StarGateWars Forums

When I mod for personal attacks, it usually concerns a clear abuse of someone's RL personna. Things like racism & discrimination are often quite clear cut to spot, as are comments on someone's marital/employment/living status etc.

I don't really see how calling someone hypocritical, is on a par with that.

As for profanity? It has never been against the rules to trigger the filter. Mods & users alike trigger it most of their posts, it is only avoidance of the filter that owes modding.


I am not sure where this 'intent to inflame' business is in the rules

I hope Semper's decision is not going to be the state of the art regarding warnings for abuse/profanity.

It will lead us to an empty forum with the majority of the active posters banned.

Many of you who are defending Sarajevo are forgetting several things... but I will lay them out nice and simply as (I will say it from the off) I am not going to make a big deal of this... I have no intention wasting hours of my weekend defending myself here.

- The thread was filled with a bit of flaming.
- Two mods gave verbal warnings to keep it cool and NOT continue with the heated side of things and they did it in a very respectable, easy to see manner.
- People ignored this. They were given warnings and the thread was locked for a cool down.
- The thread was re-opened, the verbal warnings were given by no less than two mods (one the same from the previous set).
-During the interim the presence of the 'flame bait' had been negated due to Clarkey removing it.
- Triggering the filter is not in itself a breach of the rules, I realise that, so don't twist things Caprilla. However, it does not take a genius to discern what would have been filtered out and to quote several lines of it in a supposedly respectful goodbye post (which IS part of the forum rules) and then add your own. Is abuse... and it is vulgar and it IS swearing...
- Then the prosecutor informed the thread creator that they thought they had no place on the forum, that they were a hypocrite.

- If all of the above does not constitute a direct attempt at a negatively themed post, that does contains themes of vulgarity and personal insults then good heavens... we've got a problem here chaps.

NOT only that! but the post was made after no less than THREE verbal warnings to keep the thread without flames.

Perhaps in a general sense this misdemeanour could be forgiven Mr Ombudsman as Deni pointed out. However... after three separate verbal warnings.. the CLEAR intention to flame presented in the post and the fact the prosecutor is an actual mod and thereby should know better.... this is as clear cut as day.

As for the prosecutors using an example as my past posting to negate this posters crimes... then I say to them, and I say to you Mr Ombudsman... I never knew we warned for offences that far in the past.. and at that point I was not an official mod recognised as such and I was not posting in a thread where I had been given three distinct verbal warnings not to flame, which is part of the crux of the matter.

My final points are...
-swearing IS vulgar, that's why the filter is there... but still used in the right context and repeated several times any boob can get the general gist and vulgarity of what is being filtered. It's not nice to be told to **filtered off** once, let a lone four times.
- calling someone a hypocrite is a minor personal insult and generally should be given a verbal warning, however combined with the others..and..
- there were THREE verbal warnings in the thread to keep it cool and his original post is so clearly NOT doing that.
- at the time of his post any potential flame bait from Clarkey had been removed.
- the user Sarajevo was given an official board warning for not taking note of the verbal warnings. I also received a complaint pm which I will be happy to forward to Mr Ombudsman and I know for a fact at least one of my misc mods agree with the judgement laid down.

If you disagree with the official board warning given after three verbal warnings and, I say it again, the clear flaming of the post then I will respect that judgement...

I rest my case, for now.

Well without quoting super long posts...

@Clarkey: I'm not gonna respond to your post because your argument is about what I said and it's wrong about you, and it really has little to do with my warning.. Anything that it does will be addressed in my response to Semper' post

@Semper's post: Flaming is not against the rules. Profanity is against the rules. Abuse/Racism is against the rules. Triggering the word filter is not profanity. Calling someone a hypocrite is not Abuse/Racism.

@Semper

That threads existence is an utter travesty and a complete sign of idiocy married with hypocrisy...

Sarah was well within his rights to tell Clarkey how he felt about him. Since when were there rules that said you have to play paddy cake with someone that is quitting?

It would seem thar you changed the rules during the incident was occurring... which is definitely questionable(because you originally allowed flamebaiting).

Admins.. if the four of you don't step up and do something this time.. its time for the four of you to go because you're clearly not thinking straight.

there's no rules about keeping things nice and sweet.. or there wasn't until you invented them during this tincy snafoo... so Sarah was more than entitled to post what he did..

That's naughty. You're making the presumptions that Sarah was trolling intentionally to stir up trouble. We live in sophisticated western civilisation where one is innocent until proven guilty. Sarah stands by the fact, as too do Earendil and myself that playing favorites for Clarkey is wrong and that his multi ought to be banned too. That's far from a sole intention to stir up trouble...

hmm... 1+1+1 = 4?

things are being discussed, and will be publicized when they are ready...

P.S.

Semper wrote::roll:

Flaming is good.. I don't know where everyone got this stupidly romantic idea that everyone should be best buddies.. because it just aint true..time to grow up children... flaming and arguing are as much a part of humanity as reproducing, breathing, thinking and the rest of them are.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Semper.

Actually, setting those guidelines was entirely my idea.... and yes, it was in reaction to the thread in question. Many changes have a catalyst. This is one of those times.

