Discussion on Section 5b "Language"

[GhostyGoo]

In this case, i would not need discretion.
.

-Goo™

[Psyko]

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.

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™

I can understand your viewpoint.

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 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.

The reason for the difference is rather simple to explain.
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.

I like having that bit of leniency there for the possibly ignorant user, but I can also see how a zero tolerance policy could easily be implemented instead.

[Empy]

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?

You're spot on.

@Goo:
The discretion comes in to play when a Moderator decides if a post was masking or not. If it was masking, you get a Board Warning. If it was not masking, you get nothing. That is the case of this rule, because of what I explained earlier. In the case of other rules the punishment is up to the Moderator to decide more than in this case (maybe they get a verbal, maybe something else, whatever). I saw all the "masking" in your post, and used my best discretion and decided that it wasn't quite masking... though you are certainly toeing the line just as you intended. So the forum staff does have the chance to decide, and isn't just bound by what the rules say. You just have to widen your scope.


Also to note, any masking in this topic doesn't count as a violation of the rules assuming it is used as a tool for discussing the application of the rule pertaining to masking.

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

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...

[Jack]

Goo, I said Muffin was correct, but once again you have missed the point. Like Psyko said, there are times, such as when linking something with an obscure swear that would be prohibited, when it is not always prudent to warn.

In the case of posting a swear, it will always be masking, whether the whole word is visible or not. Because you must bypass the filter. Posting a link to a youtube video that contains one of the prohibited words but is really obscured, then there is a good chance you had no idea it was there.

There are certainly issues with the rules, including this one. However, you are attacking from the wrong angle. This has been discussed repeatedly and more or less is a pretty solid rulein this regard.

[Jim]

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?

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.

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™

Yeah you are right, the system is unfair. Ambiguous situations like the "this ship is going down" are few and far between as so few people have the intelligence/diligence to bother making it ambiguous. TBH, if I were to be modding your situation I would give you that one for free but if you used the same ambiguous masking strategy again give you a verbal- "You know what your doing, and other people will work it out soon enough so please desist."
But, I dont think the rules should be changed, give them an inch and they shall take a yard. Including more ambiguity in the rules is bad imo, the ambiguity should come with the moderators not with the rules.
The law says "Punishment for stealing is to loose a hand" but he only stole one single penny, just chop off a finger and see if they complain.

[Psyko]

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...

Except for the fact that by dropping the F-word, the filter would then filter it out, thus making the point moot and no warning necessary. Which means there is no punishment for actually dropping the F-word. it would show like this: **Filtered**!

Whereas posting the F-word via Masking is punishable by board warning.

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

what if i mask damn ass?
dam a$$... hole... in the pie...

so the filtered words are not
stealing the innocent souls of the mods anymore?

[Coulson]

If everyone's continuously missing everyone elses points, mayb everyone's not communicating clear enough.
I'm reading people don't understand this, you're missing this and that point, I'm seeing this so much it's boring. Instead of talking at each other try talking to each other.

Thread's degenerating in spam as people repeat the smae things a lot.

[Zeratul]

we may have misinterpreted some part of it, but we believe that the essence that GhostyGoo is trying to bring out is this:
current rule = always warning, defined by whether mod considers it masking
the Gooey idea = always punishable, defined by whether it is is used to include explicit language (a) despite it normally being filtered, or as it often is, included in jest (b) or by accident (c). So long as this decision (whether it is a, b or c) still belongs with the staff.

is this far off from the idea, Goo?

[GhostyGoo]

YES!

Zeratul (and some others) have it completely correct! I'm (please for the LAST time!) NOT trying to change the rule! I am trying to balance the punishment attached to the rule!

There's a great example above -

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.

This is perfect Psyko!

According to the board guidelines (if you are to follow them to the letter as many quite rightly do) in Situ (1) A Moderator has the discretion to decide the severity of the trespass and punish according to their judgement; in Situ (2) A Moderator must issue a board warning regardless of how they feel about the trespass or the poster's genreal behaviour and in Situ (3) The Moderator is again bound by the guidelines to issue an immediate board warning.

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.

I believe that, in order to evolve the rules and allow a Moderator to do their job more effectively (and probably save the ombudsperson alot of unnecessary disputes), the consequence should be worded thusly:

Consequence:
When only minor profanity is used, only a Verbal Warning may be issused however, repeatedly Masking or any other attempt to circumvent the board filter will result in a Board Warning at the discretion of the Moderation staff.


That way the prospective imbalance is removed and the Moderator has more discretion.

Please, i emplore, will some of you just get over this "the rule is fine" malarky. The rule is fine, i've said that all along. It is the punishment that is unjust.

-Goo™

[Juliette]

*chuckles* Tò.Ók you long enough to put it that clearly, Goofy.

To people who are responding to perceived criticism of the rule; dead wrong, read again.
To people who are complaining about punishment being dished out too loosely; 'moderator discretion' can be a painful thing, but is a Reality.

Either way, good thread. It finally seems to get where it was meant to go..

[GhostyGoo]

It finally seems to get where it was meant to go..

I've been literally pulling my hair out! People have come from across seas to publically debate with me for a famously hobby-like debate experience, some from this very forum! I've never experienced this level of misinterpretation either by accident or by design! It is quite mind-boggling.

*chuckles* Tò.Ók you long enough to put it that clearly, Goofy.

Steady now

-Gò.Ó™

[Jack]

Situation 1 is not a violation.

Situation 2 does not always necessitate a warning and won't always receive one. It will depend on a various factors. How obvious was the word? Have they been warned before? Is there a reasonable belief they about it? Etc

Situation 3 will always receive a board warning.

There is no need for change in anything, what you are asking for is how things are already done.

[Empy]

I think when people are saying "rules" they're talking about the consequences part as well. They're fine how they are.

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.

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.