Moderation

[Richie]

This is just my opinion and I'm assuming most people won't agree but I don't care I'll still voice (or text lol) my opinion. I personally think the moderation department needs some sort of revamp, moderators seem to go looking for trouble which may be there job but i think that is a huge problem.

How I see it is moderators should just be lay back and act on posts which are reported or posts that are blatantly breaking rules like avoiding the filter or posting dirty images. I don't think the odd swear in a video or the odd pointless count would make a huge difference, obviously if people were blatantly abusing it, send them a pm. Everything in the rules doesn't need to be caught in the net all the time after all the rules are in place to mainly protect the members and if no-one is reporting the posts surely it really isn't offending anyone. If another member feels like they're being bullied they should report the post, if they don't it obviously doesn't faze them. I noticed when people insult me sometimes moderators contact me asking if I'm offended it's nice to know mods are trying to be protective but it really isn't needed it just causes unnecessary tension, even sometimes I just feel tempted to reply to the mod with yeah when it really isn't bugging me just to make the person annoyed.

That's just my opinion and it's fine to obviously get defensive because I guess it's naturally but I honestly think a more laid back approach like this would make a huge difference.

[GommeInc]

I don't think they should rely on reported posts as they should keep an eye out on rules being broken in general, reported or not. I sometimes find they act without really thinking sometimes, in a tongue in cheek - barely scratching the surface sort of way. Many times I have seen people post pictures, such as facepalm pictures, which are in context but they'll warn a member for doing it because it's somehow pointless. If people are making right idiots of themselves, sometimes the facepalm picture sums up in more ways than words could ever do :P

I also find that in some cases they rely too heavily on the filter avoidance rule but aren't quite sure why, so they just use that as a means to warn people. Avoiding the filter is only ever bad when a post is being inappropriate - if it's not, don't warn the member. It's why Garion got rid of the Avoiding the Filter rule a year or so ago, because you have to have a reason to break that rule, as the rule in itself isn't descriptive or useful. For some reason, it's been re-established.

[Zeptis]

I agree with every statment, I do't hink half of the things they act upon offend anyone like they predict it would.

[HotelUser]

First I'd just like to mention that not all moderators have access to reported posts. Infact, only Super Moderators can view reported posts, and they get in trouble if they solely rely on these for catching rulebreaks. Actually a number of some of this evening's controversial moderation decisions in the Feedback forum were acted upon after not one but several people reported particular posts.

If swear words are filtered then when avoiding the filter, especially when it's a severe case where the user has said the F or S word, then I'd say that's not acceptable and should be removed, and the user contacted. With regards to that three lettered word starting with an N which was used today I'd say Richard just ran into some bad luck using that word unintentionally aware that it was avoiding the filter. The reason I think we don't have to show more leniency when a situation like the one tonight arises is, because as everyone saw, Richard appealed that usernote (no, it wasn't a warning) and it was removed. It's very rare that users have to be contacted because they're unintentionally avoiding the filter with text posts. Naturally, when they're avoiding the filter with harsher words it's appropriate that they're contacted because usually this means:

A) They intended to express those harsher words (and by harsher I mean the typical F S B words)
B) Well - those words are commonly accepted as derogatory and it should be obvious to all users that they're not appropriate, especially if they're avoiding the filter to use them!

So to recap if a user unintentionally avoids the filter with a word that's not on our filtered list and that's not all that bad it's likely they'll see no trouble, but if a user avoids the filter using a harsher swear word or full word that is filtered, their post will be edited and they will be contacted.

The other and much more popular case where members are getting contacted for avoiding the filter is the infamous YouTube song scenario where the lyrics contain filtered content. I can see both sides to this. On ours, we want to keep the forum relatively clean, and give fair warning when a user might be subject to swearing or otherwise inappropriate content. On the user's side you're posting songs you enjoy and listen to all the time and probably don't even think about the fact that there's swearing in the song, you just want to share it. Since obviously we don't live in a Star Trek era where we can have audio filters implemented wherever we please, we make it the user's responsibility to cleanse songs of inappropriate content or to give fair warning before posting. It's probably reasonable to say that more often than not users posting filter avoiding videos don't realize they're filter avoiding until they're contacted about them so I'm not personally phased by that. I think Myke had the suggestion of the day here for a solution to this one, and management are all in agreement with it that when you post a video it would be nice if the forum automatically added a disclaimer indicating that the video might contain offensive content. So we're going to give adding that feature a shot, and I think that's going to make the avoiding the filter situation (with videos atleast) a lot more bearable.

[Catzsy]

I don't think they should rely on reported posts as they should keep an eye out on rules being broken in general, reported or not. I sometimes find they act without really thinking sometimes, in a tongue in cheek - barely scratching the surface sort of way. Many times I have seen people post pictures, such as facepalm pictures, which are in context but they'll warn a member for doing it because it's somehow pointless. If people are making right idiots of themselves, sometimes the facepalm picture sums up in more ways than words could ever do :P

I also find that in some cases they rely too heavily on the filter avoidance rule but aren't quite sure why, so they just use that as a means to warn people. Avoiding the filter is only ever bad when a post is being inappropriate - if it's not, don't warn the member. It's why Garion got rid of the Avoiding the Filter rule a year or so ago, because you have to have a reason to break that rule, as the rule in itself isn't descriptive or useful. For some reason, it's been re-established.

Garion didn't get rid of the rule - he merged it with inappropriate after members said they were too long and it seemed to be confusing for some so it was made clearer. The 'avoid the filter' rule has never altered
and have never just been enforced when it was used inappropriately. If it had you would find an announcement saying that. The interpretation has never altered -the filter is the filter and those avoiding get warned. I think you could have reinvented history here a bit Gomme. The real question is the what words the filter contain and I know Oli before he left had virtually 100% made up his mind to remove 'k'n ob' 'n'ob' and 'd'ick' because he and I had quite a long discussion about it. As you know I have always been in agreement with this as I do not feel that mild words like this need to be in it and if ever used in an inappropriate way could be dealt with by Rule A2. Oli said he had 100% power to do this and didn't have to refer to Jin on it so it really might be worth considering. In any event those words are worth nothing more than a pm IMO.

[Recursion]

This is just my opinion and I'm assuming most people won't agree but I don't care I'll still voice (or text lol) my opinion. I personally think the moderation department needs some sort of revamp, moderators seem to go looking for trouble which may be there job but i think that is a huge problem.

How I see it is moderators should just be lay back and act on posts which are reported or posts that are blatantly breaking rules like avoiding the filter or posting dirty images. I don't think the odd swear in a video or the odd pointless count would make a huge difference, obviously if people were blatantly abusing it, send them a pm. Everything in the rules doesn't need to be caught in the net all the time after all the rules are in place to mainly protect the members and if no-one is reporting the posts surely it really isn't offending anyone. If another member feels like they're being bullied they should report the post, if they don't it obviously doesn't faze them. I noticed when people insult me sometimes moderators contact me asking if I'm offended it's nice to know mods are trying to be protective but it really isn't needed it just causes unnecessary tension, even sometimes I just feel tempted to reply to the mod with yeah when it really isn't bugging me just to make the person annoyed.

