StarGateWars Forums

Doug Butabi wrote:

Psi Kiya Trist wrote:

RoKeT wrote:so if a link is posted a mod must listen to the whole song then? to make sure there is no swear words?

i do.

our job is to examine content of all posts, one of us will eventually do it

I do it when time permits, and apparently so does psi

Indeed. Not all of us do it right away, but in the end, the majority of links are checked. If they're found to be recent and 'bad', they're modded accordingly. At the moderator's discretion.

RoKeT, you aren't suggesting we look at some more strictly as others, hm? -_- That would be a rather silly thing to say. Particularly one so very unsupported by facts.

Nope, honestly I almost never click links posted. That's my preference though I never assumed I was expected to Moderate other websites as well. If I do click a link I can say with 100% certainty that I've never clicked and read with any sort of intention of checking for that site breaking any of this sites rules.

If other Mods do then more power to them, simply my preference. I hope that doesn't make me a bad Mod

Empy wrote:Nope, honestly I almost never click links posted. That's my preference though I never assumed I was expected to Moderate other websites as well. If I do click a link I can say with 100% certainty that I've never clicked and read with any sort of intention of checking for that site breaking any of this sites rules.

If other Mods do then more power to them, simply my preference. I hope that doesn't make me a bad Mod

Not by my book, at all.
We don't all have the time or inclination to do it.. and that's fine, it's why we are a team. Billy covers "A" through "T", Johnny covers "E" through "Z". That's got the majority covered, as far as I know.
Besides, if anyone has a problem with the way you do things, screw them. The only opinion that counts in that regard is the opinion of the bosses. It's just like a real job. *grin*

Posting threads which contain URLs is common practice in that section. Perhaps you should go report all of them, Clarkey. I'm sure it'd be a worthwhile use of your time.

And whilst I appreciate that you are using my thread as an example to illustrate a point, I'd like to register my irritation at searching my own name and seeing reams and reams of your BS come up.

Is this not a simple case,

FF posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and got a warning

Mordack posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and didnt get a warning,

Real simple solution no, either remove the warning from FF, or give Mordack one too,

Why do mods always make things far harder than they are, and try and justify why they should not get warnings etc, or are we still stuck in the old times around here, of the, 1 rule for the community, 1 rule for the mods.

I know my opinion dont mean a rats ass to anyone, but my biggest issue in this is you should not be able to warn anyone for a link that takes you to a site you have to be registered to view, for once you log in your under a different set of rules,

would she had been warned if she had said go face book and look at a this song.

and i understand modding to protect others from bad things, in appropriate language and pics, I have seen many many sigs I wont let my kids get near the comp if there on the page,, hell theres a link in game , not sure where it takes you but says lets be naughty, and show a female in a very seductive many,, when i was 13 i would of been clicking away trying to see more. Truely I dont think a link should be warnable unless it takes you directly to porno graphic sites, especially if its in a website you have to be registered to see


I also didnt know that under 13 was aloud on this site I thought you had to be 13 or older

GeneralChaos wrote:Is this not a simple case,

FF posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and got a warning

Mordack posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and didnt get a warning,

Real simple solution no, either remove the warning from FF, or give Mordack one too,

Why do mods always make things far harder than they are, and try and justify why they should not get warnings etc, or are we still stuck in the old times around here, of the, 1 rule for the community, 1 rule for the mods.

the problem therein, is that the filtered content in one link, is in a state of constant flux, due to the presence of a userbase providing the filtered content. whereas the filtered in the other, is in the main media meant to be displayed, thus, much more obvious.

what this means, is unless we ban links altogether, we'd be forced to check up on every link every day, several times a day to make sure the filtered content in the "comments" of the userbase are not filtered, in order to do our "jobs". and of course, giving a warning point for every infraction we find in said user content.

of course, if we did that, there'd be alot more permabanned people.

i personally, am of the opinion that users need to take at least some responsibility for what they post, but they can't see into the future to see when anyone person is going to post filtered content on a link they posted. now, if the filtered content is in the main media of the link, then they need to take responsibility, and thus deserve a warning.

Psi Kiya Trist wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote:Is this not a simple case,

FF posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and got a warning

Mordack posted a URL which lead to a site that had filtered content on it, and didnt get a warning,

Real simple solution no, either remove the warning from FF, or give Mordack one too,

Why do mods always make things far harder than they are, and try and justify why they should not get warnings etc, or are we still stuck in the old times around here, of the, 1 rule for the community, 1 rule for the mods.

the problem therein, is that the filtered content in one link, is in a state of constant flux, due to the presence of a userbase providing the filtered content. whereas the filtered in the other, is in the main media meant to be displayed, thus, much more obvious.

what this means, is unless we ban links altogether, we'd be forced to check up on every link every day, several times a day to make sure the filtered content in the "comments" of the userbase are not filtered, in order to do our "jobs". and of course, giving a warning point for every infraction we find in said user content.

of course, if we did that, there'd be alot more permabanned people.

i personally, am of the opinion that users need to take at least some responsibility for what they post, but they can't see into the future to see when anyone person is going to post filtered content on a link they posted. now, if the filtered content is in the main media of the link, then they need to take responsibility, and thus deserve a warning.

