StarGateWars Forums

GhostyGoo wrote:Firstly, Greetings! -a smiley is a great way to start proceedings!
Many of you i already know in one way or another and i'd like to point out a couple of things which should be academic but, for the sake of healthy discussion, are folly to leave unsaid.

Any bias that might exist due to my history on these boards is best left outside this discussion because, hopefully, the results of a clean and healthy honest debate will benefit both Moderation and Users alike.

Personally i have no problem with +1s, /signeds or "requotes" but please please respect that this is a topical debate which has great benefit to the running of the forum and that these afforementioned posting types are not entirely but very spam-like and aren't really necessary. The debate will no doubt come to a conclusion without +1s folks

Its equally a shame and a credit to Haz that i have to say this: The reason i decided to bring this topic into debate is thanks to his decision to warn me but his warning was absolutely correct. I broke the rule (more on this below). I would please like to ask that this not be made into a discussion about Haz. There is a feedback option here for that! This discussion is about the rule and its consequences not consequences that have already passed due to the rule itself. This discussion should not be restrospective but evolutionary otherwise it will only cause strife which is not my intention, please bear this in mind.

Of course, it should go without saying, Haz is more than welcome to discuss the rule and its consequences.

Ok. I'll quote the rule in its entirety now, just to set the ball rolling.

Forum Guidlines (Long Version) wrote:Section 5: Language
b. Profanity
The use of all profanity on the SGW forums is prohibited at all times. This means swearing, cursing, and vulgarity. This includes the use of masking. Profanity in images (such as in signatures), videos linked (such as YouTube), or in articles linked is also prohibited.

Note:
Masking is using characters, HTML tags, or anything else to express a word that would otherwise be filtered; in other words, it's bypassing the filter. Profanity not a part of the main focus of the page being linked (such as advertisements or comments) will not be policed as they can change quickly and easily.

Consequence:
When only minor profanity is used, only a Verbal Warning may be issused. In all other cases a Board Warning will be issued. In the case of Masking a Board Warning will always be issued.

Now it seems to me, as a strongly pious forum user of quite some considerable merit (couldn't help plugging me just a little could me, eh? heh) and vintage, that the consequences for this rule are completely back-to-front. Or, in effect, for a better word, unfair.

The consequence for doing something which is not PG-13 is left open for the moderator to decide the severity of the trespass however the implying of such is met with zero tolerance and no room for a moderator to consider the past behaviour of the trespasser or anything else which may be helpful in dealing with the matter.

In my colloquial Yorkshire dialect this is referred to as shuttin't'barn door after't'orse's bolted.

Consider that if pancakes was a filthy disgusting word (which it clearly isn't) and someone said in post (a) PANCAKES! and then a totally innocent user took it up thusly in post (b) Hey! that's bad! You can't say PANKAKES here!; poster (b) would actually receive, automatically and without consideration, a harsher punishment? There's no point in shutting up the barn, its empty! The horse is the focus here.

That said, i agree with the rule. No masking should be tolerated however someone who writes pancakes should receive the same punishment as someone who writes pankakes, surely?

In my opinion the rule should be re-drafted/ammended to the tune of
a) actual rule breaking carrying an automatic board warning
or
b) implied rule breaking be given the discretionary punishment that the guidlines allow for actual rule breaking.

Thank-you for reading, your pancakes thoughts are welcome,
-Goo™

muffafuffin wrote:My understanding was that masking wasn't a warning for the profanity itself (because the forums are setup to already remove the word) but more for the fact that the user is attempting to bypass the filter, essentially exploiting a forum function.

Am I way off in that?

muffafuffin wrote:My understanding was that masking wasn't a warning for the profanity itself (because the forums are setup to already remove the word) but more for the fact that the user is attempting to bypass the filter, essentially exploiting a forum function.

Am I way off in that?

GhostyGoo wrote:

Empy wrote:What you said didn't really address anything I said...

and I can only assume you're confused as to what "masking" is because you have only been guilty of it the 1 time.

What you said does not really address anything i said initially Empy.

Please try to understand.

There is nothing wrong with punishing someone who implies a crime. There is nothing wrong with someone being punished for outrightly commiting a crime. Your system of punishment is currently unjust which is what i'm trying to point out.

Should the discretion of the moderator not benefit more an occurence of masking where there is an ambiguity ie. the ship is really going down in this thread shhh, isn'it? Now, i said nothing wrong there, did i? I clearly stated a tragic sinking of something analogous to the topic and to keep quiet about (shhh) it. However, i'm quite sure that the clever brains among you would have issued a board warning for it. You would've been right, but also wrong. I would have had a very good argument for the ombudsperson ie. no i really meant the ship or the topic was going down and oh yeah! lol, i didn't notice i put the letters shh right next to the letters isnit. If you use discretion as opposed to an instant board warning you don't need "reasonable doubt".

Do you really not get it?

muffafuffin wrote:My understanding was that masking wasn't a warning for the profanity itself (because the forums are setup to already remove the word) but more for the fact that the user is attempting to bypass the filter, essentially exploiting a forum function.

Exactly. There is a distinct ambiguity between someone who masked purposefully and someone who masked accidentally. I can discuss tits as much as i like because i am an aviculturist. I can discuss blue tits, red tits, and great tits. I can also discuss sparrows, starlings and the little robin red breast, my personal favourite.

Dovahkiin wrote:No, dear Goo, I understand the point entirely. It's based upon ignorance. All instances of profanity are istantly warned.

So, then, make ammeds to the consequences that reflect this? That is all i'm suggesting here.

-Goo™

Dubby_CompGamerGeek2 wrote:So essentially:

Psycho wrote:
'Muffafuffin is correct in that the
biggest reason Masking calls for an
automatic warning is because a user
is willfully bypassing a built-in forum
filter. It has very little to do with
which word is being filtered.'

Versus Goo's opinion that dropping the F-word
and masking the F-word
should be punished about the same...

Psyko wrote:Situation 1)
A user posts the word "**Filtered**" in a sentence on the forum. The filter, quite obviously, has removed the word. There is no need for a Moderator to take any action at all.
Situation 2)
A user posts a link to a video which happens to have one of the filtered words used once. The user may not have caught it, as it was used in dialog, or maybe they knew it was there. But it is up to the Mod to decide how strict to be about the rules; some may consider removing the link and issuing a verbal warning would be sufficient. (Such a link has occurred and even I had to rewatch the video to find the word)
Situation 3)
A user posts a link to a video full of bad language which is not allowed on the forum. It's quite obvious they know the offensive words are in the video.

Forum Guidlines (Long Version) wrote:Consequence:
When only minor profanity is used, only a Verbal Warning may be issused. In all other cases a Board Warning will be issued. In the case of Masking a Board Warning will always be issued.

Cersei Lannister wrote:It finally seems to get where it was meant to go..

Cersei Lannister wrote:*chuckles* Tò.Ók you long enough to put it that clearly, Goofy.