That's just my opinion and it's fine to obviously get defensive because I guess it's naturally but I honestly think a more laid back approach like this would make a huge difference.

There's one extremely simple problem here with an extremely difficult solution... where do you draw the line?

I know for a fact that not all posts are reported, I moderated a thread the other day where only one post was reported yet 3+ users were involved in 5+ posts. You cannot rely on post reports, people would rather take matters into their own hands and blow everything out of proportion, making things worse. I know from being a user before Moderating that I would do this quite often myself!

The current Moderation system is working just fine IMO.

[GommeInc]

Garion didn't get rid of the rule - he merged it with inappropriate after members said they were too long and it seemed to be confusing for some so it was made clearer. The 'avoid the filter' rule has never altered and have never just been enforced when it was used inappropriately. If it had you would find an announcement saying that. The interpretation has never altered -the filter is the filter and those avoiding get warned. I think you could have reinvented history here a bit Gomme. The real question is the what words the filter contain and I know Oli before he left had virtually 100% made up his mind to remove 'k'n ob' 'n'ob' and 'd'ick' because he and I had quite a long discussion about it. As you know I have always been in agreement with this as I do not feel that mild words like this need to be in it and if ever used in an inappropriate way could be dealt with by Rule A2. Oli said he had 100% power to do this and didn't have to refer to Jin on it so it really might be worth considering. In any event those words are worth nothing more than a pm IMO.
It was altered, it was moved to "Inappropriate Posts" because "Avoiding the Filter" as a rule lacks substance - I talked to Garion about the rules and that's why they were changed because it was a boring wall of text and many of the rules rely upon core rules to actually work - especially "avoiding the filter" - Garion was in agreement with this. I'm amazed you're acting as if I made up the discussion, when I could give you the chat logs to back up my evidence :P

Avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, it's the core meaning of the rule - but sometimes it is isn't as some words live double lives and have double meanings. But this is where, for some unknown reason, management lose all common sense and reason, and fail to give responses. The current moderator responses are:

Member: "Why is avoiding the filter bad?"
Moderator: "Because it is."

That's not a reason. If you've poorly re-written the rules, then don't cry when you have to interpret and give reasons like any moderator job has in the description. Heck, the bit in bold is such a daft thing to say - why do you religiously follow the filter when the filter does contain harmless words when used in appropriate contexts? I don't want a religious, robotic response from you Rosie, you know I lost respect for you when you began talking like one.

[Catzsy]

It was altered, it was moved to "Inappropriate Posts" because "Avoiding the Filter" as a rule lacks substance - I talked to Garion about the rules and that's why they were changed because it was a boring wall of text and many of the rules rely upon core rules to actually work - especially "avoiding the filter" - Garion was in agreement with this. I'm amazed you're acting as if I made up the discussion, when I could give you the chat logs to back up my evidence :P



Avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, it's the core meaning of the rule - but sometimes it is isn't as some words live double lives and have double meanings. But this is where, for some unknown reason, management lose all common sense and reason, and fail to give responses. The current moderator responses are:

Member: "Why is avoiding the filter bad?"
Moderator: "Because it is."

That's not a reason. If you've poorly re-written the rules, then don't cry when you have to interpret and give reasons like any moderator job has in the description. Heck, the bit in bold is such a daft thing to say - why do you religiously follow the filter when the filter does contain harmless words when used in appropriate contexts? I don't want a religious, robotic response from you Rosie, you know I lost respect for you when you began talking like one.

He may have talked to you about it on msn but nothing was ever changed officially, Gomme otherwise we and the whole forum would have been informed. I know Oli talked to you about some words from the filter being removed but then nothing has ever been changed. The fact that you have 'lost respect for me because I have become a robot' doesn't come into it as this is not personal just a statement of fact. You may see I have supported your view in another thread. Not bad for a robot, eh?

[GommeInc]

He may have talked to you about it on msn but nothing was ever changed officially, Gomme otherwise we and the whole forum would have been informed. I know Oli talked to you about some words from the filter being removed but then nothing has ever been changed. The fact that you have 'lost respect for me because I have become a robot' doesn't come into it as this is not personal just a statement of fact. You may see I have supported your view in another thread. Not bad for a robot, eh?
It was common sense that avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, it was the conclusion out of all the discussions we had about the filter and the rule in the last few weeks. Especially when there was no other reason for the rule being broken other than "it broke the filter" which isn't a reason, if anything it's the start of a lengthy response - "It broke the filter because...."

[Catzsy]

It was common sense that avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, it was the conclusion out of all the discussions we had about the filter and the rule in the last few weeks. Especially when there was no other reason for the rule being broken other than "it broke the filter" which isn't a reason, if anything it's the start of a lengthy response - "It broke the filter because...."

But your view was not upheld on that occasion, Gomme. What may seem common sense to you doesn't mean it is common sense to everybody else. I actually agree with you on a few of the words but not all you would like to see out of the filter and only sanctioned under rule A2.

[GommeInc]

But your view was not upheld on that occasion, Gomme. What may seem common sense to you doesn't mean it is common sense to everybody else. I actually agree with you on a few of the words but not all you would like to see out of the filter and only sanctioned under rule A2.
Now this is what I don't understand and seems to be a common tactic with you, Oli and a few other members of management - you assume I want words removed and make up arguments. That's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that in some cases, some words are apart of common phrases and have two different meanings and are completely harmless and sensible. The rules were re-written because in most circumstances, avoiding the filter IS inappropriate. The new rule, Do not avoid the filter, is meaningless, systematic and robotic. Why is avoiding the filter in any way not allowed? What if someone says a completely appropriate post? In recent weeks I've noticed that management themselves do not know what to do - they just use the meaningless phrase "It's avoiding the filter." Why? "Because it is." That's not a response or a reason, that's a robot stuck in a web of confusion.

This forum should not be run by robots, it should be run by personable and approachable people who act the same age as their demographic - teenagers with common ties. The only time you see this blissful harmony is in the spam forum, but once you leave the spam forum you're welcomed by souless individuals who believe they're running some sort of private organisation.

[HotelUser]

Now this is what I don't understand and seems to be a common tactic with you, Oli and a few other members of management - you assume I want words removed and make up arguments. That's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that in some cases, some words are apart of common phrases and have two different meanings and are completely harmless and sensible. The rules were re-written because in most circumstances, avoiding the filter IS inappropriate. The new rule, Do not avoid the filter, is meaningless, systematic and robotic. Why is avoiding the filter in any way not allowed? What if someone says a completely appropriate post? In recent weeks I've noticed that management themselves do not know what to do - they just use the meaningless phrase "It's avoiding the filter." Why? "Because it is." That's not a response or a reason, that's a robot stuck in a web of confusion.

