If your name happens to be D i c k, you are not allowed to underwrite your posts with it, and other people cannot mention you by name, without using some silly syntax trick:
P e n i s (medical term)
C o c k (the bird that gets chickens pregnant)
A s s (stubborn animal of the equine persuasion)
Willy (another name), this one is allowed.
Johnson (another name), this one is also allowed.
Thanks all, we're looking into a fix for this specific example & trying to better accommodate names.
Best,
Jamie
I thought this was addressed.
I've reached out to IT again to see if we can resolve.
We had a similar issue with a very tragic acronym:
https://answers.sap.com/articles/235771/abap-dictionary-field-names-that-are-not-allowed-i.html. (And speaking of tragic names...that jpg name...)
--Jerry
Hi again:
I looked into it and got this response: "We removed the word. We’ll also check why this setting was overwritten in the past."
So it shouldn't be an issue now. If it is (or it happens again), please let me know.
Best regards,
--Jerry
this restriction has been around for a very long time already in the former platform. It was just so that the characters got hidden behind stars ****** or the post went directly in pre-moderation instead of telling you that your are not supposed to use this word. We are not a medical site (although this site may need some treatment) so we don't need some of these terms here.
for sure, but where to draw the line to enable a dumb program doing its desired job. I think this is just a piece of software that came with a predefined blacklist of unwanted terms, the word can probably removed from this list. However I am still able to answer today with Dear Mister Smith if it is needed to add the name in a reply to him. There are other issues that bug me more.
I would say that we would unburden moderators a lot more by leaving it to offended users to report profanity, instead of a piece of software creating ten times the work load because Mr D. Smith, likes to use his first name.
Just as an uneducated guess, I would say that less than 1 in 10 of these posts that previously went into moderation automatically actually was someone ranting in 4-letter words, or decidedly calling someone names.
And in that rare case the offended party can still report the offending post to a moderator.
In other words, if you do away with the mechanism, you wouldn't have to spend time improving a system that is doomed to fail to perform its task anyway, and thus you would have more time to repair important bugs.
I actually do not agree on this especially for the reason that I saw waves of spam attacks and reported some hundred discussions, blogs and comments as spam on a sunny afternoon, it is pretty useful to have these kind of words banned directly instead of opening the doors widely for those who make a lot money placing their ads and links to the specific sites where these words are used for non-medical purpose
Seriously???
You could share this example with Jerry Janda, because he did not get notified of this your answer, or you could write "nauhgty", most people wouldn't even notice anyway ;-)
I guess someone working on the filter took the assignment of blocking "n**ghty content" a bit too literally.
I'll look into it.
In the meantime, may I suggest "impish code"? ;-)
It seems that our naughty filter has learned its lesson.
It got taken off the list.
So feel free to get naughty. :)
--Jerry