The purpose was not to make everyone all chummy and la-dee-da, it was to stop farewells from turning into witch-trials and arguments. If someone you don't like is leaving, by all means tell them you don't like them, give them the middle finger while they walk out the door. But there is no need to make summary judgments on their character.

The purpose of the guidelines:

Quitter:

* To stop them trying to start a revolution before conveniently escaping into RL (or starting any sort of turmoil). There is nothing more cowardly than starting a fight before running away. If they want radical change, they can lead the campaign. If they think it is hopeless, then flaming about it on their way out can only be an attempt at bringing disrepute on the community. Your cause is useless if you abandon it.

* To stop them trying to get particular members 'lynched' on their way out. If they have a problem with a member, they can take it up properly. Their issue with a member automatically becomes moot if they leave. Why should we carry on their legacy of hate?

Replies:

* There is a boundary between saying you don't like someone and insulting/attacking them. Saying "I never liked you" is OK, saying "You are just a **filtered**-**filtered** turd **filtered**!" is not. One is an opinion, one is passing judgement. Farewell respondents are not there to pass judgement. Just think, there is a difference in tone between "I think..." and "You are..."

* "Good riddance" is not "**filtered** off". If you won't be missing them any time soon, you can say so. But don't tell them to **filtered** off. Not only is it somewhat vulgar, but it is also an unreasonable and unwarranted order, given by a member with no authority to do so. Where else on these boards are people allowed to use vulgar language and order you not to participate in this community?

You are absolutely allowed to not like them, to not want to bid them a fond goodbye. But the idea behind the guidelines is to tone it down a notch. I hoped to clarify some boundaries. I might need to be a little clearer...

Greased Gerbil wrote:Actually, setting those guidelines was entirely my idea.... and yes, it was in reaction to the thread in question. Many changes have a catalyst. This is one of those times.

The purpose was not to make everyone all chummy and la-dee-da, it was to stop farewells from turning into witch-trials and arguments. If someone you don't like is leaving, by all means tell them you don't like them, give them the middle finger while they walk out the door. But there is no need to make summary judgments on their character.

The purpose of the guidelines:

Quitter:
* To stop them trying to start a revolution before conveniently escaping into RL. (or starting any sort of turmoil)
* To stop them trying to get particular members 'lynched' on their way out.

Replies:
* There is a boundary between saying you don't like someone and insulting/attacking them. Saying "I never liked you" is OK, saying "You are just a **filtered**-**filtered** turd **filtered**!" is not. One is an opinion, one is passing judgement. Farewell respondents are not there to pass judgement. Just think, there is a difference in tone between "I think..." and "You are..."
* "Good riddance" is not "**filtered** off". If you won't be missing them any time soon, you can say so. But don't tell them to **filtered** off. Not only is it somewhat vulgar, but it is also an unreasonable and unwarranted order, given by a member with no authority to do so. Where else on these boards are people allowed to use vulgar language and order you not to participate in this community?

You are absolutely allowed to not like them, to not want to bid them a fond goodbye. But the idea behind the guidelines is to tone it down a notch. I hoped to clarify some boundaries. I might need to be a little clearer...

You were responding to a point made in this Thread but for the record your guidelines were made after the thread and so don't really effect this case. Just for the record >_>

Your point is perfectly fair. But you were not warned for breaching the new guidelines I had set down. You were warned for not following the section GM's instructions for continuing posts in the thread.

Not everything can be covered by inflexible formulaic rules. That's why we're not modded by bots. Sometimes we have to make a judgement call.

I point to one question raised in my above post:

Is there anywhere on these boards where telling someone to "**filtered** off" is acceptable?

Greased Gerbil wrote:I point to one question raised in my above post:

Is there anywhere on these boards where telling someone to "**filtered** off" is acceptable?

I would hope there isn't a place where it ISN'T acceptable assuming that isn't the entirety of the post... It's not profane, it's filtered, and it's certainly not Abuse so what else could it be?

if Emp gets a warning then be perfectly fair and give me Earendil and Jack warnings because **Filtered** off quite frankly is the EXACT sentiment I wanted to get across most especially since I got along in my mind at least fairly well with Clarkey and him deleting the temple where I spent a lot of time and had a lot of fun more than warranted me telling him how I felt and telling him to **Filtered** off because that was how I said goodbye its not unwarranted its not profane its not abusive its not racist its not against the goddamn rules and as a mod you should realize that


Semper I am rather appalled that you would warn Emp when his post was on topic especially considering the nature of the goodbye was more or less slapping everyone in the face........

for what it's worth, your age shows when all u can think of to say is that.

It a game

no one came and really burn down your house or killed your mother


and finally

as mods u should be setting the example, even in the worst of times, not throwing wood on the fire to stock the flames

that goes for clarkey too, on his way out the door

if i was an admin, all that posted like that would be suspended as mods till u learned how to address issue with the self control and maturity u all say u have when u took the job

what are u some 17 year old who has no common sense?

[spoiler]it was a guess till i looked
Location: The other side of the fence
Age: 17[/spoiler]

frankly, that thread shouldn't exist in the first place. he already had one, it's where the quote in my sig comes from.

allowing him to have another is playing "favorites". i know, i got accused of it myself each time i tried to leave.