This forum should not be run by robots, it should be run by personable and approachable people who act the same age as their demographic - teenagers with common ties. The only time you see this blissful harmony is in the spam forum, but once you leave the spam forum you're welcomed by souless individuals who believe they're running some sort of private organisation.

The filter doesn't filter by context, it doesn't know when you've used a homophone therefore when it sees a prohibited word it filters it. It's not that we despise the nickname for Richard, for instance, it's that the filter simply doesn't know when someone's using it as a name, or in an inappropriate context. Sadly one bad apple spoils them all here because if we removed the ban on a word such as that one people would jump on the bandwagon taking advantage of it.

I don't know who on management doesn't know what avoiding the filter is when they see it because even our trialist moderators are usually able deal with those sort of rulebreaks with ease. It's most always very obvious when someone's avoiding the filter and when they are not, and when a mistake is made such as with Richie lately it's not hard to get it corrected. I think the only real injustice with avoiding the filter is the YouTube situation though auto spoilers will help with that I hope.

Robots? Really? If that's true I've yet to find where the batteries go in :P

[GommeInc]

The filter doesn't filter by context, it doesn't know when you've used a homophone therefore when it sees a prohibited word it filters it. It's not that we despise the nickname for Richard, for instance, it's that the filter simply doesn't know when someone's using it as a name, or in an inappropriate context. Sadly one bad apple spoils them all here because if we removed the ban on a word such as that one people would jump on the bandwagon taking advantage of it.

I don't know who on management doesn't know what avoiding the filter is when they see it because even our trialist moderators are usually able deal with those sort of rulebreaks with ease. It's most always very obvious when someone's avoiding the filter and when they are not, and when a mistake is made such as with Richie lately it's not hard to get it corrected. I think the only real injustice with avoiding the filter is the YouTube situation though auto spoilers will help with that I hope.

Robots? Really? If that's true I've yet to find where the batteries go in :P
Again, putting words into the arguments and making an argument I don't care about (in bold). I do not want words removed out of the filter (bar Di.ck, kno.b etc as they're harmless words in this day and age), I'm merely stating some words which are usually rude have different meanings which are perfectly acceptable in some context, but are rarely used.

The rest of your post is just mindless jibberish which has nothing to do with my post and strays away from any sensible answer. The Avoid the filter rule is pointless, it's why it was removed in the first place and put into the inappropriately content rule because avoiding the filter means nothing, it doesn't have a core value or meaning. Under the inappropriate rule, it makes it obvious that avoiding the filter is inappropriate. However, as a single rule it's badly written and suggests the management are taking a robotic, systematic approach to rule breaking when in some cases, words in the filter can be used in a sensible, appropriate context which is where management turn off their minds and go into sleep mode, every now and again turning back on and saying "Because it is" when someone asks why avoiding the filter is wrong, when it is right to do so if common sense and basic grasp of the English language has anything to do with it.

If a filter avoidance is fine and not inappropriate, why is it wrong to avoid the filter? No one has answered this very simple question - I can only assume there isn't one - mainly because there isn't one as the rule clearly doesn't have an answer to such a question - hence why it is badly written and shouldn't exist as a single rule.

[Catzsy]

Now this is what I don't understand and seems to be a common tactic with you, Oli and a few other members of management - you assume I want words removed and make up arguments. That's not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that in some cases, some words are apart of common phrases and have two different meanings and are completely harmless and sensible. The rules were re-written because in most circumstances, avoiding the filter IS inappropriate. The new rule, Do not avoid the filter, is meaningless, systematic and robotic. Why is avoiding the filter in any way not allowed? What if someone says a completely appropriate post? In recent weeks I've noticed that management themselves do not know what to do - they just use the meaningless phrase "It's avoiding the filter." Why? "Because it is." That's not a response or a reason, that's a robot stuck in a web of confusion.

This forum should not be run by robots, it should be run by personable and approachable people who act the same age as their demographic - teenagers with common ties. The only time you see this blissful harmony is in the spam forum, but once you leave the spam forum you're welcomed by souless individuals who believe they're running some sort of private organisation.

Totally disagree Gomme. This forum is not run by robots and it seems to be a common tactic of you to call us that which is quite offensive IMO and has little basis of truth. Also there is really no need at all to make personal attacks on the moderation staff who are all volunteers and do their best. You are intelligent and articulate enough to put your point across without that. I am saying that maybe a couple of words should be removed which you have agreed with in the past but since you were picked up on using the other word for illegitimate child which is totally unacceptable on the forum you have not ceased to argue the point. :S
There is also a full explanation about swearing and the filter in the FAQ.
Link:http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2#faq_new_faq_item_swearin gandfilter

[GommeInc]

Totally disagree Gomme. This forum is not run by robots and it seems to be a common tactic of you to call us that which is quite offensive IMO and has little basis of truth. Also there is really no need at all to make personal attacks on the moderation staff who are all volunteers and do their best. You are intelligent and articulate enough to put your point across without that. I am saying that maybe a couple of words should be removed which you have agreed with in the past but since you were picked up on using the other word for illegitimate child which is totally unacceptable on the forum you have not ceased to argue the point. :S
There is also a full explanation about swearing and the filter in the FAQ.
Link:http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2#faq_new_faq_item_swearin gandfilter
Err, it wasn't unacceptable? I was told it was fine I just "avoided the filter" - a robotic response with no meaning - why was it bad when it was acceptable? Contradiction. The fact they're volunteers means they should be enjoying what they do, and being personable and human. A fansite forum shouldn't be "professionalised", bureacratic and systemtatic, and obviously not to the degree of ClubHabbo where moderators act like children in some cases (or stereotype ClubHabbo), but to a sense of normality where moderators act their age and do not pretend to be people who they're not. You yourself agreed with this, or are you now pointless repping people?
Also, again, your link to the FAQ shows a robotic, systematic response to rule breaking. What if it is acceptable? Saying "It's breaks the filter" isn't a reason, why is it bad to avoid the filter when the word that was restructed because it was in context bad? HotelUser knows what I am talking about, the filter doesn't understand context and only a person does, so what if a word is used in perfect context?

Also, have you not broken a rule discussing warnings publically with people? Typical. :rolleyes:

The bit in bold, is again, a point I am not trying to make - I do not want the word removed, read.

Also, questioning someones intelligence yet not giving any answers is incredibly rude, Rosie.

