Hmmm. Not right warning

[Clarkey]

Would not posting BS, OMG, GTHO, be considered masking to?

None of these words is on the current filter. As it is not on the filter, it is not against board rules and is no a warnable offense. The words clearly used in the original quote are on the filter, so masking still applies.

Also, why the hell would OMG ever need to be on the filter?

Actually OMG with an F is on the filter and replaces it with OMG.

[Psyko]

Would not posting BS, OMG, GTHO, be considered masking to?

None of these words is on the current filter. As it is not on the filter, it is not against board rules and is no a warnable offense. The words clearly used in the original quote are on the filter, so masking still applies.

Also, why the hell would OMG ever need to be on the filter?

Actually OMG with an F is on the filter and replaces it with OMG.

Makes sense. Also explains the use of GTHO instead of using the F. I guess he should have used masking more than once in that post if he wanted to get his point across.

[deni]

Acronyms are treated differently as it has been explained several times already and are not warnable.

As for c2's warning: I do not see posting "****ing" as masking.

On the other hand, c2 is an experienced forum user and should know that profanity is not welcomed here. Thus I'd have expected him to be able to judge that the pm he posted is not suitable.

In my times as a mod I'd probably warn him for profanity - officially or verbally - depending on his previous verbal warnings if any.

[Empy]

It's not like "ing" isn't part of the word... not just the first 4 letters are the word. "ing" matters just as much as the rest...

[Clarkey]

So taking ten minutes out of your day to revise the rule with a few examples to add clarity is to much work?

Just don't swear then you don't need clarity. There's no need for swearing on this forum.

[stuff of legends]

I'm more interested to know this 'cut-off' forum experience age, where some rules start applying to a user.

[deni]

I'm more interested to know this 'cut-off' forum experience age, where some rules start applying to a user.

There is no "cut-off" age

The official forum rules are posted in the Announcement section and apply to the entire public part of the forum.

As per the forum rules, the consequence for breaking a specific rule can be either a verbal or an official warning. If the user is a "repeat offender" and has a history of verbal warnings, then an official warning is given. If it is their "first offence", a verbal warning with an explanation note is in order.

[Iƒrit]

Okay that is a joke using almost 2 years of history to profile someone.

-The first offense is from back in 2009.
-The second offense is from 2010, nearly a year ago and that was probably from lost translation, c2 is not a primary English speaker. I do feel that at the time of the warning, it was OVER the top and harsh considering that English is not his first language.

I do believe that jacks opinion, and Tetrismonkeys opinions are pretty spot on. Giving C2 a warning due to a track history is not only profiling but also hypocritical considering you allowed clarkey, jack and other x-mods/x-admins to come back to modding after their track records. Consistency is not your strong suits i see. It is therefore my opinion and expressed advice that the warning be removed and that C2 be spoken to about not just masking and similar rules but the entirety of them.

EDIT: I don't believe the violation was intentional, and I dont believe the "profanity" was anything major. And I think the point expressed about C2 thinking the ingame filter and forum filter were one and the same to be true. Its my feeling that the warning was a bit harsh (this was added after an exchange of PMs between me and another person).

Locked for the time being.

[Iƒrit]

Due to the controversial discussion between myself and a few others, I have decided to re-open this and allow Odin to make a final decision as to how it is handled, at least from the ombs perspective of it. I am attempting to be "objective" when according to others I am not, no matter his ruling will be the last say for this topic.

Unlocked for the time being, please no spam or inappropriate posts or warnings shall be issued.

[~Odin~]

As Ifrit has said please no spamming, I have just gotten back today (only back for a few days). Im going back out again soon so i will look over all of this tonight. Untill then play nice or take it to PM's.

[Jack]

I can't remember exactly why, but I disagree with Iftrit's logic. My opinion is that it's not meet the standard for a masking violation and thus does not deserve a warning, verbal or otherwise. Nothing more, nothing less.

[caesar2]

Am back here. With another fact.

As rulez says:

b. Profanity
The use of all profanity on the SGW forums is prohibited at all times. This means swearing, cursing, and vulgarity. This includes the use of masking. Profanity in images (such as in signatures), videos linked (such as YouTube), or in articles linked is also prohibited.

Note:
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.

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.

If someone writes a word, which normaly wouldnt be filtered, but he uses ****ing, hes not using masking. So if I want to write word **Filtered** it is filtered, but if I want write word teasing and I choose to write ****ing just to make it bit mystic, am not masking.

SAo than dear section mods, how can anyone of you prove that I was masking word, which otherwise would be filtered? Maybe I just wanted to use word STARing so put ****ing.

Bit absurde, I know. But if you, dear Mods, are so great ion your work, polease show us the source, prove us, if I broke rules like it is written.

****ing
***ing
*******ing
**********ing
********ed
****ed


Did I mean words which should be filtered or not?

[Clarkey]

C2, I understand the point you are putting across and I fully respect that. However, Ifrit has come to his recommendation but has failed to present it to the Administration. You case is blocked because of the Ombudsman, not because of any staff disagreeing with you.

[caesar2]

C2, I understand the point you are putting across and I fully respect that. However, Ifrit has come to his recommendation but has failed to present it to the Administration. You case is blocked because of the Ombudsman, not because of any staff disagreeing with you.

So does it mean Administrators are blinde incompetent idiots whjo cant fix problems, because one of forum staff did maybe some mystake?

Clarkey, please, dont make me laugh

Well, I know that Bazsy wasnt online long time, not on MSN he was using, had chat with him half year agho last time. If hes inactive, or less active, arent there another admins to fix problems?

[Clarkey]

Not trying to make you laugh C2, but as the case was already with the Ombudsman then it should be handled all the way through until the Ombudsman gives his recommendations. If the Administration jump in during the middle of the Ombudsman case on your case and then someone elses they don't, well you know what people will shout.

So it is best all round if the Ombudsman finishes the case as it was started here.