Swear Filter

[Wolfe]

- The swear filter exists for a reason, and will only be amended when Jordan decides that it should be.
- Anyone who displays a pattern of posting that does not follow the AUP is disciplined for it in some way or another. Anyone.
- Scaff is not the type of person to hold a "grudge" or "vendetta" against anyone. In fact, I believe he is one of the most knowledgable, helpful, and friendliest members of GTP, and the fact that LeadSlead#2 has spent 5 pages trying to prove the opposite is simply unbelievable.
- Arguing about semantics is rather pointless. Arguing with forum moderators about semantics in the context of the AUP's rules, which every single one of us agreed to in registering, is very pointless.
- Why in the world is this thread still going?

 

[Famine]

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.

It means that I originally stated that your comments about repeat offenders not being punished would only hold weight if you could clearly demonstrate occurrences of repeat offenders who have not been punished.

As of yet you have not managed this, and so I am still waiting.

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

The what where who?

Your emphasis made ME the subject and not THE CLAIM. "As much as YOU can laughingly call it paranoia" not "As much as you CAN laughingly call it paranoia".

The difference in emphases is that one requires me to have made such a statement, and the other only requires that there is the possibility of me making such a statement in the future. In the real world, this is the difference between "fair comment" and "libel" - though this is the internet and not the real world. Little lesson for you to take away from this otherwise unproductive thread.

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?

The period of time is only relevant in that it is the period of time for which the Infraction system has been with us. Prior to that, moderators could make decisions which wouldn't necessarily be noticed, good OR bad, though it was good practice to post the information in the ModLog. Since the Infraction system, no moderator's decision is transparent as they are all automatically logged in the ModLog. This means that bad decisions can be spotted almost instantly by any other online moderator.

The significance of this is that since the introduction of a completely transparent moderation system, no moderator's decision has been shown to be a wrong one, despite all of the staff being able to view any decision at the moment it is made, until yesterday when a warning was issued aberrantly and reversed within a quarter-hour. Why is this significant? Because it renders it impossible for any moderator to exercise a vendetta against any member, as all of their decisions are open for every other moderator to see. If the rest of the staff thought Scaff's actions were not appropriate your infraction would have been reversed before you even knew you'd received it.

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?

No, but it's a nice try. It's a quick demonstration that you already use quite a fair amount of French and Latin in your daily life without really knowing it, and the phrase I quoted, from Juvenal, is quite a common one (though not as common as e.g., i.e., etc. and cannabis).

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.

Yes - you received a verbal warning telling you that your actions with regards to swearing were not acceptable. A verbal warning...

I don't recall being warned of any differences in toleration

And there you have it. You received that verbal warning in the PM which informed you of your Infraction for Abusive Comments.

Then we're agreed, unless you think this detective saying it makes it right, or not stoopit.

He's your guy - you export him to the rest of the world on any programme the US makes involving real car chases.

All I saw was police. Nothing about guards.

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

Quid custodiet ipsos custodes - Who will guard the guards themselves?

If I get you right, you're saying that moderators involve other moderators, when they are involved in the discussion in question?

Nope. I'm saying that the moderators moderate each other also.

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?

Because he isn't compelled to. Since we all moderate each other as well as the other members, there is absolutely no need for a disinterested party to act.

I know my grammar didn't change from before then to after

You were not issued with Infraction Points for your grammar.

and I never bypassed any filter

You were not issued with Infraction Points for Obscene Comments.

and I believe the one mighty * word I used is partially what made this comment so "over the top offensive".

That is your belief - though it can be easily shown to be unfounded by simply reading the PM containing your notification:

attitude and comments in a number of threads

the second time you have used substance abuse as an insult to either a group of members or specific members.

change the attitude, stop insulting people

A very clear demonstration that just one use of asterisks is not the reason behind your reprimand - but rather a prolonged pattern of behaviour involving repeated abuse of other members, which has never been acceptable at GTP.

 

[ledhed]

This isn't fun anymore...you guys are getting all seriouse and poop ...it sucks !

just drop it for crimminy cleese and spam's sake ..its not like world hunger or if Bin Laden died or anything. In fact I ispo facto forgot what the poopy it was about to begin with .
Your damaging my joie de vivre and my dim sum is cold .

 

[Swift]

Yeah, getting old. Leadslead, were you banned? No? Then just stop all the whining man. You've put forth your grievance, both Scaff and Famine have givien you good reason for what happened. Now you can let it go.

