Links to third party sites containing masked words

[Mordack]

I deleted my thread. I wouldn't want to be responsible for Clarkey asphyxiating or having another stress attack and shooting up a shopping centre. Should the admin wish to give me a ridiculous warning for the sole purpose of ending his blather, then I will gladly and graciously take one for the team.

[Clarkey]

I deleted my thread. I wouldn't want to be responsible for Clarkey asphyxiating or having another stress attack and shooting up a shopping centre.

Suggesting I might shoot up a shopping centre is completely out of line.

[Mordack]

I deleted my thread. I wouldn't want to be responsible for Clarkey asphyxiating or having another stress attack and shooting up a shopping centre.

Suggesting I might shoot up a shopping centre is completely out of line.

Well, I'm sure you can make a thread about it or file your eightieth report of the day. I don't especially appreciate your decision to drag a specific thread of mine into this issue when there are literally hundreds of examples which could have been used.

The distinction here is a minor one. If we take your asininity to its logical conclusion then it will either mean HOURS of extra work for the moderators, or will mean that NOBODY on these forums can ever link to anything outside them. Either solution is ridiculous and impractical. I wonder if it'd be worth all that just to get me warned.

[Rottenking]

Acctuly in my opinion it qould be worth it, i hate double standards if the rule is all mods need to click links to check content, then it should happen and nobody get away with it
i also see modsand admins useing *filtered* words in their posts, and get away with it, or am i interpreting the rules wrong that if the filter picks it up it can stay

but thats getting side tracked

point is that its all or nothing, you cant "selectivly" moderate and give warnings for links unless yu are going to garentee that all links will be checked, and set a guideline on what content on the 3rd party site is to be scruitanized, in the case of a video do you only look at the video and leave comments, or include both?

[Mordack]

Acctuly in my opinion it qould be worth it, i hate double standards if the rule is all mods need to click links to check content, then it should happen and nobody get away with it
i also see modsand admins useing *filtered* words in their posts, and get away with it, or am i interpreting the rules wrong that if the filter picks it up it can stay

but thats getting side tracked

point is that its all or nothing, you cant "selectivly" moderate and give warnings for links unless yu are going to garentee that all links will be checked, and set a guideline on what content on the 3rd party site is to be scruitanized, in the case of a video do you only look at the video and leave comments, or include both?

The administration are unlikely to make it so that moderators need to check everything on every webpage URL which is posted. It's impractical, and the drain on time is counterproductive; especially when some youtube videos have with tens of thousands of comments. I wouldn't put it past someone like Clarkey to meticulously check every comment on a youtube video just so he has an excuse to click his precious 'report' button.

At the other end of that spectrum is a solution where you aren't allowed to share any links on this forum. I don't like this solution because I think it would limit what people can discuss, and make it awkward to hold decent conversations about subjects such as upcoming releases, music or what's happening in the news.

So a guideline does seem like the best solution. A disclaimer stating that whilst you're responsible for the content of the sites to which you link, the administration cannot be responsible for policing user generated comment; especially when it runs to such a huge scale.

[Clarkey]

I deleted my thread. I wouldn't want to be responsible for Clarkey asphyxiating or having another stress attack and shooting up a shopping centre.

Suggesting I might shoot up a shopping centre is completely out of line.

Well, I'm sure you can make a thread about it or file your eightieth report of the day. I don't especially appreciate your decision to drag a specific thread of mine into this issue when there are literally hundreds of examples which could have been used.

The distinction here is a minor one. If we take your asininity to its logical conclusion then it will either mean HOURS of extra work for the moderators, or will mean that NOBODY on these forums can ever link to anything outside them. Either solution is ridiculous and impractical. I wonder if it'd be worth all that just to get me warned.

So what if I used you as an example. Yes there are probably 100's of examples that could be used, but that doesn't mean you should have got away with it.

The fact that I pointed out to the staff that your post was breaking rules should have got you a warning.

You are no more special than anyone else on this forum.

Clearly you deleted the thread due to guilt because you knew it was making you seem a hypocrite which is not good for an ombudsman.

Simple solution to this would be to put a disclaimer on the forum stating that the forum takes no responsibility for off site content that is not anything to do with Kingdom Games Ltd. Just like Jason put's a disclaimer about 3rd party trades not being any of his responsibility.

Sensible solution?

If the forum decides to not chose that route then this will just look like a case of mods and admins backing an ex-admin to prevent him from getting a warning.

Deni herself said that mods should read the contents of linked pages, and therefore as the masked word was on that page you posted mordack you should have got warned. But you saved your own ass by deleting it and making it out as if you did it to stop me complaining.

[Rottenking]

Maybe just omly mod third party sites that post content you have to be over 18 to view i.e porn
imo swearing is common, you can block it, people will get around it, sure keep ot off this site, but if its linked off the site, and cannot be played on forums ( in a flash tag) then its ok in my book

[Mordack]

I deleted my thread. I wouldn't want to be responsible for Clarkey asphyxiating or having another stress attack and shooting up a shopping centre.

Suggesting I might shoot up a shopping centre is completely out of line.

Well, I'm sure you can make a thread about it or file your eightieth report of the day. I don't especially appreciate your decision to drag a specific thread of mine into this issue when there are literally hundreds of examples which could have been used.

The distinction here is a minor one. If we take your asininity to its logical conclusion then it will either mean HOURS of extra work for the moderators, or will mean that NOBODY on these forums can ever link to anything outside them. Either solution is ridiculous and impractical. I wonder if it'd be worth all that just to get me warned.

So what if I used you as an example. Yes there are probably 100's of examples that could be used, but that doesn't mean you should have got away with it.

The fact that I pointed out to the staff that your post was breaking rules should have got you a warning.

You are no more special than anyone else on this forum.

Clearly you deleted the thread due to guilt because you knew it was making you seem a hypocrite which is not good for an ombudsman.

Simple solution to this would be to put a disclaimer on the forum stating that the forum takes no responsibility for off site content that is not anything to do with Kingdom Games Ltd. Just like Jason put's a disclaimer about 3rd party trades not being any of his responsibility.

Sensible solution?

If the forum decides to not chose that route then this will just look like a case of mods and admins backing an ex-admin to prevent him from getting a warning.

Deni herself said that mods should read the contents of linked pages, and therefore as the masked word was on that page you posted mordack you should have got warned. But you saved your own ass by deleting it and making it out as if you did it to stop me complaining.

I would prefer it if you refrained from telling me what I'm thinking. I've openly stated both here and in the moderator forums that I'll happily recieve a warning if it means an amicable solution to this issue. Your speculation about my motivations is exactly that; speculatory. Truth be told, I deleted the thread because I couldn't resist making a quip about you. So sue me.

But yes, I favour a disclaimer and a warning.

[Juliette]

This discussion has derailed into a personal vendetta thread and has lost substance with every new post.
The place you were looking for when you wanted to reply was the "Public Dump", judging by most of the latest contributions (rCqsC).

Closed for a cooldown period of 24 hours. Gentlemen, to your corners.