Originally posted by Nordlysso you're saying that you would approve of total zero tollerance? As I see it the only alternatives to this are zero control or the partial/subjective control that is being complained about. Is there another option? Other than 'totally consistant human partial tollerance' which could surely only be achieved by one person checking every post made?
I 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.
Originally posted by belgianfreakNo, that's not at all what I am saying. I am saying that total zero tolerance seems to be what Russ wants and what some moderators use (going as far as giving a ban for quoting an etymology link which contains swear words). That's what I am complaining about. Zero tolerance for swear words even if they are used in a context where they are necessary and inoffensive doesn't make sense to me, especially not together with little control over offensive posts which don't contain swear words (or only swear words which are deemed acceptable by the moderators). And I am complaining about the inconsistency in how different moderators handle these issues. I am perfectly happy with your way to moderate. I am perfectly happy with some subjectivity. However, if moderators give bans for a one-time offence without a warning or explanation, subjectivity becomes problematic, because that means I have no way of knowing what I can or can't post, and it leaves me with the feeling that I might suddenly get a ban at any time. So if the moderators take that road, zero tolerance for certain words (and providing a list of these words, because I honestly have no idea which words are considered swear words here and which aren't) might be the only way to go. But I wouldn't consider that a good solution at all.
so you're saying that you would approve of total zero tollerance? As I see it the only alternatives to this are zero control or the partial/subjective control that is being complained about. Is there another option? Other than 'totally consistant human partial tollerance' which could surely only be achieved by one person checking every post made?
And I still don't buy the argument that subjective control doesn't work because people will complain about it. People will complain about the other options as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by leisurelysloth"you certainly aren't attempting to moderate these" - on what are you basing this? You cannot see how many posts that contained f*** have been removed as you cannot see what isn't there. All you can say is that not all of them are removed, which is something I have never denied. However, just because lesss than 100% are removed does this mean that none should be removed?
Surely you can't be serious! People use obfuscations of "the f-word" all over the place -- in fact I just did! You certainly aren't attempting to mod these. "WTF" is used all over the place without any moderation. And if eff or effing was moderated then this poor guy User 197350 couldn't get in a word edge-wise -- and don't get me start on [ ...[text shortened]... about @#$% or *&$% or @$^%! One of those was an obfuscated swear word... ..or was it?!
Should 'WTF' be removed? I know I've removed 'STFU' in the past because it's blatantly swearing, and importantly swearing at another user. How about 'sugar'? At what point is an obsfucate word so far removed from the original that it should remain? A subjective line again, but I hope you'll agree that this is better than allowing people to use the most feably disguised swearing any way they like as this would completely undermine the no swearing policy.
2 edits: the less than symbol apparently cuts the post short if used....
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI don't really see what you're getting at. Maybe if I try to exaplin what I was thinking: For Shav's post he had to say something insulting for the post to make sense. The (mild?) swearing was done as a quote, so he was giving an example of what might be said that would require the disclaimer. Could he have used a non-swearing insult - yes. But would that then have detracted from the point he was trying to make- probably. Therefore my decision was that it was borderline but should be allowed to remain.
Just something for you to wake up to mate.
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?thr ...[text shortened]... did=35052&page=3
heres another one where starman uses the word Frick (you're in it too).
As for Starmann's 'frick', firstly he posted that after I posted so I can hardly be accused of ignoring it. Secondly, please see my post on the question as to when has a swear word changed so much that it is sufficiently detatched from the original to be totally separate. Subjective again, but in this case I would consider 'frick' a lot more distant than 'feck'.
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakFrick is just my pet name for Darvlay 🙂
I don't really see what you're getting at. Maybe if I try to exaplin what I was thinking: For Shav's post he had to say something insulting for the post to make sense. The (mild?) swearing was done as a quote, so he was giving an example of what might be said that would require the disclaimer. Could he have used a non-swearing insult - yes. But would t ctive again, but in this case I would consider 'frick' a lot more distant than 'feck'.
1 edit
Originally posted by VargFrom Andrew Carnegie's partner Henry Clay Frick, whose name became a "dirty word" in southwest Pennsylvania in 1892 after Pinkerton goons, whom Frick had hired, assaulted and murdered striking steel workers in the town of Homestead. Frick was shot multiple times by the anarchist Alexander Berkman, then stabbed repeatedly until Berkman was pulled off the mangled near-corpse of Frick, who surprisingly survived.
I always understood "frick" came from "freak", so it should be your pet name for belgian...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clay_Frick
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyThat's the list of permanently banned players. I believe Varg is talking about players who have a temporary forum ban (edit: or even a permanent forum ban, but not a playing ban).
Check the "Site Map" link at the bottom of the page. There you will find "Removed players"