Sheesh...

 

[Duke]

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?

He didn't have another moderator issue the warning because it wasn't necessary. It wasn't necessary because Scaff, from Day 1, had already requested that the other moderators review the situation and see if he was acting appropriately.

We did review the threads in question - in many of which several of us had already participated - and we found nothing wrong with Scaff's professional conduct whatsoever. So why should I relieve him of his duties in this case? He was handling the situation well, and thoroughly. There was no need to step in and replace Scaff, potentially undermining his credibility with all users - his credibility with you personally is already shot; replacing him would not have improved your outlook on the situation.

Again - Scaff himself requested peer review of his behaviour. We reviewed it and found it very professional, and saw no reason to correct his actions.

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".

You keep hanging your hat on this particular issue, and frankly, it's become your smokescreen at this point. The infraction was for poor attitude, which you have consistently displayed from time to time throughout your tenure here. You insist on ignoring the many times this has been explained to you, in this thread and elsewhere. Truthfully I see little point in repeating the excercise further, since you're likely to continue ignoring it. That's your choice, but that doesn't make the issue disappear.

I'm not sure why you are insisting on prolonging this discussion. Several members of the staff have weighed in, we've all explained precisely the same viewpoint in our own words, and for some reason you're still not accepting it. Continuing to be stubborn is not going to change our stance on this matter, so either move on with your life here or move on to a different forum.

 

[Negronomicon]

If someone sucks at spelling, and they can't help it, are they still doomed?

Because it seems there are nitpickers and then those who ignore posts filled with nonsense.

Edit:

Random thought: With all the concerns raised, and all the questioning, inquiry, and debate stirred, wouldn't one think that you (the community staff) are becomming a bit short on your policies? It seems to me the attitude of perfect grammar, spelling, attitude, and language is a bit detrimental to a "calm and fun" atmosphere.

Edit 2:

Oh, and they call you Nazis. But you didn't hear that from me.

 

[OZZYGT]

The thing is...a little bit of tolerance can result in chaos...specially in this forum.




Ciao!

 

[kennythebomb]

If someone sucks at spelling, and they can't help it, are they still doomed?

Use a spell-check then. Constant errant misspelling is plain ignorance when there are tools to combat it. No one minds when a few words here and there are typos... but don't become a typo-er instead of a typist.

Because it seems there are nitpickers and then those who ignore posts filled with nonsense.

Yes, and moderators pm those users and ask them to stop their nonsensical posts, also.

Random thought: With all the concerns raised, and all the questioning, inquiry, and debate stirred, wouldn't one think that you (the community staff) are becomming a bit short on your policies? It seems to me the attitude of perfect grammar, spelling, attitude, and language is a bit detrimental to a "calm and fun" atmosphere.

Jordan is looking for a more professional feel to the forums than is usually expected by forums consisting of mainly people under 25. We can be calm and fun while keeping a set of grammar rules. Relaxing the grammar rules would make the forums less fun.. because then you have to sift through indecipherable posts. GTP isn't expecting perfection, but they do expect a solid effort.

Oh, and they call you Nazis. But you didn't hear that from me.

I used the word Nazi in reference to what you are talking about earlier in this thread. However, I stated that the mod squad here isn't a bunch of Nazis out to get you... they will work with you if you have disabilities

 

[Negronomicon]

Use a spell-check then. Constant errant misspelling is plain ignorance when there are tools to combat it. No one minds when a few words here and there are typos... but don't become a typo-er instead of a typist.

But spellchecks are impractical for quick-replies, and if your spelling error is bad enough, then the checker either won't catch it.

Yes, and moderators pm those users and ask them to stop their nonsensical posts, also.

I would hope so, if the user was doing it on purpose.

Jordan is looking for a more professional feel to the forums than is usually expected by forums consisting of mainly people under 25. We can be calm and fun while keeping a set of grammar rules. Relaxing the grammar rules would make the forums less fun.. because then you have to sift through indecipherable posts. GTP isn't expecting perfection, but they do expect a solid effort.

But wouldn't you agree that there should also be a certain level of tolerance to people who are just inherently poor spellers? I have friend who consistently gets 90's in all of his classes, but can't tie his shoes or make his dinner.

Some people have avante-garde or remarkable opinions and are unable to convey them clearly-- should they be reprimanded for that?

Conversely, should someone be reprimanded for spelling with excellence, but having the mental integrity of a sow?

