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™