In my opinion: Excessive is posting a swear word in multiple replies in a short period of time. Excessive is also multiple swears in a single post. It should also be considered excessive if swears are found by staff to have had a part in escalating a thread into hostility. You can't put an exact number on it, because then people may try to skirt the rules. Though perhaps having a limit that is discussed internally among staff, so that the rules are enforced consistently, would be best.

But then context comes into play. How can my example of "holy f*** s*** that's f*** amazing!" be considered excessive when it's essentially a casual but excited show of enthusiasm, shown with "everyday language" as it's been put. We've all heard replies of its kind before, so have all the kids these days you say, so it's not a new way of expressing things and we should all be used to it by now. I don't think you can really be that tight with it.

[quote="Kritter"]Well optional filter, but that still means people like me get to swear and get to see it if it's casual or "within reason". Seems really wishy washy though, I can't see it being highly enforced if you can't really know beforehand what's excessive. There'll always be a case to argue like "I was just a bit heated" or "I just got caught up in the moment" or "I was just so excited!"[/quote] Again, this is a criticism of the current swearing rules, and I think think that it's irrelevant to the swear filter being optional.

[quote="HylianDev"][quote="Kritter"]Well optional filter, but that still means people like me get to swear and get to see it if it's casual or "within reason". Seems really wishy washy though, I can't see it being highly enforced if you can't really know beforehand what's excessive. There'll always be a case to argue like "I was just a bit heated" or "I just got caught up in the moment" or "I was just so excited!"[/quote] Again, this is a criticism of the current swearing rules, and I think think that it's irrelevant to the swear filter being optional.[/quote] Well if it's going to be optional then it's best for those of us that'll make use of that disabled filter to know what is and isn't excessive. If we're going to allow casual swearing if the kiddies can stay safe with an optional filter then I want in on that action, but I sure do need to protect myself, so this discussion leads into what counts as excessive in an environment that allows casual swearing if people can enable a filter if they don't like the language.

[quote="Kritter"][quote="HylianDev"][quote="Kritter"]Well optional filter, but that still means people like me get to swear and get to see it if it's casual or "within reason". Seems really wishy washy though, I can't see it being highly enforced if you can't really know beforehand what's excessive. There'll always be a case to argue like "I was just a bit heated" or "I just got caught up in the moment" or "I was just so excited!"[/quote] Again, this is a criticism of the current swearing rules, and I think think that it's irrelevant to the swear filter being optional.[/quote] Well if it's going to be optional then it's best for those of us that'll make use of that disabled filter to know what is and isn't excessive.[/quote] What is and isn't excessive will not depend on whether or not the filter is enabled, though this is a good discussion to have.

[quote]But then context comes into play. How can my example of "holy f*** s*** that's f*** amazing!" be considered excessive when it's essentially a casual but excited show of enthusiasm, shown with "everyday language" as it's been put. We've all heard replies of its kind before, so have all the kids these days you say, so it's not a new way of expressing things and we should all be used to it by now. I don't think you can really be that tight with it.[/quote] Rules aren't perfect and sometimes you will have to evaluate a situation that arises and adjust the rules accordingly to deal with that situation, but this is not reason enough to force everyone to use the swear filter. As for your example, I think it's excessive even in the context because the poster is not keeping swears to a minimum as stated by the rules. Whether the post is positive or not has nothing to do with it. I also think it should be considered manipulating the swear filter, because keeping the first letter of each word isn't effectively filtering the swears in the first place.

[quote="Pedigree"]Rules aren't perfect and sometimes you will have to evaluate a situation that arises and adjust the rules accordingly to deal with that situation, but this is not reason enough to force everyone to use the swear filter. As for your example, I think it's excessive even in the context because the poster is not keeping swears to a minimum as stated by the rules. Whether the post is positive or not has nothing to do with it. I also think it should be considered manipulating the swear filter because adding the first letter of each word isn't effectively filtering the swear in the first place.[/quote] I only used the first letter so the post would make sense, you know because of that damned filter we have. Me personally, I think it's fine the way it is. Lets say someone made a really good piece of art and I replied with that. It's enthusiastic, it's excited and it's not hurting anyone, it's still praising the original poster. People who don't want to see that kind of language can just enable the filter if they don't want to see it and stop trying to get in the way of my freedom of expression.

I don't get the point of partially censoring swear words. F*** can only be one word, and everyone will know what that word is. **** can be a multitude of words, and it may not be clear which one it is based on the context. That is effective censoring.

The only point it served for me was to give an example that made sense, otherwise it would've been unreadable because of that effective censor.