I used the word Nazi in reference to what you are talking about earlier in this thread. However, I stated that the mod squad here isn't a bunch of Nazis out to get you... they will work with you if you have disabilities

I didn't know you said Nazi.

I was referring to members' impressions of here (Post-convo-forum-Era), voiced on other forums or IM'd.

 

[kennythebomb]

But spellchecks are impractical for quick-replies, and if your spelling error is bad enough, then the checker either won't catch it.

Ironically, I didn't know if 'misspell' had a dash or not. A quick search in google revealed the answer. This is what I do when I am unsure... and it is quick!

I guess it comes down to respect and how you want to be viewed by others.

If you don't have the time to devote to making your posts as good as you can, then why even bother?

But wouldn't you agree that there should also be a certain level of tolerance to people who are just inherently poor spellers? I have friend who consistently gets 90's in all of his classes, but can't tie his shoes or make his dinner.

Yes, and like I said earlier if a user notifies the staff that they have a disability that affects their ability to spell, you won't receive infractions.

Is your friend Einstein? Apparently he couldn't tie his shoes, or something along those lines.

Just be sure you send in a note signed by your doctor and mother

Some people have avante-garde or remarkable opinions and are unable to convey them clearly-- should they be reprimanded for that?

Conversely, should someone be reprimanded for spelling with excellence, but having the mental integrity of a sow?

How does having an avant-garde opinion translate to being unable to effectively convey a thought?

If someone with a less-than-stellar IQ manages to post with the degree of spelling as most of the long-term members here do, than they should be rewarded with a pat on the back.

Mental integrity? Do you mean being unable to back up their thoughts and making illogical claims? Well in that case, users will eat them up and spit them out for lunch. They will be humbled and will learn how to back up their opinions.

 

[Negronomicon]

How does having an avant-garde opinion translate to being unable to effectively convey a thought?

If someone with a less-than-stellar IQ manages to post with the degree of spelling as most of the long-term members here do, than they should be rewarded with a pat on the back.

Mental integrity? Do you mean being unable to back up their thoughts and making illogical claims? Well in that case, users will eat them up and spit them out for lunch. They will be humbled and will learn how to back up their opinions.

Nonono, I mean some people have great ideas. But what if someone had great ideas, and was unable to spell them out--not because of mental innacuity, but because it's just not one of their strengths-- should they be reprimanded until their banned, despite possibly offering the most englightening information yet?


You can take the antithesis of that as well: If someone spells well with ease, but speaks nonsense, should they be let off because their form is greater than their function?

 

[kennythebomb]

Nonono, I mean some people have great ideas. But what if someone had great ideas, and was unable to spell them out--not because of mental innacuity, but because it's just not one of their strengths-- should they be reprimanded until their banned, despite possibly offering the most englightening information yet?

It all boils down to time spent on a post.

If someone has less than average mental faculties, they just need to spend longer on getting their posts right. If you are trying to express a new form of thought, you should take extra precaution to make sure people can understand your ramblings.

It's an acquired skill for sure... but in my own posting here on GTP people rarely get my meaning wrong. Sometimes they don't catch the sarcasm... but once you practice at it, you will nautrally learn how to formulate your ideas in a logical pattern.

Some people never learn it, and that's okay... as long as they make an effort and take the time to separate their thoughts; no one will bitch about it.

You can take the antithesis of that as well: If someone spells well with ease, but speaks nonsense, should they be let off because their form is greater than their function?

Absolutely not.

Members that consistently post dribble are handled in much the same way. Everybody seemed to have problems reading the scribbles of Master_Yoda, so he was warned numerous times of his poor posting. I know he at least got an infraction, maybe even a temporary ban.. I think it's in the Banned User Log.

Edit: His spelling was awful, too... but you get the idea.

Edit 2: I see you are the newest member of GTP. Welcome and enjoy your stay

 

[daan]

Oh, and they call you Nazis. But you didn't hear that from me.

I'm sure you do, PS.

Welcome and enjoy your stay

He won't.

 

[Der Alta]

You can take the antithesis of that as well: If someone spells well with ease, but speaks nonsense, should they be let off because their form is greater than their function?

No, and you've proven that to great effect.

 

[Duke]

Oh, and they call you Nazis. But you didn't hear that from me.

I was referring to members' impressions of here (Post-convo-forum-Era), voiced on other forums or IM'd.

