Originally posted by Nordlysit seems you missed teh first line of point 2:
I would prefer being able to quote a song/poem exactly over obfuscating some words in them, but this seems to be a completely irrelevant question since it will be deleted and the user banned either way, no?
2) some consideration of context is attempted
what I was trying to say was that in these cases it is more likely that the swearing (unless robo modded automatically) would be seen as 'required'. If however people want to say that allowing this level of context subjectivity is unfair then we're back to the choice of allowing all swearing or absolutely none...
Originally posted by belgianfreakAs I have said before, I wish that would be the procedure all moderators would follow. I think the impression that the moderators are biased partly stems from the fact that different moderators follow different protocols. If some people can have several posts deleted without getting banned, while others get a ban without a warning for one post which is considered unacceptable for some reason, this is bound to get negative reactions and complaints.
Posters who don't care about losing posts and persist are warned, and if they continue are banned (not intended as a threat as all! just an explanation as to the procedure I follow if the above proves inappropriate).
Originally posted by belgianfreakI didn't miss that line, it just doesn't fit my experience or Russ' guidelines which explicitly say that context will not be taken into account.
it seems you missed teh first line of point 2:
[b]2) some consideration of context is attempted
what I was trying to say was that in these cases it is more likely that the swearing (unless robo modded automatically) would be seen as 'required'. If however people want to say that allowing this level of context subjectivity is unfair then we're back to the choice of allowing all swearing or absolutely none...[/b]
Originally posted by Nordlysor if some people can use one word (plonker, retard) replies to every post, or give filthy replies, and get away with it ad-infinitum.
As I have said before, I wish that would be the procedure all moderators would follow. I think the impression that the moderators are biased partly stems from the fact that different moderators follow different protocols. If some people can have several posts deleted without getting banned, while others get a ban without a warning for one post which i ...[text shortened]... considered unacceptable for some reason, this is bound to get negative reactions and complaints.
2 edits
Originally posted by belgianfreakJust something for you to wake up to mate.
it seems you missed teh first line of point 2:
[b]2) some consideration of context is attempted
what I was trying to say was that in these cases it is more likely that the swearing (unless robo modded automatically) would be seen as 'required'. If however people want to say that allowing this level of context subjectivity is unfair then we're back to the choice of allowing all swearing or absolutely none...[/b]
This is from this thread
Thread 47273
One which you took part in.
That probably does let them off the hook.
It's like saying: "Blair is a cocksucker. Allegedly".
Because you add that last word, then it isn't libel.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35052&page=3
heres another one where starman uses the word Frick (you're in it too).
Originally posted by belgianfreakI saw you call Nordleys a whore? Does that count?
a popular comedy program in which is is swearing, albeit it with an accent. If you don't refute this then there's nothing to discuss - any post containing swearing is liable for removal.
If you've seen worse any object to it then alert it and it'll be assessed for removal. Do you have any examples where you would like to see more severe moderation?
2 edits
Try this one
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46114&page=3
Thread 46114
which includes. . .
you're a prick
tosser
fu*k
you're a friggin liar
no need to go on with this one, i think.
Thread 45785
where f-off is used (page 1)
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=44152&page=3
uses f-off, and *wanker*
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI have only picked a few threads at random, but i knew which ones to pick because of the people who are in them.
Try this one
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=46114&page=3
Thread 46114
which includes. . .
you're a prick
tosser
fu*k
you're a friggin liar
no need to go on with this one, i think.
Thread 45785
where f-off is used (page 1)
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=44152&page=3
uses f-off, and *wanker*
I could go through certain peoples public posts and pull out some more without much trouble, but you get my drift.
and i get a thread deleted for using the word FECK.
This is what i mean about selective censoring.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYou were lucky,recently some of us were banned without warning for one alleged offence. Which, if ours was a legitimate ban, several others would be banned now for linking to the Father Ted sites - even if it was for informational purposes. Exactly my offence, linking to another site for information. [At least I guess that was the reason - nobody has ever actually said]
I have only picked a few threads at random, but i knew which ones to pick because of the people who are in them.
I could go through certain peoples public posts and pull out some more without much trouble, but you get my drift.
and i get a thread deleted for using the word FECK.
This is what i mean about selective censoring.
Originally posted by cashthetrashSlightly? 😉 I was thinking of wreck whoring because that was the only context I could imagine in which belgianfreak might call someone a whore, but I couldn't remember having been accused of that either. And I wasn't really, or at least I didn't understand it that way. I don't think he was accusing everyone who posted in that thread of wreck whoring.
Lol yea he said you were rec whoring. Or more precisely the whole thread. You know the one he closed down. I May have stretched the truth slightly.