StarGateWars Forums

Dovahkiin wrote:Whatever context tells me what word ****ing represents will also tell me what word ******* represents.

A few months ago there was a warning I gave for masking where the user used $$@@($() or some variation, and in the context of the post, seemed to be swearing. But it turned out the user was hiding the usernames of users.

However if a user were to use $$@@ing, it would be far easier to determine whether it was masking or not based on the context.

Kikaz wrote:So what your saying is because the game didn't filter the whole word, it's masking?

What you are blatently ignoring is that he broke the FORUM rules. I don't give a rats ass what rules Jason puts ingame, this is the forum, he handed over control of this forum years ago. Got a problem with it go cry to him and try and make him do what you want.

Every single person on this forum is responsible for what they post. It does not matter where the wording has come from, whether you typed it yourself or copy pasted it from somewhere, you are solely responsible, you all know the rules, he broke a rule that has been there for years and suddenly everyone cries blue murder at the ingame system when it is nothing to do with that.

I do however agree with Jack that if people see **** they are very likely to guess what the word is anyway, and to take that further even when you seem the automatic filter **Filtered** you can still guess what it was. But these are the rules, they have been enforced since the beginning of time on this forum and the consequences have always been written on the rules as immediate warning for masking.

If you really want this changed try coming up with sensible and logical suggestions instead of moaning and whining about it. Grow up and act like an adult and make changes happen.

Every argument you just brought up has already been destroyed in my last few posts. Thus your post has:

Haz wrote:no relevance

Kikaz wrote: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.

Even your listed consequence was not used in this case, as it was a minor profanity.

It was MASKING. Read the consequences again.

Kikaz wrote:Every argument you just brought up has already been destroyed in my last few posts. Thus your post has:

Haz wrote:no relevance

Clarkey wrote:

Kikaz wrote: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.

Even your listed consequence was not used in this case, as it was a minor profanity.

It was MASKING. Read the consequences again.

As was my point Kikaz. If you had bothered to read my reply, you would have seen me point it out, making my post relevant.

Haz wrote:One, I doubt it would be seen as minor profanity.

Two, "in the case of masking, a board warning will always be issued".

Three, it is still relevant, as my post is on topic and in reply to your argument. Ingame experience was not relevant as ingame experience has no real connection to how the filter ingame or on forums is set out.

Masking is intentionally 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.


Your both insulting your own intelligence, by not thoroughly reading my post and trying to attack what you think is my weakest argument while blatantly ignoring everything else.

Maybe I should break up my post so you two don't get confused?

Yes, in the case of masking, a board warning will always be issued.

Yet, by the definition posted on the forum rules themselves, see above, this is NOT masking..

Even if this WAS masking, it is VERY minor, when a mod is warning based on his/her imagination.

Filter was NOT bypassed, no HTML tags were used, the word wasn't expressed in anyway shape or forum. '****' with 'in' could be any word ending with -ing.

Even by your made up rules in this topic trying to justify this warning, an 'in' at the end of a **** is not going to let you guess what the word is, you just gave a warning for an inflectional suffix, not even fully spelled, that indicates a progressive/continuous action.

I will say it once again, your last few posts have:

Haz wrote:no relevance

Kikaz wrote:I will say it once again, your last few posts have:

Haz wrote:no relevance

You clearly need to grow up Kikaz.

Kikaz wrote:Masking is intentionally 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.

Kikaz wrote:Yet, by the definition posted on the forum rules themselves, see above, this is NOT masking..

If you're referring to "****ing" being masking, yes it is. The filter on the forum would take the word we all know this to be and filter it to "**Filtered**" there is no way based on amount of characters in the word or VISIBLE LETTERS such as the "ing" at the end to guess what the word would be. BYPASSING THE FILTER by choosing to asterisk out only the first 4 letters and leave the rest is BYPASSING THE FILTER.

By strict definition any "self-filtering" is also masking such as "*******" as opposed to "**Filtered**" (which is what the forum's filter would change it to). This is somewhat ridiculous to warn people for though, so nothing is done if every letter of a word is asterisked out.

Kikaz wrote:Even if this WAS masking, it is VERY minor, when a mod is warning based on his/her imagination.

Filter was NOT bypassed, no HTML tags were used, the word wasn't expressed in anyway shape or forum. '****' with 'in' could be any word ending with -ing.

It is masking, but if you were to place it on a scale then I suppose it would be a 2 out of 3. It's not based on imagination, it's based on using common sense, the key word being common. Most people are gonna see through silly lies and attempts at making you think it's any word besides what it really is. "****ing" almost 95% of the time is going to be the filtered word we all know it to be. Why? mostly because why would you try and self-filter a word unless you thought the filter was going to filter it so no one would see what you're going to say.

Kikaz wrote:Even by your made up rules in this topic trying to justify this warning, an 'in' at the end of a **** is not going to let you guess what the word is, you just gave a warning for an inflectional suffix, not even fully spelled, that indicates a progressive/continuous action.

All rules are made up. So what's your point? No rules have been made up in this topic, all are available to be seen here and can be referenced.

I see your English skills are quite sharp and I am glad, but as I pointed out using common sense the majority of people are going to realize that "****ing" is just partial self-filtering for a word that is on the forum's filter.

