Swear Filter

[YSSMAN]

People rarely get picked on for simple typos and spelling mistakes. People DO get picked on for continual use of lazy words like 'u' and 'plz' and 'ppl', or for large numbers of spelling errors in all their posts - anything that makes it difficult to read for the average user or people who do not use English as their native language.

The user's native language is definitely taken into consideration when their posts are examined. Frankly, there's no reason that anyone from the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, or New Zealand can't use clear, coherent English. Yet many of the worst offenders hail from those countries, and grew up using English. There's no reason those people should not be held to a higher standard than someone who uses English as a second or third language.

I completely agree here. If there are folks from France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc I'm not going to care a great deal if their word usage does not fit the "English Model." I would for the most part commend them for even comming to a 99.9% English-speaking forum (occasional German thown about) and writing in a foreign language. I know for a fact that I couldn't do the same on a German forum similar to this, as my skills simply are not there to be put to good use.

...As you say, the scariest part of all of this is that it is indeed people who hail from English-speaking nations that all (for the most part) share the same words, phrases, and spellings and yet many of us cannot form a complete thought worth posting. It would be very interesting to find out somehow where the largest group of offenders come from, although it is probably obvious that we Americans tend to have the problems with English. Not that we cannot speak it correctly, but that we us "American English," not what we generally refer to as "English English."

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Infractions and warnings are carried out in private. So unless you have access to someone else's Private Messages, or they share them with you, you will never have any clue if they have received a warning or infraction at all, let alone what it was for.

Fact is, a lot of people DO get such warnings and infractions and then either continue on to their demise or cease doing it.

You missed the point that was oh-so-easy to get, by miles.
I'll repeat: If all these people did get warnings for these things, they would have been banned by now, because it's happened so many times. Which must mean they don't usually, or ever, get "infractions".

For your argument to make any sense you need to show that there are members who post filtered words denoted by asterisks and continue to do so. So, I'd like you to cite me a few instances of members posting potentially filtered phrases in, oooh, the last 2 months who then went on to do it at least twice more.

If you really want, I'm sure I can find people who've had 3 posts with *'s in them over the last 2 months.

Where have I laughingly called "it" paranoia? What is "it" that I've said this about anyway?

I don't recall stating that you said anything, Famine.
I did say that you can call it paranoia, as others have.
But you put it best when you said "you can count the overturned rulings on the fingers on one knee." Guess that sums up the usefullness right there.

That aside, I'd like you to look up the phrase "Quid custodiat ipsos custodes?"

No thank you. I speak English.

As far as I'm aware, they've never changed. But, as part of the ongoing discussions into good practice that happen in the moderator forum, our treatment of it has changed slightly.

Then why do you defend posts by saying, "that was so and so long ago? If the rules haven't changed, as you believe, then what does it matter if it was yesterday or 4 years ago?

I'm not aware of any new rules having come into existence in the entire time I've been here.

Again, that nullifies the defense of "that post was from 2003"

So, in short, the determination has been, "you can swear, but only in moderation and in a way that we percieve to be intelligent"? Or in a way that humors you?
And whoever posted that comment after this thread was started even went out of their way to add an F, at the beginning of ****, which I believe would be bypassing the swear filter, rather than letting it do it's 🤬 job.
Now, is that better?

 

[Famine]

You missed the point that was oh-so-easy to get, by miles.
I'll repeat: If all these people did get warnings for these things, they would have been banned by now, because it's happened so many times. Which must mean they don't usually, or ever, get "infractions".

I got your point - but it wasn't a very good one. You say that infractions don't work because people still do it, but you assume that it's the same people. And I'll repeat - all the people who DO get warnings for these things either stop or DO get banned.

You cannot see into the infraction log. I can.

If you really want, I'm sure I can find people who've had 3 posts with *'s in them over the last 2 months.

Well, I did ask you...

I don't recall stating that you said anything, Famine.
I did say that you can call it paranoia, as others have.

Actually, you emphasised the "you", not the "can", in a post responding to mine, making me the subject.

But you put it best when you said "you can count the overturned rulings on the fingers on one knee." Guess that sums up the usefullness right there.

Actually, I said that since the inception of the infraction system, you can count on the fingers of one knee the number of reversed rulings - not overall.

This says that we've not had any disagreements about infractions in the last month or so. This site has been in existence for 5 years and there have been several discussions on perceived-wrong-calls in that time.

