MS Update for Week Ending 6/25/03

I understand that.

But are you telling me that when it comes to the crunch you would ban someone for posting "WTF"?

Because that is utterly ridiculous.

 

DA, I believe those posters were spanked back then.

 

I don't think people who post that should be banned or even spanked. Just edit the post and move on. Eventually the users will get the point.

 

Spike: The point is clear. Why replace something that may offend a few people with something that may offend a few people? Why say "This might offend parents, don't say it" with "This might offend Christians but feel free to say it instead".


Well see that shouldn't be the reasoning behind deciding to ban a word or phrase. It shouldn't be "this word offends some people" it should just be, "this word is vulgar and we don't want it here". But I get your point.

 

No I'm not telling you that. I've never banned for people posting 'wtf'. I just go in and edit the post and make a comment to please use "wth" instead.

 

So if there were no bans being handed out for it, maybe people should ignore the silly rule and post it anyway? ?

There'd be bans for it soon enough after that

 

Uh, why on earth would someone use the term "wth" when spelling out "what the hell" is perfectly within the board rules?

The wtf abbreviation is by itself a form of censorship. So we're in effect censoring censorship.

How perverse...

 

DA...
Bans are not the only recourse for someone breaking the rules.

If someone posts inappropriate content, they can be made aware that the content is inappropriate. If they continue to post inappropriate content even after becoming educated that their behavior is against the rules, then the reasonable thing for them to do is be given time away to read and understand the rules better.

Very few people have been banned for posting "***" without completely blocking out all of the letters. It's pretty much a non-issue for the forum at-large as well as the moderating of the forums.

It only becomes an issue when people actively and willfully refuse to follow the rules. And when dealing with such people, bans are certainly a (the) reasonable action to take.

User experience with the forum, context, frequency and severity of the inappropriate content (among some examples) all play into whether or not a user may be banned for something or merely just warned.

But it's a little misleading and disingenuous to say "It's ridiculous to ban people for saying ***!"

This thread alone is proof enough that not everyone who posts something considered to be profanity by the administration will be banned for posting profanity. The moderating of profanity is really a non-issue for pretty much the entire forums as well as the entire administration.

It's pretty clear when people need to be banned for posting profanity and when profanity merely may need an edit.

 

So if people ignore the "WTF" rule they'll be banned for ignoring the administration and not for posting the censored material? ?

 

If people are choosing to post in opposition to the rules of this site, then certainly banning would be an option.

That's not anything new or crazy there.

And, you're also forgetting that banning is not the only recourse the administration has.

And finally, your points, "So if people ignore the "WTF" rule they'll be banned for ignoring the administration and not for posting the censored material?" are mutually exclusive of one another. It is very possible that someone (who has posted profanity) who ignores warnings will be banned for both ignoring the administration AND for posting censored material. Your example is not an either/or situation. And most likely anyone being banned for ignoring warnings against posting of profanity and posting profanity will be banned not only for posting profanity but also for not heeding the warnings against such behavior.

 

To throw a wet blanket on this little 'wtf' discussion.....

'wtf' is one of those words that can go either way. There are reasons for allowing it and for not allowing it.

Because its such a minor issue, because there are good reasons for and against, I think it'll simply be one of those words that will be edited if seen, but no further action will be taken.

No thoughts of bans or warnings. I highly doubt that it'll be policed in such a manner as to make people quake in their e-boots if they post it.

Banning is always an option for when people break the rules. Banning will rarely even be considered for such a minor offence as posting three crappy little letters. Thats like jailing a person for dropping litter on the pavement.

 

So on the left we have Dagsy and jp saying people probably won't be banned for something as minor as "WTF" but on the right we have Genghis saying yes, people will be banned for posting "WTF".

Now I know that this was discussed in MS (not that I remember the proceedings because in my mind this seemingly arbitrary rule layed down by the minority owner of the site is beyond moderation and consideration at all) but does the administration as a group have a clear line on this yet? You guys are still in the habit of announcing things to the public after the discussion has ceased and a clear outcome is reached, right?

 

In other news, Dagsy's new colors blind me.

 

my eyes !!!