Finally, a relevant argument..

Unfortunately, I've run out of time for today to break down and address your entire post E.M.P. though I can see some flaws in your argument that I can address pretty quickly.

However, I will say this brings me back to my original point, and the point of this thread.

Game Filter vs. Forum Filter

Kikaz wrote:Perhaps it is time to revise the rules.

Simpily adding:
"IF you self-filter or copy paste ingame messages from the filter and leave anything connected to the asterisks, that can help the reader imagine the word than a board warning will be issued. Such as 'in' 'ing' etc."

Yes, all rules are made up, but they are not rules until they are written..

Anyone with half a brain could destroy any argument regarding masking at this point in time, the rule needs to updated.

Repli's warning could be argued by a keyword in the current rule, intentionally, his masking was not intentional, he copied a message that had already been filtered in-game thinking that it was already filtered and no consequences would come of it.

Jason should also be contacted on Friday, regarding this and asked to match the ingame filters to the forums filters to prevent this from accidentally occurring again.

If I've missed any points in your argument you believe to be key points simply quote yourself and I'll get back to it, probably not until Sunday though.

Well then, touche, he could get out on a technicality.

That is, if the Admins chose to adhere to the "Letter of the Law" and not the "Spirit of the Law" such as it is. I think it's clear from the rule masking overall is not allowed, whether intentional or not. It does say "intentionally" though.

I would be against adding anything for a case such as "copying messages from ingame will count as masking too" as it becomes wordy and opens up the window to add little notes for many different cases (such as was already done with linking pages/videos).

I think it would be good to remove the word "intentional" though, because as the rules are enforced right now it does not matter if it's intentional or not.


To address the main point of the topic though, it's not the concern of the forums or the Forum Administrators how Jason filters messages and text in the game. If someone wants to go to him and ask him to make it more like the forums filters (how words are filtered, and which ones are) then I would personally think that's a good idea, but no Forum Staff member has a responsibility to do it or get it done.

Kikaz wrote:Masking is intentionally 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.


Your both insulting your own intelligence, by not thoroughly reading my post and trying to attack what you think is my weakest argument while blatantly ignoring everything else.

Maybe I should break up my post so you two don't get confused?

Yes, in the case of masking, a board warning will always be issued.

Yet, by the definition posted on the forum rules themselves, see above, this is NOT masking..

Ignoring the technicality of "intentionally" for a moment, by the definition of the rules, it is still masking:

using characters, HTML tags, or anything else to express a word that would otherwise be filtered

Kikaz wrote:Filter was NOT bypassed, no HTML tags were used, the word wasn't expressed in anyway shape or forum. '****' with 'in' could be any word ending with -ing.

As said above, "using characters". And also, see E.M.P's post below on why it is bypassing the filter. It may not have been intentional, but it was bypassing the filter nonetheless.

Kikaz wrote:Even by your made up rules in this topic trying to justify this warning, an 'in' at the end of a **** is not going to let you guess what the word is, you just gave a warning for an inflectional suffix, not even fully spelled, that indicates a progressive/continuous action.

I went by the letter of the rules, not making any rules up at all. I gave the warning based on context and common sense, not the suffix. It's fairly easy to tell what word it is meant to be, based on the context of his post. I also gave the warning based on the instructions from a mod previously telling me what is/isn't masking, the instructions being essentially what was covered in E.M.P.s post:

If you're referring to "****ing" being masking, yes it is. The filter on the forum would take the word we all know this to be and filter it to "**Filtered**" there is no way based on amount of characters in the word or VISIBLE LETTERS such as the "ing" at the end to guess what the word would be. BYPASSING THE FILTER by choosing to asterisk out only the first 4 letters and leave the rest is BYPASSING THE FILTER.

Kikaz wrote:I will say it once again, your last few posts have:

Haz wrote:no relevance

I'll borrow this from you Clarkey... Grow up Kikaz.

Is the word Frak(or Frack depending on if you like the original or 2003 show better) masking or anything?

I ask cause Haz always warns me for it and I always talk to EMP about it and he gets the warning removed. Seeing how its a made up word from a tv show and that other words that are tv made up words are not warned.

Eärendil wrote:The rules are not always word based, they are also context based a well.

Ah ok, So if I say Get the frak out or what the frak?

It can be like either saying the F word or saying hell.

Rudy Pena wrote:

Eärendil wrote:The rules are not always word based, they are also context based a well.

Ah ok, So if I say Get the frak out or what the frak?

It can be like either saying the F word or saying hell.

Personally, I don't believe frak should be used at all, especially in the context you always use it in ("shut the frak up, get the frak out"). This is based off SG, not BSG. And it's obvious what it is replacing.

Also, if it were saying "hell", why not use the word "hell"?

Also, going by a definition on a BSG wiki:

"Frak" is a potent profanity in the language of the Twelve Colonies. It is a bowdlerized version of the real-life expletive "**Filtered**"

By the definition of the rules, you would be bypassing the filter.

SuperSaiyan wrote:Frak is not a profanity.
It is the equivalent of saying fudge or darn.

Even with the definition given by the BSG wiki, which clearly states it to be a profanity?