Page 3 of 5
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:56 am
by RoKeT
HGE:
Lies... Sorry bro, but posting that is dumb, thats what this is for, for posting here if you need help! with an Unfair warning I have had a warning or two pulled back... Don't post Ignorance because that keeps people from posting here thinking it's a dead end, also
I agree with you Lover, you'll get it Revoked, or athere will be a few Warnings handed out
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:59 am
by Clarkey
deni wrote:The personal view of the ombudsmen if the word in question should be or not on the filter, is of no concern. Just as my own personal opinion does not matter.
What matters though is that the word IS currently on the filter.
Thus posting a link containing that word is a warnable offense.
It does not matter that the word itself is not posted directly on the forum - signatures are not posted on the forum but only linked and having a filtered word in them would trigger the same mod action - a warning and removal of the file in question.
But the oms himself has masked the exact same word in the past and never held accountable. Don't tell me the word wasn't on the filter in 2008.
So are Mordack and Jason... (not admin Jason) goning to get their long overdue warnings?
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:00 am
by RoKeT
I think if you look at that topic, many of the people there shoudl get some warnings
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:03 am
by deni
Clarkey wrote:deni wrote:The personal view of the ombudsmen if the word in question should be or not on the filter, is of no concern. Just as my own personal opinion does not matter.
What matters though is that the word IS currently on the filter.
Thus posting a link containing that word is a warnable offense.
It does not matter that the word itself is not posted directly on the forum - signatures are not posted on the forum but only linked and having a filtered word in them would trigger the same mod action - a warning and removal of the file in question.
But the oms himself has masked the exact same word in the past and never held accountable. Don't tell me the word wasn't on the filter in 2008.
So are Mordack and Jason... (not admin Jason) goning to get their long overdue warnings?
The posts were made as a part of a discussion about the word filter and the former admin team allowed using of said words in (and only that) topic as it would be burdensome to discuss words that you are not allowed to spell out.
If you remember that topic (and I guess you did as you pulled a 2 yrs old topic out), you should remember the circumstances of that discussion.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:06 am
by Clarkey
deni wrote:Clarkey wrote:deni wrote:The personal view of the ombudsmen if the word in question should be or not on the filter, is of no concern. Just as my own personal opinion does not matter.
What matters though is that the word IS currently on the filter.
Thus posting a link containing that word is a warnable offense.
It does not matter that the word itself is not posted directly on the forum - signatures are not posted on the forum but only linked and having a filtered word in them would trigger the same mod action - a warning and removal of the file in question.
But the oms himself has masked the exact same word in the past and never held accountable. Don't tell me the word wasn't on the filter in 2008.
So are Mordack and Jason... (not admin Jason) goning to get their long overdue warnings?
The posts were made as a part of a discussion about the word filter and the former admin team allowed using of said words in (and only that) topic as it would be burdensome to discuss words that you are not allowed to spell out.
If you remember that topic (and I guess you did as you pulled a 2 yrs old topic out), you should remember the circumstances of that discussion.
Yet the one I have reported was not part of that.
Femme's official warning was too harsh, she should have been told not to post such links even if it does direct you to a site that requires you to have an account and log in. What if Earendil had no facebook account? What if no-one on this forum besides femme had a facebook account?
in fact how far do you go? I could post a link to a page that's innocent yet has a link on that page to something that isn't so innocent.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:08 am
by ƒëmmë ƒatalë
RoKeT wrote:I think if you look at that topic, many of the people there shoudl get some warnings
not just that topic, there are other examples of it being deliberately masked on here.. and those posts remain un modded to this day.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:10 am
by deni
ƒemme ƒatale wrote:RoKeT wrote:I think if you look at that topic, many of the people there shoudl get some warnings
not just that topic, there are other examples of it being deliberately masked on here.. and those posts remain un modded to this day.
really?
So why haven't you reported them?