 

DA...
"So on the left we have Dagsy and jp saying people probably won't be banned for something as minor as 'WTF' but on the right we have Genghis saying yes, people will be banned for posting 'WTF.'"

Ummm, no. I suggest you reread what Dagsy, jp and I posted again.

 

jp:30: I've never banned for people posting 'wtf'. I just go in and edit the post and make a comment to please use "wth" instead.

Darth_Dagsy: Banning will rarely even be considered for such a minor offence as posting three crappy little letters.

Genghis12: If people are choosing to post in opposition to the rules of this site, then certainly banning would be an option.

Sorry Genghis, I just get cranky and irritable when I'm confused

 

but does the administration as a group have a clear line on this yet?

Yes. 'wtf' is against the rules.

But not everyone will react to an offence in the same way. Especially one as minor as 'wtf'. I'd hazard a guess to say that almost everyone would just edit if they came across it, and no more.

When Genghis is talking ban, its likely for hardcore use (and abuse) from people that simply wont stop. Posting if occasionally here and there is a different sort of situation to someone posting hardcore.

 

No problem, DA. I'm always here to help.

You said...
"So on the left we have Dagsy and jp saying people probably won't be banned for something as minor as...but on the right we have Genghis saying yes, people will be banned for posting 'WTF.'"

It's not confusing at all. jp, Dagsy and I said essentially the same thing.

Everyone is in complete agreement that the posting of profanity is against the rules, and that the posting of profanity can incur administrative action.

One possible actions, out of many is bannings. It is not the only one available, nor is it the only one used.

 

OK, in your personal opinion Genghis, is "WTF" profanity?
Take off your mod hat and colours and give us a personal opinion. Would you have trouble banning someone for posting it?

Another question: why the change in heart on what does and doesn't constitute profanity? There was a comprehensive "swear word" list hammered out by MS not 3 months ago. Why wasn't "WTF" and all other potentially offensive derivatives added to the list at the time? ?

 

"OK, in your personal opinion Genghis, is 'WTF' profanity?"

No.

"Take off your mod hat and colours and give us a personal opinion. Would you have trouble banning someone for posting it?"

Nope. If it had to be done, then I would do it without reservation just as I do all of my perhaps unfavorable duties that I am forced to perform as being part of the administration.

"Another question: why the change in heart on what does and doesn't constitute profanity? There was a comprehensive "swear word" list hammered out by MS not 3 months ago. Why wasn't "WTF" and all other potentially offensive derivatives added to the list at the time?"

It was. It was certainly included in the Marking Out Swear Words Comms thread from March. I will highlight the key parts:"The following words, combinations of words, abbreviations of words or phrases are definitely off-limits..." (3/5)

This is not anything new. There was an entire 16-page Comms discussion involved on this matter, back in Feb. to March. It came about because back in February, Josh reviewed the whole "***" abbreviation issue and determined that the administration wanted it to be completely editted out.

If you're confused about any of this, I'd suggest reading that "Marking Out Swear Words" thread I linked you to in its entirety. It should help clear up any confusion about all of this.

 

There are threads on this issue EVERY year, at least every 4 months or so, once the thread has sunk far back enough for no one to remember.

 

More to the point: why the big push to enforce it now?

I don't think you're alone amongst the administration when you say that you don't consider the term profanity Genghis. If this is a common feeling and many mods as well as users disagree with this, is the minority owner made aware? Is he aware that his little rules like this and slash and various other occasional edicts are strangling these board with ridiculous red tape? ?

 

It was never a rush to enforce; it's always been there to enforce..... always was to have been enforced, is what I've heard.

 

DA...
There hasn't been any big push. Quite the opposite, in fact. This current discussion (this "thing" you would call a big Modsquad push to strangle the forums) originated out of a lack of enforcement of the abbreviation policy, actually.

AssassinDroid questioned whether or not the established rule against "***" had somehow been lifted. He was told it had not and then he asked for a discussion on what current mods felt about it.

Which has gotten us here.

So, in fact, we got here because of the administration's "big push" (AmazingB's decision not to edit it in a JCC thread) to not enforce the rule (with his reason given) in one specific situation. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't, it seems.

Trippy, huh. Funny how things get turned all around, though.

 

Er, yeah this would most likely be my fault. Sorry guys.