No thank you. I speak English.

Leaving that open goal aside for a moment, Latin is the prime root of the English language. The phrase "Quid custodiat ipsos custodes" is directly relevant to this discussion.

Then why do you defend posts by saying, "that was so and so long ago? If the rules haven't changed, as you believe, then what does it matter if it was yesterday or 4 years ago?

Again, that nullifies the defense of "that post was from 2003"

Please try and read whole posts, rather than selected parts thereof:

As far as I'm aware, they've never changed. But, as part of the ongoing discussions into good practice that happen in the moderator forum, our treatment of it has changed slightly.

Meaning? Where once the staff would let some things slide, they no longer do - the rules haven't changed, but how we treat offences against those particular rules has - and we warn people of this.

None of which changes the fact that your infraction was for "Abusive comments", which have never been tolerated in any measure.

 

[Dave A]

You missed the point that was oh-so-easy to get, by miles.
I'll repeat: If all these people did get warnings for these things, they would have been banned by now, because it's happened so many times. Which must mean they don't usually, or ever, get "infractions".

Not all people get warnings that put a strike next to their name, also the system currently in place allows these strike points (for want of a better name) to be removed after a period of time, so (purely as an example) a warning for something done a year ago may well have no bearing on your situation today. For most people doing something that's breaking the rules but isn't directly offensive or abusive they get a couple of warnings before they get any strikes, or points against them. They either take heed and make an effort or they don't, they get more warnings then banned. I've seen long standing members get banned before, members that have got on with members of the moderator team on a personal level but still broke the rules too often.

Then why do you defend posts by saying, "that was so and so long ago? If the rules haven't changed, as you believe, then what does it matter if it was yesterday or 4 years ago?

Because as he said, the rules may not have changed but the attitude towards upholding them has, the site as it has grown has become more controlled, which isn't a bad thing considering how other sites that arn't as controlled are. The very bottom line here is a point made a while ago, this site is Jordan's site, he runs it, he pays for it, Jordan say's that something isn't allowed then it isn't allowed. He then generally leaves it to the moderators to uphold the standards he wants on this site. If he asks them to tighten up on a certain area then that's what the mods do, and as members of Jordan's site you have to accept thoes changes.

 

[Casio]

Leaving that open goal aside for a moment, Latin is the prime root of the English language. The phrase "Quid custodiat ipsos custodes" is directly relevant to this discussion.

I assume it's "Who will watch the watchers themselves?"

In which case it seems to be 'Quid custodiet ipsos custodes'. Come on Famine, don't you know proper spelling and grammar is required!

 

[Famine]

I got a "C" in Latin, 12 years ago...

The answer is more important than the question...

 

[daan]

Famine got a C!!!!1!!!1!!!!!11 Haha, you suck

Sorry, carry on....

 

[kennythebomb]

For all we know, 'custodiat' may be highly offensive to a polar bear that is allergic to Coke. Better put that one in asterisks next time, Famine

 

[Diego440]

Sort of Michael Connely's view on police department's Internal Affairs: Who polices the police who police the police?

 

[Famine]

Sort of Michael Connely's view on police department's Internal Affairs: Who polices the police who police the police?

The police police police police police police. What I want to know is who polices the police police police?

 

[kennythebomb]

Sort of Michael Connely's view on police department's Internal Affairs: Who polices the police who police the police?

The media.

 

[Diego440]

The police police police police police police. What I want to know is who polices the police police police?

that is also a majour issue in his books. Which of course turns into the detective who just ignores the IA department and goes on.

By the by, are you sure Latin is the prime root of English? I thought it was Germanic. Latin being the prime root for languages like Spanish and French, English seems more related to German.

 

[Scaff]

By the by, are you sure Latin is the prime root of English? I thought it was Germanic. Latin being the prime root for languages like Spanish and French, English seems more related to German.

From Wiki

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language

The Germanic tribes who gave rise to the English language (the Angles, Saxons, Frisians, Jutes and perhaps even the Franks), traded with and fought with the Latin-speaking Roman Empire in the process of the Germanic invasion of Europe from the East. Many Latin words for common objects therefore entered the vocabulary of these Germanic people even before any of these tribes reached Britain; examples include camp, cheese, cook, dragon, fork, giant, gem, inch, kettle, kitchen, linen, mile, mill, mint (coin), noon, oil, pillow, pin, pound, punt (boat), soap, street, table, wall, and wine. The Romans also gave English words which they had themselves borrowed from other languages: anchor, butter, cat, chest, devil, dish, and sack.