Frankly, this 'Nazi' impression comes from your little group of friends, who largely have already been banned from GTP for failing to follow the rules or be constructive members. So I think I'm speaking for the entire staff when I say we're not overly concerned how they feel about us.

You raise a somewhat reasonable question, though I think you're pressing the case to the extreme in an effort to annoy us (not unlike your continual re-registering, which so far has only bored us and singularly failed to annoy).

Stupid, pointless posts made with perfect grammar will garner a warning or infraction as appropriate. Conversely, intelligent and constructive posts made by someone using English as a second language will be given consideration.

In truth, highly intelligent posts are not likely to be made by someone who is not doing his best to communicate his thoughts clearly. The odds of finding a brilliant message concealed in a post full of la-Z txt msg speak are vanishingly small.

 

[wfooshee]

How about amending the AUP with something about arguing with moderators in public? A public response to a moderator's PM ought to be grounds.

People need to understand that this is not a public facility. It is privately owned, and the person who owns it has specified a set of rules he would like to see followed, and has designated a set of trusted colleagues to handle such action as may be needed to encourage compliance with those rules. The rules help build a more professional, respectable image which makes the facility more acceptable to a wider range of users. This is not a flame-war facility, or a place for (if I may be permitted to generalize) pimply-faced geeks to share their haxor l33tne55.

 

[kennythebomb]

How about amending the AUP with something about arguing with moderators in public? A public response to a moderator's PM ought to be grounds.

People need to understand that this is not a public facility. It is privately owned, and the person who owns it has specified a set of rules he would like to see followed, and has designated a set of trusted colleagues to handle such action as may be needed to encourage compliance with those rules. The rules help build a more professional, respectable image which makes the facility more acceptable to a wider range of users. This is not a flame-war facility, or a place for (if I may be permitted to generalize) pimply-faced geeks to share their haxor l33tne55.

LeadSlead's conduct in this thread has been for the most part decent... he used respect in my opinion in dealing with the moderator staff. He didn't throw a screaming fit and tell off Scaff... instead he put it into public view, in my opinion; to get everyone's opinion on the injustice he thought was being served to him.

I would agree with you *if* he had started off with a personal attack.

However, putting into public view actions by staff that you perceive is wrong.. it's best to do it in private but I wouldn't expect it to be too disrespectful.

Did LeadSlead start a flame-war as you seem to suggest? Absolutely not.

 

[Diego440]

er... yeah. So you're allowed to freely jump around the forum, but if issued a warning by a moderator, don't even think of questioning it in public.

I don't think that's realistic.

The preferred questioning of rules is through a private message, but if you feel the topic is questionable and many people can a) learn from it, b) contribute to it, or c) discuss different opinions on it, especially when it's such a gray area as to which words are right and which are not, then by all means, open a thread about it.

This doesn't mean you're to open a thread about everything mentioned in the AUP or a thread dedicated to the reasons why porn should be allowed on the forums, but a bit of common sense is also in order.

 

[Swift]

er... yeah. So you're allowed to freely jump around the forum, but if issued a warning by a moderator, don't even think of questioning it in public.

I don't think that's realistic.

I agree. Politely questioning what happened isn't a problem. It's when you're given evidence and reasons over and over but still seem to reject them. That's a problem and that's what has happened with Leadsled in this thread.

Famine and Scaff have put in what needed to be put in and that should've been the end of it pages ago. But we're still going on just because Leadsled doesn't like the reasoning. Well, sorry, but that's not the point. When I wasn't a mod, I didn't "like" everything the mods did. However I understood that there was a higher purpose then me just liking everything. They were trying to keep order in a very large online community. When you're doing that, it's impossible for everyone to like you.

So, in closing. Question a gray area is perfectly fine. But when presented with evidence and reasoning don't continue to argue just because you don't "like" the outcome.

 

[Diego440]

I think the question of the thread (leadslead's question) has been answered countless time by Scaff, Famine, Duke and yourself (on the Mod's side, sorry if I missed anyone) and by many other fellow non-Moderating users.

Since then it's become a thread to "question" the swear filter. However, it doesn't seem questionable since the filter er... filters not only swear words but also generally not acceptable ones, such as the N word.

 

[kennythebomb]

Since then it's become a thread to "question" the swear filter. However, it doesn't seem questionable since the filter er... filters not only swear words but also generally not acceptable ones, such as the N word.