[Catzsy]

Err, it wasn't unacceptable? I was told it was fine I just "avoided the filter" - a robotic response with no meaning - why was it bad when it was acceptable? Contradiction. The fact they're volunteers means they should be enjoying what they do, and being personable and human. A fansite forum shouldn't be "professionalised", bureacratic and systemtatic, and obviously not to the degree of ClubHabbo where moderators act like children in some cases (or stereotype ClubHabbo), but to a sense of normality where moderators act their age and do not pretend to be people who they're not. You yourself agreed with this, or are you now pointless repping people?
Also, again, your link to the FAQ shows a robotic, systematic response to rule breaking. What if it is acceptable? Saying "It's breaks the filter" isn't a reason, why is it bad to avoid the filter when the word that was restructed because it was in context bad? HotelUser knows what I am talking about, the filter doesn't understand context and only a person does, so what if a word is used in perfect context?

Also, have you not broken a rule discussing warnings publically with people? Typical. :rolleyes:

The bit in bold, is again, a point I am not trying to make - I do not want the word removed, read.

Also, questioning someones intelligence yet not giving any answers is incredibly rude, Rosie.

If the word was acceptable for use the forum it would not be in the filter, Gomme. What is acceptable and unacceptable is decided upon by the forum management and owner and that word has always been in the filter and always should be IMO. I know what you mean by context i.e. d'ick when it is somebody's name etc and I agree with you but I am also saying that need not be in the filter at all and it is no worse than penis in my opinion. You have discussed the warning publicly yourself both in feedback threads and in your VM's on more than one occasion so I am hardly breaking any rule here but feel free to report. I also did not question your intelligence I questioned why you felt the need to make personal attacks on moderation staff when you are in fact intelligent and articulate because you can make a point without this. Why do we have an FAQ? To help people understand the ways of the forum. This happens on every forum and it is quite a good explanation of the filter. Nothing robotic about pointing somebody to an explanation which is well thought out. I am answering your questions it is just not what you are wanting to hear. I haven't a clue what you mean by this. :S

or are you now pointless repping people?

[GommeInc]

If the word was acceptable for use the forum it would not be in the filter, Gomme. What is acceptable and unacceptable is decided upon by the forum management and owner and that word has always been in the filter and always should be IMO. I know what you mean by context i.e. d'ick when it is somebody's name etc and I agree with you but I am also saying that need not be in the filter at all and it is no worse than penis in my opinion. You have discussed the warning publicly yourself both in feedback threads and in your VM's on more than one occasion so I am hardly breaking any rule here but feel free to report. I also did not question your intelligence I questioned why you felt the need to make personal attacks on moderation staff when you are in fact intelligent and articulate because you can make a point without this. Why do we have an FAQ? To help people understand the ways of the forum. This happens on every forum and it is quite a good explanation of the filter. Nothing robotic about pointing somebody to an explanation which is well thought out. I am answering your questions it is just not what you are wanting to hear. I haven't a clue what you mean by this. :S
Again, I am not asking for it to be removed as in most instances it is rude, but in some circumstances it is a completely harmless, descriptive word used by business professionals, something you keep overlooking for some unknown reason and keep replying with "because it's in the filter". I don't care about these robotic responses, I want a response based on human judgement. Especially when it was deemed suitable and appropriate for what I said, because no one can take offense to it unless they're a product. Heck, I put it to the forum and no-one knew why the post was edited and they found it fine :P You did break the rule, I was talking primarily about how moderators seem to blindly follow, and how management love to follow systems and never want to use their judgement. I won't bother reporting it, because I'd have to deal with bureaucracy and more robotic responses and bias.

Also, I am not making personal attacks - do not play the injured dog tactic because you fail to answer questions on multiple occasions. The explanation isn't well thought out either, the rule hasn't been explained at all here - it's literally further explaining what avoiding the filter means, but not how avoiding the filter is as a rule in itself - what is avoiding the filter the bad? The FAQ is just saying what is meant by avoiding the filter, not how it is "inappropriate", especially when some filter avoidances are perfectly acceptable when the meaning of the word is applied to a socially acceptable and perfect context.

And you repped me for talking about how the personal response is better when dealing with members, not mindless bureacracy. Or you were talking about how the complaints forum is pointless.

[HotelUser]

Again, I am not asking for it to be removed as in most instances it is rude, but in some circumstances it is a completely harmless, descriptive word used by business professionals, something you keep overlooking for some unknown reason and keep replying with "because it's in the filter". I don't care about these robotic responses, I want a response based on human judgement. Especially when it was deemed suitable and appropriate for what I said, because no one can take offense to it unless they're a product. Heck, I put it to the forum and no-one knew why the post was edited and they found it fine :P You did break the rule, I was talking primarily about how moderators seem to blindly follow, and how management love to follow systems and never want to use their judgement. I won't bother reporting it, because I'd have to deal with bureaucracy and more robotic responses and bias.

Also, I am not making personal attacks - do not play the injured dog tactic because you fail to answer questions on multiple occasions. The explanation isn't well thought out either, the rule hasn't been explained at all here - it's literally further explaining what avoiding the filter means, but not how avoiding the filter is as a rule in itself - what is avoiding the filter the bad? The FAQ is just saying what is meant by avoiding the filter, not how it is "inappropriate", especially when some filter avoidances are perfectly acceptable when the meaning of the word is applied to a socially acceptable and perfect context.

And you repped me for talking about how the personal response is better when dealing with members, not mindless bureacracy. Or you were talking about how the complaints forum is pointless.

We are replying to you. You don't like our replies and therefore are simply ignoring what we are saying.

If you had read my previous post, yes, people can avoid the filter in an innocent manner, but:

1. The forum software is incapable of interpreting context therefore will filter words verbatim as instructed by the filtered words list.

2. In its own principle, if we allowed users to avoid the filter in any fashion we would be encouraging members to use the filtered words more frequently, and we would be hard pressed not to uphold a double standard because it would then be at the moderators descretion when certain filtered words are used out of context, and as the conclusion to this can be controversial in any given scenario, we would be causing more problems than we would have fixed.

[Catzsy]

Again, I am not asking for it to be removed as in most instances it is rude, but in some circumstances it is a completely harmless, descriptive word used by business professionals, something you keep overlooking for some unknown reason and keep replying with "because it's in the filter". I don't care about these robotic responses, I want a response based on human judgement. Especially when it was deemed suitable and appropriate for what I said, because no one can take offense to it unless they're a product. Heck, I put it to the forum and no-one knew why the post was edited and they found it fine :P You did break the rule, I was talking primarily about how moderators seem to blindly follow, and how management love to follow systems and never want to use their judgement. I won't bother reporting it, because I'd have to deal with bureaucracy and more robotic responses and bias.

Also, I am not making personal attacks - do not play the injured dog tactic because you fail to answer questions on multiple occasions. The explanation isn't well thought out either, the rule hasn't been explained at all here - it's literally further explaining what avoiding the filter means, but not how avoiding the filter is as a rule in itself - what is avoiding the filter the bad? The FAQ is just saying what is meant by avoiding the filter, not how it is "inappropriate", especially when some filter avoidances are perfectly acceptable when the meaning of the word is applied to a socially acceptable and perfect context.