The introduction of Christianity added another wave of Latin and some Greek words.

English has continuously adopted foreign words, especially from Latin and Greek since the Renaissance

It would appear that Proto-english did evolve from Germanic tongues, but these in turn have roots in Latin and the influence of Latin on the English language has been significant.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Diego440]

well yeah, English does have Latin traits in it, just as Spanish has Arab and Americanisms, but as far as being the root of it, I didn't think it did.

 

[Scaff]

well yeah, English does have Latin traits in it, just as Spanish has Arab and Americanisms, but as far as being the root of it, I didn't think it did.

As far as I can tell it depends on what you describe as English.

The following is Old English (approx 900AD) - Beowulf
"Hwæt! Wē Gār-Dena in geārdagum,
þēodcyninga, þrym gefrūnon,
hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum,
monegum mǣgþum, meodosetla oftēah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ǣrest wearð
fēasceaft funden, hē þæs frōfre gebād,
wēox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þāh,
oðþæt him ǣghwylc þāra ymbsittendra
ofer hronrāde hȳran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs gōd cyning!"

Now this is certainly Germanic in origin, but is almost unrecognisable to us today (btw - it translates as)
"Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!"



While the following is Middle English from approx 14th
"Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages"

And is far more recognisable to us, and has massive French (and therefore Latin roots).


As more French and Latin influences entered the language and it developed into Early Modern English, it becomes even more recognisable.

Paradise Lost - Milton - 1667
" Of man's disobedience, and the fruit
of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful seat,
Sing, Heavenly Muse, that on the secret top
Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst ispire
That shepherd, who first taught the chosen seed,
In the beginning how the Heavens and Earth
Rose out of chaos: or if Sion hill
Delight thee more, and Siloa's brook that flowed
Fast by the oracle of God, I thence
Invoke thy aid to my adventures song,
That with no middle Flight intends to soar
Above the Aonian mount, whyle it pursues
Things unattempted yet in prose of rhyme."


So it would appear that while the roots of Old English are Germanic, the language we use today is more French/Latin influenced.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Diego440]

So it would appear that while the roots of Old English are Germanic, the language we use today is more French/Latin influenced.

You just couldn't stay within your Germanic roots and had to start stealing from the others...

 

[Kent]

I hate to be "that guy" but we need to stay on track here.
Please try to do so fellas. 👍

Also, on a final note...
The AUP and TOS state the rules clearly.
Learn to surf the GTP while respecting those rules and everything should be just fine- otherwise there will be problems.
Simple as that.

Finally, the changes in moderator actions with regards to the AUP/TOS over time is directly related to the number of members in this forum.
If we were a small community it would be different (as it was) but we are not and so the rules must be more strictly enforced.
Of course, that's just my take on it.

Any way, have fun with the continued discussion regarding the swear filter. 👍
Later.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I got your point - but it wasn't a very good one. You say that infractions don't work because people still do it, but you assume that it's the same people. And I'll repeat - all the people who DO get warnings for these things either stop or DO get banned.

You cannot see into the infraction log. I can.[/color][/b]

Clearly you didn't, because the original point was that many people who are not banned, repeat these infractions, even recently, without getting banned. What, for heaven's sake, do you mean "I assume it's the same people?" I can read their names, even if I can't spell 'em.

Well, I did ask you...

either later today or tomorrow, I will oblige.

Actually, you emphasised the "you", not the "can", in a post responding to mine, making me the subject.

The "you" was metaphorical, regarding anybody, including yourself, As you may realize now, I did have to quote your post, so that anybody reading would understand what I was responding to, on that, you can trust me. I've tried not quoting, when I wanted to reply in general, and everybody on this site gets lost.
---oooohhh somebody's not using a spell checker!

Actually, I said that since the inception of the infraction system, you can count on the fingers of one knee the number of reversed rulings - not overall.

This says that we've not had any disagreements about infractions in the last month or so. This site has been in existence for 5 years and there have been several discussions on perceived-wrong-calls in that time.

Same question, different statement.
If it's only been a month, what is so substantial about it???

