There is no built in function for it and unless they want to wait weeks/months for developers to get around to it (there's a huge queue) we'll have to stick with the current client side solution I hacked together.
Ah, in that case sorry for bashing your script
I had the impression that it was a server-side thing doing it on input and screwing it up.
it's less sophisticated than the people that need to swear all the time
Ah, now that makes sense (the pictures and code).
What happens if you change the "method" to a regex and do this:
dirtyword(?!")
That should at least solve the double-tagging problem, although people would now be able to evade the filter by following their dirty word with a quote (but they're not allowed to do that anyway )
That should at least solve the double-tagging problem, although people would now be able to evade the filter by following their dirty word with a quote (but they're not allowed to do that anyway )
it doesn't support regex, or wildcards, or anything. It's strings "as is" only.
It has been since time immemorial that man has looked to the stars in wonder, so I ask you, how can going to them be anything but an extension of a will older than any of us? It is our very nature to discover, and to lust for knowledge, you accept this but doubt the nobility of working to the stars?
This is good... very good. I don't believe using BBcode to bypass the filter will be a problem. Although I do have one question:
I received a warning for swearing BEFORE the ban was put in place. Now that the ban was turned into a filter, can I have that warning removed? It would only be fair since those rules are no longer existing. And that they didn't exist either when I posted the word.
Ah, in that case sorry for bashing your script
I had the impression that it was a server-side thing doing it on input and screwing it up.
it's less sophisticated than the people that need to swear all the time
I did, but it's still not working. It just signs me out.
what browser?
Safari on a Mac.
I also try setting it to never accept cookies or anything, but all it does is break the site for me ("too many redirects.")
what I found strange was that I could see swearing with it enabled.
not that I care, beta stages and all \o/
haven't checked it yet, but maybe add, "While we do have a filter for those that don't want to see it, please keep swearing down to a minimum."
or something like that.
I just has Safari. Can't do anything about it.
I can't, seeing as I'm not the admin.
Also, I don't want a "ur browsr suks lolol get crome!" post. I want a solution.
Ah, now that makes sense (the pictures and code).
What happens if you change the "method" to a regex and do this:
That should at least solve the double-tagging problem, although people would now be able to evade the filter by following their dirty word with a quote (but they're not allowed to do that anyway )
only thing you can really do is clear browser cache, log out then back in, etc.
it's really limited when you don't have another browser to test against :\
it doesn't support regex, or wildcards, or anything. It's strings "as is" only.
iVIVA LA PROFANIDAD!
That defeats the point.
Ruins the point of the filter. Has the exact same effect as the last rule, just with some stupid sugar-coated "filter" so we're all magically happy.
Then why is it "discouraged"?
It also means that if you should spell your swears right.
I received a warning for swearing BEFORE the ban was put in place. Now that the ban was turned into a filter, can I have that warning removed? It would only be fair since those rules are no longer existing. And that they didn't exist either when I posted the word.
So we CAN swear now, without penalty? And won't get discouraged or informal warnings or other crap?