And you repped me for talking about how the personal response is better when dealing with members, not mindless bureacracy. Or you were talking about how the complaints forum is pointless.

1. Gomme it is a word that you wouldn't see unfiltered in the press. If it is used in the professional and deemed harmless so be it but it is not universally accepted as such. But in any event management/owner have used their judgement and put it in the filter. There is no central robot. The FAQ explanation seems fine to me and I know of no other member who doesn't understand the logic behind it i.e that this forum has many younger members so using swearwords is not appropriate. Inappropriate = unsuitable. All swear words deemed to be unsuitable for the forum are placed in the filter


2. Please feel free to report.

3. You called staff robots and that is personally offensive to them. I do not feel injured at all but if anything it is a 'robotic' response in itself to categorise all mods as that. It seems that you feel injured though.
because I'd have to deal with bureaucracy and more robotic responses and bias.

3. I do agree a personal response is best and I feel that is what you get and have got. Every forum has rules and regulations to follow. We moderate to those or should we just be doing what the **** we like? LOL The members would not know where they were or be able to challenge what we do if it was all down to personal judgement. That could lead down quite a dangerous road as we have to be accountable for what we do too and without these guidelines there could be abuse of power and favourtism. If we had let you off using that word and sanctioned others then it would not look good at all and would have sent the wrong impression to everybody. We have to moderate by the rules and if the management decided to make an exception that this word could be used unless it contravenes Rule A2.then we would moderate to that. We do not have any moderator discretion when it comes to words in the filter only to the penalty we issue. If I had issued a Infraction for that I would agree you should be feel aggrieved. If you feel that this is another 'robotic' response then I will ask the management to write us scripts because we might as well become robots.:P

[The Don]

3. I do agree a personal response is best and I feel that is what you get and have got. Every forum has rules and regulations to follow. We moderate to those or should we just be doing what the **** we like? LOL The members would not know where they were or be able to challenge what we do if it was all down to personal judgement.
It already is down to personal judgement though. People can post avoiding the filter in the feedback section in some instances, however when I partially avoided the filter in my example, it was deemed as avoiding the filter.

I think it's down to the context, surely, if it's being used appropriately then there shouldn't be an issue with it, even though it is avoiding the filter, if that word is unoffensive and used it it's proper context there shouldn't be an issue with it. Although, this gives moderators extra work and maybe they can't be bothered to look into the context of everything properly.

[Catzsy]

It already is down to personal judgement though. People can post avoiding the filter in the feedback section in some instances, however when I partially avoided the filter in my example, it was deemed as avoiding the filter.

I think it's down to the context, surely, if it's being used appropriately then there shouldn't be an issue with it, even though it is avoiding the filter, if that word is unoffensive and used it it's proper context there shouldn't be an issue with it. Although, this gives moderators extra work and maybe they can't be bothered to look into the context of everything properly.

It is not a case of 'not being bothered'. If we were allowed to judge the 'context' in which it was used then we would moderate to that.

[The Don]

It is not a case of 'not being bothered'. If we were allowed to judge the 'context' in which it was used then we would moderate to that.

Then what's stopping this from happening? (Sorry if it's already been mentioned, only read a few posts in this thread)

[Catzsy]

Then what's stopping this from happening? (Sorry if it's already been mentioned, only read a few posts in this thread)

Well if management and Jin agreed, I guess nothing, :)

[GommeInc]

We are replying to you. You don't like our replies and therefore are simply ignoring what we are saying.

If you had read my previous post, yes, people can avoid the filter in an innocent manner, but:

1. The forum software is incapable of interpreting context therefore will filter words verbatim as instructed by the filtered words list.

2. In its own principle, if we allowed users to avoid the filter in any fashion we would be encouraging members to use the filtered words more frequently, and we would be hard pressed not to uphold a double standard because it would then be at the moderators descretion when certain filtered words are used out of context, and as the conclusion to this can be controversial in any given scenario, we would be causing more problems than we would have fixed.
This is the first response I have had that actually answers some questions.

1. Naturally, it's a system - it doesn't think it simply does.

2. Depends in what context. If it's appropriate like what I have done in the past, then it's fine. If members try to avoid the filter for the sake of it, then nearly all the time they will be met with the inappropriate rule. This is why inappropriate posting and avoiding the filter were merged together, as avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, you cannot warn a member for avoiding the filter simply because they did, as that doesn't make any sense. The response I have got from management has nearly always been a robotic, frustrating response of "You avoided the filtered". Why? "Because you did." Hence why I ignore the posts of certain individuals because they seem to lack basic literacy skills, and fail to answer questions in a clear, succinct manner, which has and always gets management in trouble. They teeter about, running around like headless chickens.

Also, moderator discretion doesn't exist. I know full well of that and have experience of it - they like to blindly warn, saying they have no control - like a certain Super Moderator I know who got pushed about this and said they couldn't do anything about it, when they do they have moderator discretion :rolleyes:


3. I do agree a personal response is best and I feel that is what you get and have got. Every forum has rules and regulations to follow. We moderate to those or should we just be doing what the **** we like? LOL The members would not know where they were or be able to challenge what we do if it was all down to personal judgement. That could lead down quite a dangerous road as we have to be accountable for what we do too and without these guidelines there could be abuse of power and favourtism. If we had let you off using that word and sanctioned others then it would not look good at all and would have sent the wrong impression to everybody. We have to moderate by the rules and if the management decided to make an exception that this word could be used unless it contravenes Rule A2.then we would moderate to that. We do not have any moderator discretion when it comes to words in the filter only to the penalty we issue. If I had issued a Infraction for that I would agree you should be feel aggrieved. If you feel that this is another 'robotic' response then I will ask the management to write us scripts because we might as well become robots.:P
Again you go on some sub-rant. I didn't say scrap the system and just go by personal judgement. Again, you're being pointless to talk to as you seem to make up arguments and try to defame me, when really you're just looking silly. It wouldn't be favouritism at all - if it's used appropriately and in context it is fine, if others argue that they can't get away with it (if they're clearly offending people) then simply state the obvious - it wasn't appropriate. If people start calling each other mustard children then obviously it's offensive, but if people start calling Windows Vista the mustard child of Microsoft then how on earth can they take offense to that? No one did as far as I am aware, because I asked what people thought in feedback. The only people who cared were the robots saying "It's avoiding the filter, it must be punished" when the post was alright - Oli said that and so did you :/ No one found it offensive and no one can take it as an offense as it is used professionally. My course books have it to describe products that do not act like the predecessors or succcessors.

[Cwmbran]

At the end of the day not many words are offensive, its the context in which these words are used that makes them offensive. Racial slang for a black person, that I would say is offensive and one of the few words which are.

