believes in that crap, that's why we don't want to hear it.
It has nothing to do with who does and does not believe in it, but rather because it's a contentious and divisive issue and it has a tendency to quickly degenerate into a flame war. Your post is a perfect example of how this happens....
tngerb wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Why was my post edited? and this comment deleted?
Conversation went:
Opp: "Boy, you're brave"
Me: "You never know, you might still make a co*k up yet!"
Moderator: "You are suspended from chat for 30 mins"
I don't believe that is in any way offensive, or considered swearing. I believe the origin of the phrase is from cockerel fighting, like many others. I guess we just have to live within the 'rules' however wrong they may be (like life itself, huh?)