Leaving that open goal aside for a moment, Latin is the prime root of the English language. The phrase "Quid custodiat ipsos custodes" is directly relevant to this discussion.

Do I speak Latin? I don't recall.....? Oh my, Latin is one form of root to English or another?!? (whistle) Does this mean I must learn all languages English was derived from?

Please try and read whole posts, rather than selected parts thereof:
Meaning? Where once the staff would let some things slide, they no longer do - the rules haven't changed, but how we treat offences against those particular rules has - and we warn people of this.

None of which changes the fact that your infraction was for "Abusive comments", which have never been tolerated in any measure.

I don't recall being warned of any differences in toleration, but if you say so, it must be true.

Speaking of grammar, being that I was warned of my oh-so-horrible grammar, could we not call it "receiving an infraction" It just bugs the..... crap out of me. Last I heard, an infraction was something you committed, not something you received, and given all the anger towards horrible grammar, and the obvious wishes for people to spell correctly, use capitol letters, etc., it seems only right that we use words correctly, including the word infraction, especially when we're going to complain about bad grammar the very next day.
(I don't know if this is a GTPlanet term, or not, but either way, it's a pretty simple word, and people should know what it means, and how to apply it.)

Sort of Michael Connely's view on police department's Internal Affairs: Who polices the police who police the police?

That would be giving internet forum member/moderators far to much credit. As is most all comparisons to police, since police put a whole hell of a lot more time, and effort into their jobs/careers, and in some instances, risk their lives, doing many things that an internet moderator does not do.
So whereas a policeman, has more credibility to begin with, they have people watching them, who have more credibility, and they do have another line, watching them, (IA), who have yet more credibility, and there's a reason for all of them. And of course, then there's the media.
Not to mention the fact that police are rarely directly involved in the cases they police. (i.e., a cop does not fraternize in a bar everyday, waiting for someone (possibly someone he doesn't like), and bust them for public drunkenness the minute they leave)

 

[kennythebomb]

Clearly you didn't, because the original point was that many people who are not banned, repeat these infractions, even recently, without getting banned. What, for heaven's sake, do you mean "I assume it's the same people?" I can read their names, even if I can't spell 'em.

Yes, we all know that many many members repeatedly 'get away' with swearing or asterisks. Why are we even debating this? You have a point, but it doesn't really matter... the mods are starting to crack down more and more, so less people will get away with it as time goes on.

Your other points are not helping your cause one bit. If I were you I'd give up, before you make enemies.

 

[G.T]

Speaking of grammar, being that I was warned of my oh-so-horrible grammar, could we not call it "receiving an infraction" It just bugs the..... crap out of me. Last I heard, an infraction was something you committed, not something you received, and given all the anger towards horrible grammar, and the obvious wishes for people to spell correctly, use capitol letters, etc., it seems only right that we use words correctly, including the word infraction, especially when we're going to complain about bad grammar the very next day.
(I don't know if this is a GTPlanet term, or not, but either way, it's a pretty simple word, and people should know what it means, and how to apply it.)

Whether you like it or not, it's a term you'll have to get used to as it's a part of vBulletin:

http://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/main/user_infractions

The User Infraction system is designed to automate the the management of misbehaving users.

Infractions carry a point total that is awarded to users. When a user reaches pre-determined point levels, the user is given infraction groups. Infraction groups are set up to restrict the permissions of users.

The system can also be configured to institute automatic bans based on points or number of infractions received.

And going onto the subject about the word "infraction" being mis-used - it isn't:

A violation of law not punishable by imprisonment. Minor traffic offenses generally are considered infractions.

Infraction as a general term means a violation of a rule or local ordinance, regulation, promise, obligation, or contract.

A minor offense which is typically punished by a fine, rather than a jail term.

Here, the top one says that you get infractions for minor traffic offenses. They build up, then eventually lead to or ban from being on the road or a jail sentence (or however it works in countries around the world). The rest of the examples are quite similar. Here at GTP, it is still similar - you break the AUP's rules, and you'll get an infraction, depending on how severe the violation was. Normally, if you get 3 infractions, you're faced with a permanent ban or a temporary one. I don't see how the word is being mis-used at all.

 

[Famine]

Clearly you didn't, because the original point was that many people who are not banned, repeat these infractions, even recently, without getting banned. What, for heaven's sake, do you mean "I assume it's the same people?" I can read their names, even if I can't spell 'em.