I believe to some degree we should be allowed to avoid the filter (please note im not asking for anything to be removed from the filter) for example if I was to post a thread saying "F*** me hard day at work" Who can honestly hold up their hand and say they were offended by that? In this instance surely it should be fine to avoid the filter after all im only expressing myself and not directing it towards anyone. You could argue why I would need to say that particular word, in an instance like that "Crickey hard day at work" just doesnt cut it. I dont think I need to go into examples such as a sha.g rug as I'm sure you get the jist of what im trying to say.

I agree with Gomme, moderation on this rule is robotic. I personally have not come across any post where someone has avoided the filter in an acceptable way and it has just been left alone, they always get edited.

[The Don]

At the end of the day not many words are offensive, its the context in which these words are used that makes them offensive. Racial slang for a black person, that I would say is offensive and one of the few words which are.

I believe to some degree we should be allowed to avoid the filter (please note im not asking for anything to be removed from the filter) for example if I was to post a thread saying "F*** me hard day at work" Who can honestly hold up their hand and say they were offended by that? In this instance surely it should be fine to avoid the filter after all im only expressing myself and not directing it towards anyone. You could argue why I would need to say that particular word, in an instance like that "Crickey hard day at work" just doesnt cut it. I dont think I need to go into examples such as a sha.g rug as I'm sure you get the jist of what im trying to say.

I agree with Gomme, moderation on this rule is robotic. I personally have not come across any post where someone has avoided the filter in an acceptable way and it has just been left alone, they always get edited.

100% agreed.

I used a quote from a film in a feedback thread to try and get a point across that even 12A's allow swearing. The quote I used was removed, even though it was already censored 'F**K' Honestly, who is that harming, it's just as harmful as wtf which is allowed.

[e5]

Am I right in reading that if someone posts a swear word that appears in asterix (*) i.e being filtered, that their post gets edited for being innapropriate? :S

[HotelUser]

This is the first response I have had that actually answers some questions.

1. Naturally, it's a system - it doesn't think it simply does.

2. Depends in what context. If it's appropriate like what I have done in the past, then it's fine. If members try to avoid the filter for the sake of it, then nearly all the time they will be met with the inappropriate rule. This is why inappropriate posting and avoiding the filter were merged together, as avoiding the filter can only be inappropriate, you cannot warn a member for avoiding the filter simply because they did, as that doesn't make any sense. The response I have got from management has nearly always been a robotic, frustrating response of "You avoided the filtered". Why? "Because you did." Hence why I ignore the posts of certain individuals because they seem to lack basic literacy skills, and fail to answer questions in a clear, succinct manner, which has and always gets management in trouble. They teeter about, running around like headless chickens.

Also, moderator discretion doesn't exist. I know full well of that and have experience of it - they like to blindly warn, saying they have no control - like a certain Super Moderator I know who got pushed about this and said they couldn't do anything about it, when they do they have moderator discretion :rolleyes:


Again you go on some sub-rant. I didn't say scrap the system and just go by personal judgement. Again, you're being pointless to talk to as you seem to make up arguments and try to defame me, when really you're just looking silly. It wouldn't be favouritism at all - if it's used appropriately and in context it is fine, if others argue that they can't get away with it (if they're clearly offending people) then simply state the obvious - it wasn't appropriate. If people start calling each other mustard children then obviously it's offensive, but if people start calling Windows Vista the mustard child of Microsoft then how on earth can they take offense to that? No one did as far as I am aware, because I asked what people thought in feedback. The only people who cared were the robots saying "It's avoiding the filter, it must be punished" when the post was alright - Oli said that and so did you :/ No one found it offensive and no one can take it as an offense as it is used professionally. My course books have it to describe products that do not act like the predecessors or succcessors.

Naturally someone would be offended if you used that (mustard) term with regards to them, and not to Vista, because you're directing it at another person, not a fairly disliked operating system (Hi Tom!). But the problem here is the term "mustard child" isn't close to being as well known, or commonly used as the F word or other common inappropriate words. We don't have to consider adding that to the filter at this moment because it's not exactly a commonly used phrase.

With regards to vBulletin, yes it is a system and it is the only robot here. I mentioned this to explain why we cannot unfilter words such as the D word because even though it's a name and will appropriately be used in that context, it will be abused in another context. I believe Richard created a thread on this not too long ago and this was likely explained similarly in that as well. It is unfortunate that we cannot use it in its righteous context though we wont unfilter words such as this because of their negative implications.

With regards to what you're saying about robotic moderation I think you mean moderator's communications to users are quite generic / verbatim and that's a fair opinion to have. What's bothering Rosie, I think, (and rightly so) is that you're using the term robotic in a way such that you are almost inferring that she and the moderation team are mindless and incapable of thinking for themselves. If this is actually your real opinion (and I'd deplore it if that's the case) then I'd strongly encourage you to consider just how many moderation actions a moderator, especially a super moderator, makes a day. I have the utmost confidence in especially the SMOD team at the moment. They have a great deal of experience, and for the most part don't make many errors. In terms of their approach, and how accurately they're enforcing forum rules I'd say they're pretty spot on.


At the end of the day not many words are offensive, its the context in which these words are used that makes them offensive. Racial slang for a black person, that I would say is offensive and one of the few words which are.

I believe to some degree we should be allowed to avoid the filter (please note im not asking for anything to be removed from the filter) for example if I was to post a thread saying "F*** me hard day at work" Who can honestly hold up their hand and say they were offended by that? In this instance surely it should be fine to avoid the filter after all im only expressing myself and not directing it towards anyone. You could argue why I would need to say that particular word, in an instance like that "Crickey hard day at work" just doesnt cut it. I dont think I need to go into examples such as a sha.g rug as I'm sure you get the jist of what im trying to say.

I agree with Gomme, moderation on this rule is robotic. I personally have not come across any post where someone has avoided the filter in an acceptable way and it has just been left alone, they always get edited.

The interesting thing here though, is that it's quite seldom that moderators actually have to enforce the avoiding the filter rule. Recently there's been a surplus of edits because of users breaking the rule (partly out of protest, I think :P). Under normal circumstances I wouldn't say there's a problem with how the rule is enforced. I'd of said your variation of saying the F word as you did above was quite mild. That's not to say it's still not a direct representation of filter avoidance!


100% agreed.

I used a quote from a film in a feedback thread to try and get a point across that even 12A's allow swearing. The quote I used was removed, even though it was already censored 'F**K' Honestly, who is that harming, it's just as harmful as wtf which is allowed.

Cwmbran used it in a practical example, where as when you did it contributed nothing to your stance.


Am I right in reading that if someone posts a swear word that appears in asterix (*) i.e being filtered, that their post gets edited for being innapropriate? :S

If someone types the full swear word out, and the vBulletin language filter converts it to all asterix characters then it's okay. It's only when members intentionally prevent the filter from doing this that they see trouble.

[e5]

Thank god. I was about to screw.

