StarGateWars Forums

Because I didn't get a Warning for mine

I am not playing hide and seek, Roket.

Which one would that post/link be?

oh I have no idea lol, it was posted a while ago Sorry Goddess I really don't know, i'm just saying... See it can be missed... and should be changed... to what I suggested

RoKeT wrote:oh I have no idea lol, it was posted a while ago Sorry Goddess I really don't know, i'm just saying... See it can be missed... and should be changed... to what I suggested

So, you are talking about a hypothetical link to a youtube vid you might have posted that might have contained swearing and has been gone unnoticed by the mods?

I see

It does not help the current case though.

no it's not hypothetical it's there I just don't remember what song or where I posted can't you go through all my link postings? and if it goes un noticed for me then it will go un noticed all together, so... maybe it's time for a new mod Watcher of the Links Boy i'd hate that job but hey, it would make the 13 year olds safer so I mean it, higher a new mod and in that case, I think i'd be a great mod

Earendil wrote:Femme has been warned before for masking, so there was no need to verbally warn her.

If you post a picture with a filtered word on it, you get warned for masking. The same goes for a video from anywhere, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it was for laughs or not.

You mask, you are asking for a warning.

@ Empy, it does not matter if you have to log in or not, which honestly, I didn't notice, i'm always logged in.

And, watch the spam.

So then if you look at these links then you will issue a warning? viewtopic.php?f=88&t=170815

The offending word is in the first link, not in the video, however it would have been on the page at the time the link was posted.

It would only be fair to issue a warning. However, I feel it also wrong to issue a warning just like femmes.

RoKeT wrote:no it's not hypothetical it's there I just don't remember what song or where I posted can't you go through all my link postings? and if it goes un noticed for me then it will go un noticed all together, so... maybe it's time for a new mod Watcher of the Links Boy i'd hate that job but hey, it would make the 13 year olds safer so I mean it, higher a new mod and in that case, I think i'd be a great mod

after the test i gave you, i wouldn't trust you with the mod control panel any more than a flea.

mods are not omnipresent(anymore), we do not get paid to watch these forums, things will slip through, that's why users have the ability to report posts, if you see something that violates the rules, report it. mods will do their best to filter everything they can.

deni wrote:

RoKeT wrote:yes but again those two I sent you if you go through you'll see people posted links to Youtube and which those songs had swearing so unless your going to do your full job and go through each and every post that had links then you are not going to be able to keep it "clean" for them, there for you can not garuntee there for for the forums legal saftey right you should put it there either way as can't Jason be sued if a minor clicks on a link and it brings him to porn and you missed it? wouldn't it just be smarter and safer for Jason to just add that for him?

And you assume someone has not gone through the links because?

Because that's the easiest shot on goal. It's a miss, of course, but who's counting.


If I'd link you to a porn site which asks you whether you're 18 or over before going on to show you the *really* NSFW pics .. so that, in essence, the linked page is 'safe', does that make it legal for me to post it? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. Same thing goes for this kind of thing; and in the end, it's at the moderator's discretion that such actions are taken. Your link was found to be breaking the rules; and as such, the Boss saw fit to act. No point in rolling over and yelping like we've been shot in the back.. you've been treated as anyone else would have been.


If you want a discussion about the rules, this obviously is not the place for that.. and I haven't seen an admin opening the rules up for debate. Have you?

*yawn* I'm not reading all that crap.

Should she have been warned? That's up to the mod handling her post. Would I have warned her? Probably not. Should **Filtered** be on the filter? Definitely not. We shouldn't have a filter, it's ridiculous to get offended by a goddamn word. But none of that matters. Because the fact is we do have a filter, **Filtered** is on it and it's against the rules to circumvent the filter.

Earendil wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Earendil wrote:Femme has been warned before for masking, so there was no need to verbally warn her.

If you post a picture with a filtered word on it, you get warned for masking. The same goes for a video from anywhere, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it was for laughs or not.

You mask, you are asking for a warning.

@ Empy, it does not matter if you have to log in or not, which honestly, I didn't notice, i'm always logged in.

And, watch the spam.

So then if you look at these links then you will issue a warning? viewtopic.php?f=88&t=170815

The offending word is in the first link, not in the video, however it would have been on the page at the time the link was posted.

It would only be fair to issue a warning. However, I feel it also wrong to issue a warning just like femmes.

That is just your opinion, nothing more. A misc mod will get to that post eventually after a small chat.

Why don't you mod it? You seem keen enough to mod more than you administrate, so if you modded femme's why don't you mod the one I have pointed out to you? Or is it because you know by your own standards that you would have to issue a warning and therefore you would rather leave it to the discretion of another mod.

Clarkey wrote:

Earendil wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Earendil wrote:Femme has been warned before for masking, so there was no need to verbally warn her.

If you post a picture with a filtered word on it, you get warned for masking. The same goes for a video from anywhere, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it was for laughs or not.

You mask, you are asking for a warning.

@ Empy, it does not matter if you have to log in or not, which honestly, I didn't notice, i'm always logged in.

And, watch the spam.

So then if you look at these links then you will issue a warning? viewtopic.php?f=88&t=170815

The offending word is in the first link, not in the video, however it would have been on the page at the time the link was posted.

It would only be fair to issue a warning. However, I feel it also wrong to issue a warning just like femmes.

That is just your opinion, nothing more. A misc mod will get to that post eventually after a small chat.

Why don't you mod it? You seem keen enough to mod more than you administrate, so if you modded femme's why don't you mod the one I have pointed out to you? Or is it because you know by your own standards that you would have to issue a warning and therefore you would rather leave it to the discretion of another mod.

*cough* I would refrain from making comments regarding Earendil's administrating, if I were you. It's not like you know how actively he administrates .. and as such, your comment would just be that, a cheap-shot comment aimed at scoring on the first impression. Don't do that.
Earendil has better ways to spend his time than to moderate, and when he chooses to moderate, he can. You're not in the position to tell him to do this, or that, as you have no significant knowledge of his managerial efforts. -_-


Wasn't the last word said on this thread when our ombudsman posted? This is not the thread to ask for warnings against other people. It's a thread asking to revoke the valid warning issued for an offense which is clearly an offense.

Juliette wrote:Wasn't the last word said on this thread when our ombudsman posted?

Yup.