Discussion on Section 5b "Language"

[Juliette]

Your change would allow Moderators to not warn people who mask if it was an "accident" or in jest, or something like that. If it was accident, they still deserve a Board Warning because it doesn't matter if they didn't know, they should have. If it was in jest, it still doesn't matter because whether or not it was for the sake of humor, it's still against the rules.

True.

As I said, Moderators use their best discretion to decide whether or not the rule applies to a situation. That is all that is required in the case of masking, the Mod decides on their own if it was masking. After that they don't get to decide anymore, because of the nature of masking a board warning will be issued 100% of the time.

Can a moderator who is clearly not proficient in the full extent of the English language with all its quirks and oddities be expected to have a proper 'discretion' in the matter, though? To illustrate, not everyone will get the 'fascinate' joke posted earlier, where the word is used to say 'fasten eight'. Another example; "Eye right properly." Aside from the obvious fact that it is not written as properly as it claims, there is a can of worms to be opened.
Sal from Johnny Dangerously: "You farging, corksocking, somanumbatchin' ice-hole!" (I would warn for this one, by the way.)

If someone uses 'obscene gerund' in their speech, which would be 'expert level masking', do they get a warning?


Of course, any direct violation is just that, a direct violation. Language is far more subtle than is currently represented though, and the linguist in me feels slighted.

[Juliette]

If there was an issue with misunderstanding something that resulted in a warning, there is a coc for that along with the oms.

Thread is about a principle. Overview required, not a specific case study. (Not a lawsuit, but a civil discussion of law.)
Nice word joke there, by the way. Very subtle.

[GhostyGoo]

Fine. I'm done. I see no reason to waste anyone's time any further. It is pointless. Your Rules are imbalanced and will cause strife. A very very simple solution could have been applied if certain folk could swallow pride and open ears.

Thanks to everyone who has bothered to understand how the rule is unjust, i very much appreciate it, and i would simply advise those of you who feel the rule is fine to tread very very carefully because, sooner or later, a Moderator is going to have to be publically punished. I can see it coming, trust me, i've been around a great many forums for a very long time and this one is no different to any other, fundamentally.

Close if you wish, i no longer care to attempt to educate philistines.
-Goo™

[xDaku]

Yes, I'm sure your superior knowledge of forum workings due to your 'experience' with them allow for an accurate forecast for this one.

Cmon now, doomsday scenarios aside, except for people desperate to try to stand on a higher pedestal there hasn't been too much of an issue with the rule and/or its punishment.

I can think of a handful of people who've tried to claim that "shi*" meant something else, and I've laughed at them. I can think of a few people who've 'trolled' the system, which is unfortunately possible with any set of rules and guidelines, but it's not going to be the do all be all death of the forum scenario.

I'll invent a word for that idea - cavemanship

[Field Marshall]

I once decided it would be funny to input a French word into a sentence which fundamentally sounded rude in the English language.

After much moaning it was revoked but ONLY after I quit moaning and digressed into the correct channels. There is leniency in most of the mods. Perhaps ignorance to the rules is suiting at time but asking for further leniency openly to the rest of the community doesn't always work. The mods are a force and work as a pack.

I guess we make this forum what it is. Goo, I understand what you are trying to achieve but take this one on the chin and next time talk to Haz and Empy direct.

[Empy]

Fine. I'm done. I see no reason to waste anyone's time any further. It is pointless. Your Rules are imbalanced and will cause strife. A very very simple solution could have been applied if certain folk could swallow pride and open ears.

Thanks to everyone who has bothered to understand how the rule is unjust, i very much appreciate it, and i would simply advise those of you who feel the rule is fine to tread very very carefully because, sooner or later, a Moderator is going to have to be publically punished. I can see it coming, trust me, i've been around a great many forums for a very long time and this one is no different to any other, fundamentally.

Close if you wish, i no longer care to attempt to educate philistines.
-Goo™

Same to you buddy.

[Clarkey]

Fine. I'm done. I see no reason to waste anyone's time any further. It is pointless. Your Rules are imbalanced and will cause strife. A very very simple solution could have been applied if certain folk could swallow pride and open ears.

Thanks to everyone who has bothered to understand how the rule is unjust, i very much appreciate it, and i would simply advise those of you who feel the rule is fine to tread very very carefully because, sooner or later, a Moderator is going to have to be publically punished. I can see it coming, trust me, i've been around a great many forums for a very long time and this one is no different to any other, fundamentally.

Close if you wish, i no longer care to attempt to educate philistines.
-Goo™

A Moderator publicly punished? What do you mean by that? Punished by who? Whether the rules are imbalanced and unjust doesn't mean the moderator is at fault for handing out warnings based on what the rules specify. Therefore I see no reason why a Moderator would get publicly punished. Please dont attempt to scaremonger staff.