[The Don]

Naturally someone would be offended if you used that (mustard) term with regards to them, and not to Vista, because you're directing it at another person, not a fairly disliked operating system (Hi Tom!). But the problem here is the term "mustard child" isn't close to being as well known, or commonly used as the F word or other common inappropriate words. We don't have to consider adding that to the filter at this moment because it's not exactly a commonly used phrase.

With regards to vBulletin, yes it is a system and it is the only robot here. I mentioned this to explain why we cannot unfilter words such as the D word because even though it's a name and will appropriately be used in that context, it will be abused in another context. I believe Richard created a thread on this not too long ago and this was likely explained similarly in that as well. It is unfortunate that we cannot use it in its righteous context though we wont unfilter words such as this because of their negative implications.

With regards to what you're saying about robotic moderation I think you mean moderator's communications to users are quite generic / verbatim and that's a fair opinion to have. What's bothering Rosie, I think, (and rightly so) is that you're using the term robotic in a way such that you are almost inferring that she and the moderation team are mindless and incapable of thinking for themselves. If this is actually your real opinion (and I'd deplore it if that's the case) then I'd strongly encourage you to consider just how many moderation actions a moderator, especially a super moderator, makes a day. I have the utmost confidence in especially the SMOD team at the moment. They have a great deal of experience, and for the most part don't make many errors. In terms of their approach, and how accurately they're enforcing forum rules I'd say they're pretty spot on.



The interesting thing here though, is that it's quite seldom that moderators actually have to enforce the avoiding the filter rule. Recently there's been a surplus of edits because of users breaking the rule (partly out of protest, I think :P). Under normal circumstances I wouldn't say there's a problem with how the rule is enforced. I'd of said your variation of saying the F word as you did above was quite mild. That's not to say it's still not a direct representation of filter avoidance!



Cwmbran used it in a practical example, where as when you did it contributed nothing to your stance.



If someone types the full swear word out, and the vBulletin language filter converts it to all asterix characters then it's okay. It's only when members intentionally prevent the filter from doing this that they see trouble.

I used it show which word I meant. quite a few four lettered words have been filtered.

[GommeInc]

Naturally someone would be offended if you used that (mustard) term with regards to them, and not to Vista, because you're directing it at another person, not a fairly disliked operating system (Hi Tom!). But the problem here is the term "mustard child" isn't close to being as well known, or commonly used as the F word or other common inappropriate words. We don't have to consider adding that to the filter at this moment because it's not exactly a commonly used phrase.
Type the F word into BBC and you're welcomed by a wall of news articles contaning the F word. Mustard child is very tame and well used in in many articles. Besides, we shouldn't be looking at "how often it is used" we should be looking at "how it can be considered rude" and the term being used on a product isn't offensive. It's like you calling Windows 7 stupid and anyone who uses that product being offended by that. The product doesn't have feelings, nor should you. Anyway, my post was appropriate and wasn't rude, it was because it "was avoiding the filter" which isn't a reason :P


With regards to vBulletin, yes it is a system and it is the only robot here. I mentioned this to explain why we cannot unfilter words such as the D word because even though it's a name and will appropriately be used in that context, it will be abused in another context. I believe Richard created a thread on this not too long ago and this was likely explained similarly in that as well. It is unfortunate that we cannot use it in its righteous context though we wont unfilter words such as this because of their negative implications.
Actually, Oli and Catz want(ed) Di.ck removed as it's a harmless phrase. Again, I am not suggesting you remove the B word from the filter, but I think you should use your common sense and initiative to determine when avoiding the filter is and isn't rude as at the moment you're relying on a system to do the work when a system cannot think and put words into context, unlike a human. But because you rely so heavily on the mighty word filter to tell you what to do you become robotic - hence why I consider moderators and management robotic in response because they seem to have a limit to thought and discretion. I clearly wasn't rude and was told this, so why is avoiding the filter the end of the world when it wasn't inappropriate? It's why the avoid the filter rule was merged into post inappropriate, because the Avoid the filter rule isn't a rule, it's really just describing the intent of the word filter. Oli and Garion understood this, not sure why management have changed their mind :S


With regards to what you're saying about robotic moderation I think you mean moderator's communications to users are quite generic / verbatim and that's a fair opinion to have. What's bothering Rosie, I think, (and rightly so) is that you're using the term robotic in a way such that you are almost inferring that she and the moderation team are mindless and incapable of thinking for themselves. If this is actually your real opinion (and I'd deplore it if that's the case) then I'd strongly encourage you to consider just how many moderation actions a moderator, especially a super moderator, makes a day. I have the utmost confidence in especially the SMOD team at the moment. They have a great deal of experience, and for the most part don't make many errors. In terms of their approach, and how accurately they're enforcing forum rules I'd say they're pretty spot on.
In some cases they are, as they seem to ignore moderator discretion and come out with generic, mindless comments which aren't answers to questions. It's like they a positive magnet facing another positive magnet, they force away from the issue and refuse to answer questions, and when they're caught out you get a swearing match going on or tedious debate. I'm not debating how good the moderators or super moderators do, as they have guidelines to follow and do a decent job, it's only when they're met with abnormalities they begin to act confused and begin making pointless answers which in reality is just rhetoric - avoiding a conclusive answer and just wittering on for ages until inevitably the thread is closed for no reason.


Cwmbran used it in a practical example, where as when you did it contributed nothing to your stance.
Not that this has anything to do with me, but I read his post and he was posting an example of a swear word in a 12A film. It contributed to the discussion, as clearly 12A is the age range of Habbo Hotel. It was comparing two types of media together. You cannot call it pointless, it's not like he randomly blerted out "****".

[HotelUser]

Type the F word into BBC and you're welcomed by a wall of news articles contaning the F word. Mustard child is very tame and well used in in many articles. Besides, we shouldn't be looking at "how often it is used" we should be looking at "how it can be considered rude" and the term being used on a product isn't offensive. It's like you calling Windows 7 stupid and anyone who uses that product being offended by that. The product doesn't have feelings, nor should you. Anyway, my post was appropriate and wasn't rude, it was because it "was avoiding the filter" which isn't a reason :P



For the record I wouldn't call Windows 7 stupid. It's not a terrible operating system just because I don't use it :P

Anywho it doesn't matter what a News Station wishes to do, we're an internet forum and the truth of it is that there are internet forums where there are filters, and some with no filters. We're one with filters and context or not that isn't changing because posts everywhere would be degraded in quality and threads would have a lot less actual conversation. It would also make the atmosphere more intimidating for new and young members if they saw swearing everywhere.




