StarGateWars Forums

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™

tried to read,
but so long and complex that
my very tired brain was lost not halfway thru and could not recover.

Major props for a diplomatic intro though.

If nothing else, that should impress everyone worth impressing.

It didn't impress me. In fact I felt he wasted time with that intro stating things unnecessary.

But then I got to the end and realized this whole thread is unnecessary.

To put simply, in your example pancakes would be filtered, to post the word in it's original form, you would have to bypass the filter. This is an automatic warning. So really, there is no issue, just a misunderstanding of the rules.

Dovahkiin wrote:It didn't impress me. In fact I felt he wasted time with that intro stating things unnecessary.

But then I got to the end and realized this whole thread is unnecessary.

To put simply, in your example pancakes would be filtered, to post the word in it's original form, you would have to bypass the filter. This is an automatic warning. So really, there is no issue, just a misunderstanding of the rules.

You are missing the point and, as a moderator, it is essential you understand what is the point here.

As it stands you are bound by your rules to issue an instant board warning for an ambiguous offence (one of masking) but you have the discretionary power to punish as you see fit someone who has unambiguously broken the rules.

If you can't see why that's a clear invitation to tragedy for the Mod team then i'm sorry but you shouldn't be Modding in my opinion.

Where there is an ambiguity in a system of law you leave yourself wide to scrutiny.

*shrugs*

If you aren't bothered then i guess i'm wasting my time.

-Goo™

So what is the ambiguity with the masking rule? You keep talking about it, but you don't specify exactly what is ambiguous about it.

Haz wrote:So what is the ambiguity with the masking rule? You keep talking about it, but you don't specify exactly what is ambiguous about it.

How do you know someone is masking?

EDIT:

Look, i'm really trying to help here which is why i've pointed out that the punishment is utterly topsy-turvy. You are allowed a discretionary response to clear rule breaking but a dogmatic response for implied rule breaking. This leads you, as moderators, into a grey area where you can possibly be seen to be being lenient towards a flagrant breaking of the rules but relentless towards someone who could have been meaning something entirely different (although unlikely, arguably so). See?

The rule should allow for discretion in cases of implied rule breaking as it does for in cases of rule breaking. If Moderators are not capable of deciding how serious an implication is they probably should not be issuing any warnings at all for anything, ever. I am more than sure that at the very least 75% of the Mods i've spoken to here are widely able to discern how serious an implication is and so therefore ought to be given the acknowledgement/ability to use discretion in all cases. Isn't that why we have an ombudsperson?

-Goo™

No point in this discussion, as we will all always know when someone is masking. People have in the past and will in the future try to use the excuse, "I wasn't masking that word, I was masking this other innocent word!!!" Ya, right, we all believe you! There is no reason to mask ANY word unless you are masking a FILTERED word. Someone says "shi*" it's pretty obvious they're masking shit, but oh no they were saying ship!!! Well then why have an asterisk at the end.....

To change a word by adding an asterisk or something like that (masking) you know what you are doing... there is no reason to do it other than to try and filter yourself by not actually saying the word, but still showing it enough so anyone with eyeballs and a brain can see what you're saying. Which is the definition of masking.

Empy wrote:No point in this discussion, as we will all always know when someone is masking. People have in the past and will in the future try to use the excuse, "I wasn't masking that word, I was masking this other innocent word!!!" Ya, right, we all believe you! There is no reason to mask ANY word unless you are masking a FILTERED word. Someone says "shi*" it's pretty obvious they're masking shit, but oh no they were saying ship!!! Well then why have an asterisk at the end.....

To change a word by adding an asterisk or something like that (masking) you know what you are doing... there is no reason to do it other than to try and filter yourself by not actually saying the word, but still showing it enough so anyone with eyeballs and a brain can see what you're saying. Which is the definition of masking.

I'm afraid you are quite very wrong Sir. I have masked several times in the last 24hrs and have not been caught for it. Sorry. I always try to disprove a theory and i'm quite sure i'm right here.

It is a very simple alteration which allows discretion, i can't see it as anything other than helpful. Allowing Moderators a stronger defense regards the decision making process.

OR

Sure...make the rule fair by issuing a non-discretionary board warning for all instances of profainity.

OR

I guess...admit the system is unfair and unbalanced because it needs to be *shrug* its fine as long as we all know we'll be treated unjustly if we come here to pankake partake.

Good luck finding my masks - i've been at this for a veeery long time

-Goo™

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.

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?

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

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™

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?

No, you are not. Words considered profane and thus verboten are on the filter. So all instances of those words being posted are warned for.


You still don't get it, mayhaps this example will help.
Shit <- Masking

Dovahkiin wrote:

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?

No, you are not. Words considered profane and thus verboten are on the filter. So all instances of those words being posted are warned for.


You still don't get it, mayhaps this example will help.
Shit <- Masking

Personally i think muffafuffin is completely correct and that your response only illumintes my point, thank-you.

-Goo™

p.s i've edited your response to the degree that i feel you were trying to achieve, apologies if i have not.

good point Goo..

and I am glad to see Dmanix cleaned up a particular prominent post that has had blatant profanity showing for days...

xbox 360 live wrote:Then he say this.

i want back my UU n my planets now.

if you dont give them back the 1 mill AT n DEF WEPs you have will be destroyed every time you build till i recover the costs 10x over so that will be about 30 masses + ill AC your COV n lifer what other **** u have

And now this.

waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****
waste man, **** head, *****, *****, *****, ***** hole, *****, **Filtered**, *****