I've asked you to provide me with evidence of this...

either later today or tomorrow, I will oblige.

And so I wait with baited breath.

The "you" was metaphorical, regarding anybody, including yourself, As you may realize now, I did have to quote your post, so that anybody reading would understand what I was responding to, on that, you can trust me. I've tried not quoting, when I wanted to reply in general, and everybody on this site gets lost.

Ahhh, a metaphorical "you". Of course. Nevertheless, it was emphasised and the "can" was not, placing me as the subject and not the claim of paranoia.

---oooohhh somebody's not using a spell checker!

Quite a lot of people don't. Not sure what the relevance here is though.

Same question, different statement.
If it's only been a month, what is so substantial about it???

If what has only been a month?

Just to return to my statement, the possibility exists for a moderator's decision to be reversed. This has happened in the past, in part thanks to the ongoing discussions in that forum. However it has not yet happened in the period since the inception of the Infraction system - a period of only about a month.

Edit: In fact it has just happened, a couple of minutes ago.

Do I speak Latin? I don't recall.....? Oh my, Latin is one form of root to English or another?!? (whistle) Does this mean I must learn all languages English was derived from?

Well apropos of that, I'd suggest an ad hoc course in other languages, e.g. French and Latin et al. - if only patois, to make you au fait with them - with the caveat that they have a certain je ne sais quoi about them, so they may prove to be your bête noire...

I don't recall being warned of any differences in toleration, but if you say so, it must be true.

If your offence was bypassing the swear filter, you'd have received a warning first. Your offence was Abusive Comments, which have never been tolerated in any form here. And within that you did receive a verbal warning about your behaviour in relation to the swear filter:

Please take immediate steps to change the attitude, stop insulting people and stop trying to get around the swear filter, fail to do so and your time here at GT Planet is going to be very short.

Speaking of grammar, being that I was warned of my oh-so-horrible grammar, could we not call it "receiving an infraction" It just bugs the..... crap out of me. Last I heard, an infraction was something you committed, not something you received, and given all the anger towards horrible grammar, and the obvious wishes for people to spell correctly, use capitol letters, etc., it seems only right that we use words correctly, including the word infraction, especially when we're going to complain about bad grammar the very next day.
(I don't know if this is a GTPlanet term, or not, but either way, it's a pretty simple word, and people should know what it means, and how to apply it.)

Last I heard you can't receive a felony or misdemeanour either - only commit them - but Det. Sgt. John Bunnell (ret) perpetually refers to them as being given...

That would be giving internet forum member/moderators far to much credit. As is most all comparisons to police, since police put a whole hell of a lot more time, and effort into their jobs/careers, and in some instances, risk their lives, doing many things that an internet moderator does not do.
So whereas a policeman, has more credibility to begin with, they have people watching them, who have more credibility, and they do have another line, watching them, (IA), who have yet more credibility, and there's a reason for all of them. And of course, then there's the media.
Not to mention the fact that police are rarely directly involved in the cases they police. (i.e., a cop does not fraternize in a bar everyday, waiting for someone (possibly someone he doesn't like), and bust them for public drunkenness the minute they leave)

The original quote was about guards, not police. But we also have the other guards and the "media" (being the GTP public). Moderators often cite problems in the forum, allowing other moderators to take action rather than be seen as "involved" or anything but disinterested. So that accusation doesn't hold water either.

You seem desperate to get bogged down in semantics just so you don't have to see the point - and can keep claiming that Scaff has a vendetta against you.

Fact is you were cited for Abusive Comments. No moderator has disagreed with this, so your Infraction has not been overturned. Take it to Jordan - or deal with it.

 

[DuckRacer]

So, are we allowed to use acronyms that contain curse words, like "POS", "BS", "FFS", and "STFU" (not that I'd use the last one)? What about using the 🤬 smilie in place of curse words? Like for example...

"Windows is a big pile of 🤬."

Would that garner an infraction, when used in moderation (like for me, once in a thousand posts)?

 

[Famine]

So, are we allowed to use acronyms that contain curse words, like "POS", "BS", "FFS", and "STFU" (not that I'd use the last one)? What about using the 🤬 smilie in place of curse words? Like for example...

"Windows is a big pile of 🤬."

Would that garner an infraction, when used in moderation (like for me, once in a thousand posts)?

OMFG RTFM, d00d!