I would appreciate if you would show/report the posts you see containing masking that have not been modded.
Thank you.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:12 am
by RoKeT
No I mean for the one Clarkey posted sorry not hers Goddess *Bows*
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:46 am
by Psi Kiya Trist
Clarkey wrote:Femme's official warning was too harsh, she should have been told not to post such links even if it does direct you to a site that requires you to have an account and log in. What if Earendil had no facebook account? What if no-one on this forum besides femme had a facebook account?
in fact how far do you go? I could post a link to a page that's innocent yet has a link on that page to something that isn't so innocent.
and what if i posted a link to a photobucket account that had "soft porn" on it, but required you to log in to view it? does that mean that automatically because the site requires you to log in to view, that the content is ok to post?
the point of this forum is to be safe for people under 13. to some, that means that words and content need to be filtered.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:48 am
by RoKeT
Psi Kiya Trist wrote:Clarkey wrote:Femme's official warning was too harsh, she should have been told not to post such links even if it does direct you to a site that requires you to have an account and log in. What if Earendil had no facebook account? What if no-one on this forum besides femme had a facebook account?
in fact how far do you go? I could post a link to a page that's innocent yet has a link on that page to something that isn't so innocent.
and what if i posted a link to a photobucket account that had "soft porn" on it, but required you to log in to view it? does that mean that automatically because the site requires you to log in to view, that the content is ok to post?
the point of this forum is to be safe for people under 13. to some, that means that words and content need to be filtered.
Don't you have to be above 13 to be on Facebook, doesn't that make what she posted allowed?
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:51 am
by Psi Kiya Trist
RoKeT wrote:Psi Kiya Trist wrote:Clarkey wrote:Femme's official warning was too harsh, she should have been told not to post such links even if it does direct you to a site that requires you to have an account and log in. What if Earendil had no facebook account? What if no-one on this forum besides femme had a facebook account?
in fact how far do you go? I could post a link to a page that's innocent yet has a link on that page to something that isn't so innocent.
and what if i posted a link to a photobucket account that had "soft porn" on it, but required you to log in to view it? does that mean that automatically because the site requires you to log in to view, that the content is ok to post?
the point of this forum is to be safe for people under 13. to some, that means that words and content need to be filtered.
Don't you have to be above 13 to be on Facebook, doesn't that make what she posted allowed?
no, because if you paid attention to my earlier example, Photobucket does not allow porn on it, but in the example, said porn did exist. and i have seen it exist.
and just because things are allowable on other sites, doesn't mean we bend OUR rules to allow for theirs. alot of the content on Jack's forum is 3 steps out from our rules. does that mean jack can post content and links to said instances on his forum, when such is against the rules here?
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:52 am
by RoKeT
No but what I am saying is, if you have to have an account to get on Facebook link, then you have to be 13 to have an account to get on there, why would you be so worried about it if your goal is to keep 13 year olds safe and under safe, would that not make the safe, if anything that is a double censor i'd say it was safe
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:56 am
by Psi Kiya Trist
RoKeT wrote:No but what I am saying is, if you have to have an account to get on Facebook link, then you have to be 13 to have an account to get on there, why would you be so worried about it if your goal is to keep 13 year olds safe and under safe, would that not make the safe, if anything that is a double censor i'd say it was safe
you have completely missed my point.
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:57 am
by RoKeT
No I got it, but what I am saying is, it should not be warnable, it was like double censored...
and what if you post a link to a song that has swear words on that what are you listening to thread, I know i have personally a few times as I listen to Rap... happens all the time, so I say if this is warnable, why have you not gone through each post and listened to each song, and then warned each of us for our swear word songs?
Re: Appealing warning
Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:58 am
by Psi Kiya Trist
RoKeT wrote:No I got it, but what I am saying is, it should not be warnable, it was like double censored...
doesn't matter, we censor to OUR standards, not theirs. if we have to quadruple censor, then we still have to do it.