Psi you are missing the point on this occasion. The filtered word on Youtube in Mordacks link WAS there at the time he posted the link. It didn't happen after, therefore nothing to do with seeing in to the future. Mordack did not take responsibility of reading the page before posting the link to ensure it was clean. Yes the content can change, but it WAS there at the time.

Earendil wrote:Then, by your ideas Clarkey, you can be warned for the link in your signature. There are a few filtered words to be found by following it.

Please point out on THAT page it links to where those words are?

Both of you are missing the point...
@ Mordack: we check the link what's behind it... if the page that is linked to is clean, we are fine with it. If the user decides to browse further onto the linked site and finds bad behaviour while it isn't on the TGW-forums itself, not our concern, but on the users own discretion.
@ Clarkey: links, albeit partially at the users own discretion, are checked because Kingdom Games (and all involved games of it) aim to be suitable for all ages. That includes the associated forums. Hence why also all of the forums are checked - not only the posts themselves of the users, but also the sigs, avatars and any outside link (to a certain point of course).

Hope this clears it up..

BenjaminMS wrote:Both of you are missing the point...
@ Mordack: we check the link what's behind it... if the page that is linked to is clean, we are fine with it. If the user decides to browse further onto the linked site and finds bad behaviour while it isn't on the TGW-forums itself, not our concern, but on the users own discretion.
@ Clarkey: links, albeit partially at the users own discretion, are checked because Kingdom Games (and all involved games of it) aim to be suitable for all ages. That includes the associated forums. Hence why also all of the forums are checked - not only the posts themselves of the users, but also the sigs, avatars and any outside link (to a certain point of course).

Hope this clears it up..

Ben I understand why links are checked.

What i don't understand is this.....

femme gets official warning for posting a link to a page that contains a video with a masked word.

mordack posts a link to a youtube page that contains text of a masked word but is not warned.

Both words were there when both users posted their threads.

What i don't understand is why one is warned yet the other is not?

Google.com.au


Am i going to be banned cause google can show masked words?

Edit

im probably going to be banned for my example as it woupd be my 3rd warjing but

Juliette wrote:

Rottenking wrote:[spoiler]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_party_(sexuality)?wasRedirected=true[/spoiler] wikipedia link describes acts of a sexual nature and may no be appropriate for people under the ages of 16

Those aren't acts of a sexual nature, it's an urban legend featuring acts of a sexual nature. Bloody hypocrites and their moral panicking..

Juliette obviosly read thepage but didnt warn me for the words used that would be masked here

Rottenking wrote:Google.com.au


Am i going to be banned cause google can show masked words?

You're confusing posting a link which shows masked words (or breaks the rules otherwise) with the potential to break the rules. There's no reason to ban a generic link to Google; if you were posting a Google-imagesearch link for **Filtered**, though, you'd have 2 warnings in one shot.

Rottenking wrote:Edit

im probably going to be banned for my example as it woupd be my 3rd warjing but

Juliette wrote:

Rottenking wrote:[spoiler]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_party_(sexuality)?wasRedirected=true[/spoiler] wikipedia link describes acts of a sexual nature and may no be appropriate for people under the ages of 16

Those aren't acts of a sexual nature, it's an urban legend featuring acts of a sexual nature. Bloody hypocrites and their moral panicking..

Juliette obviosly read thepage but didnt warn me for the words used that would be masked here

I allowed it at my discretion, as it served a functional purpose in the debate. Besides, you did a pretty good job of 'covering your ass' with that warning sign (see spoiler below). Those two factors made that I allowed your link to remain. If you would like to retroactively receive a warning, though, that can be arranged.

[spoiler]

Rottenking wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Rottenking wrote:*spoiler*http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_party_(sexuality)?wasRedirected=true*/spoiler* wikipedia link describes acts of a sexual nature and may no be appropriate for people under the ages of 16

Those aren't acts of a sexual nature, it's an urban legend featuring acts of a sexual nature. Bloody hypocrites and their moral panicking..

I was covering my ass invade someone kicked upa fuss over posting in appropriate material

and yes, rainbow partys sound awsome

[/spoiler]

Earendil wrote:

Rottenking wrote:Google.com.au


Am i going to be banned cause google can show masked words?

Nope. But you can get warned/banned for spamming

@ Clarkey. It was in the intro part of the forum on the site. A part that is ever changing, Yes I had to go, 1 2 pages in.

As I said, the main, single most difference in FF/Greg's posts are that FF linked DIRECTLY _{hope you get the importance of the word} to the vidoes, just as Greg did BUT the point of reference was the cause for the warning.

What I am getting at is....

femme linked to a page (fact). The page contained a video plus text. The video contained the masked word.

mordack linked to a page (fact). The page contained a video plus text. The text contained the masked word. The masked word was there at time of posting link just like the video on femme's linked page.

I did not have to go 2 or more pages deep to find the masked word through mordacks link.

The fact you have gone 2 pages deep through my sig to make a point is void because we are not discussing going more than 1 layer deep are. So get your head out of that and focus on what we are saying.

There is nothing different between femme's link and mordacks link.

Just because the purpose of their link was the video does NOT mean any text on the rest of the page is ignored.

If I posted a link to a facebook page for the purpose of a video and on that page there was a photo of a big fat hairy naked minger I WOULD get a warning.

So tell me oh great Admin what is the difference between femme and mordack?????

Nice to see the report on Mordacks post gets closed with no action taken yet he did the same thing as femme.