 

[Kylehnat]

This thread is still going? Sheesh! This is like when somebody spends $10,000 on lawyers and fees, just to sue someone for $500 .

It's really not hard to keep your posts from being littered with "big" swear words. You can say hell, crap, damn, and bitch. That's plenty to work with.

 

[DuckRacer]

OMFG RTFM, d00d!

But what about the second question?

 

[ExigeEvan]

But what about the second question?

Do you think it would be included in the smilies if Jordan didn't want it to be used?

 

[DuckRacer]

Do you think it would be included in the smilies if Jordan didn't want it to be used?

Well, he probably included it years ago, and years ago you could probably say a curse word and not get a warning/infraction, which isn't the case now.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

A violation of law not punishable by imprisonment. Minor traffic offenses generally are considered infractions.

where does that say that you can "receive" an infraction?
It says that you commit, an infraction, not receive.
It tells you what an infraction is, which is breaking a predetermined set of rules, so please verify, how exactly do you "receive breaking rules"? Or, "receive a violation of the law", by violating it yourself?

Again, you can receive notice of an infraction, receive a citation, receive jail time, you can receive many forms of punishment for committing an infraction, but you cannot receive one, unless you can "receive a crime".

So, are we allowed to use acronyms that contain curse words, like "POS", "BS", "FFS", and "STFU" (not that I'd use the last one)? What about using the smile in place of curse words? Like for example...

"Windows is a big pile of ."

Would that garner an infraction, when used in moderation (like for me, once in a thousand posts)?

I can't see why anybody would care about *'d-out words, or the "censored" smile, but I can see the acronyms being more of a problem. But then, the problem isn't supposed to be the content, rather, the lack of content in swear words, apparently, some people consider swearing to be "unintelligent".

I've asked you to provide me with evidence of this...
And so I wait with baited breath.

I hope your "baited breath" is waiting for me to say that searching for any words that get filtered, or searching for *'s returns zero results. Let's hope your not thinking that means it never happens.

Ahhh, a metaphorical "you". Of course. Nevertheless, it was emphasised and the "can" was not, placing me as the subject and not the claim of paranoia.

But Famine, if I "emphasised" the can, and not the you, it would have implied that I didn't think you would.

If what has only been a month?

Just to return to my statement, the possibility exists for a moderator's decision to be reversed. This has happened in the past, in part thanks to the ongoing discussions in that forum. However it has not yet happened in the period since the inception of the Infraction system - a period of only about a month.

Edit: In fact it has just happened, a couple of minutes ago.

Say hello to attention spans!
Now, you said you could count the number of overturned infractions since this inception on one knee. Implying significance. But now as you mention, it's only been around for a month, and therefore means jack-diddly. Yet later, you inform us that there has now been a ruling overturned.
So I ask you again, why did you inform us that there have been no rulings overturned, when it carried no weight?

Well apropos of that, I'd suggest an ad hoc course in other languages, e.g. French and Latin et al. - if only patois, to make you au fait with them - with the caveat that they have a certain je ne sais quoi about them, so they may prove to be your bête noire...

So you congratulate me, and suggest a brief, or easy course in these languages, if only a little, to make me familiar with them, and they have a certain elegance about them, so they may prove to be my....something.
Am I close?

If your offence was bypassing the swear filter, you'd have received a warning first. Your offence was Abusive Comments, which have never been tolerated in any form here. And within that you did receive a verbal warning about your behaviour in relation to the swear filter:

No, the verbal warning was for "bypassing" the swear filter, not my "behaviour" regarding it. And yet, I never bypassed it. I fully allowed it to do it's job.

Last I heard you can't receive a felony or misdemeanour either - only commit them - but Det. Sgt. John Bunnell (ret) perpetually refers to them as being given...

Then we're agreed, unless you think this detective saying it makes it right, or not stoopit.
Though you could receive a "misdemeanour" penalty, instead of a felony.

The original quote was about guards, not police. But we also have the other guards and the "media" (being the GTP public). Moderators often cite problems in the forum, allowing other moderators to take action rather than be seen as "involved" or anything but disinterested. So that accusation doesn't hold water either.

All I saw was police. Nothing about guards.
If I get you right, you're saying that moderators involve other moderators, when they are involved in the discussion in question?
That's been my question from day 1. If Scaff, as you say, was not getting revenge, why didn't he have another moderator issue the warning? And why did he suddenly have 3 complaints at once? I know my grammar didn't change from before then to after, and I never bypassed any filter, and I believe the one mighty * word I used is partially what made this comment so "over the top offensive".