Actually, the thread evolved to cover other areas of breaking the AUP. Two worried members posed questions to see if an inability to spell would incur an infraction, and more debate about the need for grammatical excellence ensued.

 

[Diego440]

Yeah, but the thread's topic was covered and resoluted, me thinks.

 

[FormulaGT]

Yeah, but the thread's topic was covered and resoluted, me thinks.

No need to worry about whether the thread should be locked or not; if it was/is thought necessary to close this thread, then the relative staff would have(or will do) done so (or do so). This thread, despite the atmosphere, may prove more useful for members with queries on the issue(s) discussed if it remains open .

FormulaGT

 

[kennythebomb]

No need to worry about whether the thread should be locked or not; if it was/is thought necessary to close this thread, then the relative staff would have(or will do) done so (or do so). This thread, despite the atmosphere, may prove more useful for members with queries on the issue(s) discussed if it remains open .

FormulaGT

I agree. I have found it very useful, despite LeadSlead's semantic antics....

 

[wfooshee]

I agree. Politely questioning what happened isn't a problem. It's when you're given evidence and reasons over and over but still seem to reject them. That's a problem and that's what has happened with Leadsled in this thread.

Famine and Scaff have put in what needed to be put in and that should've been the end of it pages ago. But we're still going on just because Leadsled doesn't like the reasoning. Well, sorry, but that's not the point. When I wasn't a mod, I didn't "like" everything the mods did. However I understood that there was a higher purpose then me just liking everything. They were trying to keep order in a very large online community. When you're doing that, it's impossible for everyone to like you.

So, in closing. Question a gray area is perfectly fine. But when presented with evidence and reasoning don't continue to argue just because you don't "like" the outcome.

This is what I was trying to say. I have no problem with Post #1 specifically. If he wasn't real sure, even after the PM exchange, maybe he just needed to see what everybody else thought. I believe it began to degenerate from there, and not just from the original poster. It did become a bit like having to listen to the neighbors airing their dirty laundry, or a teenager howling "but it's not fair!!!!!"

In further considering my idea that the AUP needs to mention something about grievances with the moderators, and keeping it private, I see that it's very clear about what can be done by moderators and in what instances, but has no reference to how to handle something a user believes is unfair or unclear. Perhaps that process is outlined in the PMs involved in warning, making a stated AUP policy unnecessary. (Never having had such a warning, I wouldn't know. . . .)


I would like to add that for a set of forums available to pretty much anyone that has a connection, this board is the best-behaved and most well-regulated community I can think of.

 

[Scaff]

This is what I was trying to say. I have no problem with Post #1 specifically. If he wasn't real sure, even after the PM exchange, maybe he just needed to see what everybody else thought. I believe it began to degenerate from there, and not just from the original poster. It did become a bit like having to listen to the neighbors airing their dirty laundry, or a teenager howling "but it's not fair!!!!!"

In further considering my idea that the AUP needs to mention something about grievances with the moderators, and keeping it private, I see that it's very clear about what can be done by moderators and in what instances, but has no reference to how to handle something a user believes is unfair or unclear. Perhaps that process is outlined in the PMs involved in warning, making a stated AUP policy unnecessary. (Never having had such a warning, I wouldn't know. . . .)


I would like to add that for a set of forums available to pretty much anyone that has a connection, this board is the best-behaved and most well-regulated community I can think of.

Issues regarding a disagreement with any member or action on the board are outlined in the TOS...

Any concerns or complaints a member(s) has about the board can be sent to me (Jordan), by either email or Private Message.

....however that is not exactly relevant here as I had, by PM, already advised LeadSlead#2 on what to do if he wished to complain about the infraction points that were issued. He was informed twice by PM that he could contact the Admin team or Jordan should he wish to raise this as an issue, and he took the decision to post it as a public thread without doing so, he was also advised a number of times in this very thread of that option and again declined to do so.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Wolfe]

He was informed twice by PM that he could contact the Admin team or Jordan should he wish to raise this as an issue, and he took the decision to post it as a public thread without doing so, he was also advised a number of times in this very thread of that option and again declined to do so.

...and I have no idea why he didn't go for that option. After 6 pages, he's gotten nowhere, except for perhaps making himself less popular, and giving other GTP members a chance to read "clarified," detailed descriptions of several facets of the board's TOS/AUP, straight from the staff themselves.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

out of sheer curiosity, what did negronomican get banned for?

 

[daan]

For being PS.