Suggestion: Pet and Group Name Filter

[Aaron✦]

Support. Even if it were a suboptimal feature at first, all you need to do combat that is to have an error thread where people can post that certain names have been disallowed. It's a time investment to perfect a feature that does the moderating automatically, saving time for the staff team in the long run. Plus then nobody has to run into the odd unpleasant name to report it in the first place. (:

[ElementalInsanity]

^^^ very good point Iri. =)

[The Last Raven]

As someone who has recently had to report a user for some incredibly disgusting names I whole heartedly support. People should not have the ability to name their pets as what all I saw. As an older user I am all for making steps to protect the kids on this site. Yes there will be flaws but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[AnimalAtHeart]

I definately support, Although context can change meanings, and make words appropriate in certain situations, they may be words parents don’t watch their children to learn, as they then might end up saying them, and maybe being prevented from using the site if the parent finds out how they learned a certain word, that is only acceptable in specific contexts.

[Birdie.]

Major support!

[ElementalInsanity]

^^ thank you for the support!

[nickjr]

casual bump

CS's word censoring filter (edit: which is really the phpBB word censoring filter, oops) on the forums is basic but seems to be just fine. It doesn't catch false positives (besides when people talk about something in some of the 18+ board threads in a clinical, reasonable manner, but I don't think that's going to happen in pet or group names).

Duplicating the filter for pet and group names should be just fine and better than no filter.