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm begining to wonder why this continues to be a problem when it is plainly obvious that it is easier to just follow the rules instead of treading on thin ice and waiting to see if rules can be broken.

The easy way around all of this:

Faghetaboudit, and follow the rules!

 

[Scaff]

That's been my question from day 1. If Scaff, as you say, was not getting revenge, why didn't he have another moderator issue the warning? And why did he suddenly have 3 complaints at once? I know my grammar didn't change from before then to after, and I never bypassed any filter, and I believe the one mighty * word I used is partially what made this comment so "over the top offensive".

May I answer, after all you seem to be insistent in attempting to hang me out to dry in public.


LeadSlead#2's Question 1 - If Scaff, as you say, was not getting revenge, why didn't he have another moderator issue the warning?

Scaff's Answer - If I wanted 'revenge' I would have simply banned you point blank, the AUP and TOS give the mandate needed to do this. If I had 'revenge' in mind then a few spelling/grammatically errors and you would have racked up enough points for an automatic ban. Quite clearly I did not do this.

As to why I did not get another mod to do this. I have the option to do this, it is not required, I have also opened every part of my action up to admin review, something you were reluctant to do.

I would however ask you a question in return, what am I after 'revenge' for?



LeadSLead#2's Question 2 - And why did he suddenly have 3 complaints at once?

Scaff's Answer - This I quite clearly covered with the original Infraction PM

You're attitude and comments in a number of threads has now reached a point that is far beyond being acceptable in any way.

Simply stumbling into a thread and not bothering to even try and understand the background to it (as you clearly failed to do here) is not acceptable. This is also the second time you have used substance abuse as an insult to either a group of members or specific members.

Please take immediate steps to change the attitude, stop insulting people and stop trying to get around the swear filter, fail to do so and your time here at GT Planet is going to be very short.

Now this does not cite a sole incident, but rather a pattern of behaviour, hence the reason it clearly states that it covers a 'number of threads' and 'second time'.

You also received one set of 'infraction points' for these three areas, had I wanted 'revenge' I could have issue these separately and you would have racked up 30 points and an automatic ban.



LeadSlead#2's Question 3 - I know my grammar didn't change from before then to after

Scaff's Answer - I would argue that your grammar and spelling have both improved since, however I would also point out that I did not issue any points for spelling and/or grammar. I mentioned it in my third PM to you, I used the word please and even suggested a tool to help out.

In closing can you please also make use of a spell check tool of some kind (Google tool bar now includes one) as quite frankly your posts and PMs are appalling in terms of spelling and grammar, a subject that is also addressed by the AUP.

No points, so no 'infraction' or 'warning' of any kind, simply a request to improve you spelling and grammar as out lined by the AUP (and TOS). To be honest its the kind of request that the entire staff make to numerous members on a daily basis, and to my knowledge you are the only one to react in this manner.



LeadSlead#2's Question 4 - and I never bypassed any filter, and I believe the one mighty * word I used is partially what made this comment so "over the top offensive

Scaff's Answer - You are arguing semantics here, the AUP and in a specific post (that has already been linked) Jordan has asked members to avoid the use of offensive terms, common sense would indicate that if the swear filter edits a word then its probably best not to use it. Is it really so hard to do this?

The second part of your question I have already addressed, you were not given points for a single post, but for a series of posts, as per my answer to question 2.

In regard to the point on a single AUP violation, the points were not issued for that alone, as I have quite clearly and consistently said, however I have issued warning and infraction points for such violations in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

You seem to want to label me as having some kind of special relationship to you in regard to a vendetta or revenge attacks, yet it is you that is making such a major issue of this.

Do you think you are the only person I have ever issued points to after having disagreed with them at some stage? No, you certainly are not.

Almost every single member who receives infraction points or a warning simply accepts the issue and moves on, those that do not believe they should have been issued (or a PM sent prior to the current system) followed the AUP guidelines on this and complain to the Admin staff and/or Jordan.

You did not want to do this, indeed I had to complain about myself for you (and I did ask the Admin staff and Jordan), rather you started a public thread about the issue. An action that I believe has not helped you in any way at all.

Regards

Scaff