Actually, Oli and Catz want(ed) Di.ck removed as it's a harmless phrase. Again, I am not suggesting you remove the B word from the filter, but I think you should use your common sense and initiative to determine when avoiding the filter is and isn't rude as at the moment you're relying on a system to do the work when a system cannot think and put words into context, unlike a human. But because you rely so heavily on the mighty word filter to tell you what to do you become robotic - hence why I consider moderators and management robotic in response because they seem to have a limit to thought and discretion. I clearly wasn't rude and was told this, so why is avoiding the filter the end of the world when it wasn't inappropriate? It's why the avoid the filter rule was merged into post inappropriate, because the Avoid the filter rule isn't a rule, it's really just describing the intent of the word filter. Oli and Garion understood this, not sure why management have changed their mind :S

If that word was unfiltered 1% of the time it would be used properly as a name and 99% of the time it would be used as a derogatory word directed at another member. Unfiltering that word would basically be like encouraging people to insult eachother because in the spam forum especially that's all it would ever be used for. Infact, hardly ever is that word used in a context which isn't calling someone else a penis (replace penis with worse version of penis) which is absolutely unacceptable.


In some cases they are, as they seem to ignore moderator discretion and come out with generic, mindless comments which aren't answers to questions. It's like they a positive magnet facing another positive magnet, they force away from the issue and refuse to answer questions, and when they're caught out you get a swearing match going on or tedious debate. I'm not debating how good the moderators or super moderators do, as they have guidelines to follow and do a decent job, it's only when they're met with abnormalities they begin to act confused and begin making pointless answers which in reality is just rhetoric - avoiding a conclusive answer and just wittering on for ages until inevitably the thread is closed for no reason.
I don't think it's that they're not able to deal with abnormalities. On the contrary I think it's just the opposite, I think they're so used to dealing with the same rulebreaks over and over and so they're just following a standard procedure. I don't see anything terribly robotic about the PMs moderators are sending users, they seem to suit the situations just as accurately as moderator PMs did in previous years (keep in mind I can't see replies to PMs so if there's a problem here I suggest PMing Sct).

Not that this has anything to do with me, but I read his post and he was posting an example of a swear word in a 12A film. It contributed to the discussion, as clearly 12A is the age range of Habbo Hotel. It was comparing two types of media together. You cannot call it pointless, it's not like he randomly blerted out "****".
Avoiding the filter is never allowed in a discussion just because it was used in context. It's been allowed in this feedback thread when it's been necessary to justify your point however in his case it was not necessary - he wasn't using it in an example and his post would have been just as affective without it.

[GommeInc]

For the record I wouldn't call Windows 7 stupid. It's not a terrible operating system just because I don't use it :P

Anywho it doesn't matter what a News Station wishes to do, we're an internet forum and the truth of it is that there are internet forums where there are filters, and some with no filters. We're one with filters and context or not that isn't changing because posts everywhere would be degraded in quality and threads would have a lot less actual conversation. It would also make the atmosphere more intimidating for new and young members if they saw swearing everywhere.
So I am assuming I proved you wrong when you said it isn't common for the F word to appear? :P

Again, you're making it seem like I am suggesting you remove the filter (here comes the robotic accusation!), I am just suggesting that common sense and initiative would decide that clearly mustard child (with a ba), in context with a product, is harmless. I am saying that the B word has another, harmless meaning that isn't to do with illegitimate children - I'm not sure why everyone skips this point as it's sort of proving my roboticism theory :P If someone takes offense to that they shouldn't be let near the media, or outside. I suggest having them shot as they're clearly a waste of life, organs and blood - the organs and blood can be donated to useful causes, but unforunately lives can't be traded, especially dirty ones.


If that word was unfiltered 1% of the time it would be used properly as a name and 99% of the time it would be used as a derogatory word directed at another member. Unfiltering that word would basically be like encouraging people to insult eachother because in the spam forum especially that's all it would ever be used for. Infact, hardly ever is that word used in a context which isn't calling someone else a penis (replace penis with worse version of penis) which is absolutely unacceptable. I don't think it's that they're not able to deal with abnormalities. On the contrary I think it's just the opposite, I think they're so used to dealing with the same rulebreaks over and over and so they're just following a standard procedure. I don't see anything terribly robotic about the PMs moderators are sending users, they seem to suit the situations just as accurately as moderator PMs did in previous years (keep in mind I can't see replies to PMs so if there's a problem here I suggest PMing Sct).
This is a dry argument. People can already insult each other until their hearts content with unfiltered words. Oli and Catz have both said that the word Di.ck can be unfiltered as it isn't rude anymore and if people use it to name call each other they will be met with the same rules that apply to the words "idiot, twit, arse, ass and imbesile". The D word has different uses - as a name, a derogatory word for someone who is being follish, stupid or evil, and another word for penis. Heck, if someone was using the D word isntead of penis I can assure you no-one will take offense - how can they when they mean the same thing? It's only rude if it goes into graphic detail (same with penis) or is used to offend someone (imbesile, twit, stupid, berk, arse, ass etc.)


Avoiding the filter is never allowed in a discussion just because it was used in context. It's been allowed in this feedback thread when it's been necessary to justify your point however in his case it was not necessary - he wasn't using it in an example and his post would have been just as affective without it.
He was, he was saying a 12A film used it (X-Men First Class I believe?). He was using an example - it's a text book example of an example :P

[AgnesIO]

So I am assuming I proved you wrong when you said it isn't common for the F word to appear? :P

Again, you're making it seem like I am suggesting you remove the filter (here comes the robotic accusation!), I am just suggesting that common sense and initiative would decide that clearly mustard child (with a ba), in context with a product, is harmless. I am saying that the B word has another, harmless meaning that isn't to do with illegitimate children - I'm not sure why everyone skips this point as it's sort of proving my roboticism theory :P If someone takes offense to that they shouldn't be let near the media, or outside. I suggest having them shot as they're clearly a waste of life, organs and blood - the organs and blood can be donated to useful causes, but unforunately lives can't be traded, especially dirty ones.


This is a dry argument. People can already insult each other until their hearts content with unfiltered words. Oli and Catz have both said that the word Di.ck can be unfiltered as it isn't rude anymore and if people use it to name call each other they will be met with the same rules that apply to the words "idiot, twit, arse, ass and imbesile". The D word has different uses - as a name, a derogatory word for someone who is being follish, stupid or evil, and another word for penis. Heck, if someone was using the D word isntead of penis I can assure you no-one will take offense - how can they when they mean the same thing? It's only rude if it goes into graphic detail (same with penis) or is used to offend someone (imbesile, twit, stupid, berk, arse, ass etc.)


He was, he was saying a 12A film used it (X-Men First Class I believe?). He was using an example - it's a text book example of an example :P

To be fair if I went to college and started calling teachers *****, they probably wouldn't be too happy lol

Fool is allowed too lol

[GommeInc]

To be fair if I went to college and started calling teachers *****, they probably wouldn't be too happy lol

Fool is allowed too lol
Is that the shorthand for Richard or a 5 letter T word ending with S? I'm stumped by what word you said :P I assume if you said the D word you sort of proved my point - you'd be met with an unhappy member/moderator.

[AgnesIO]

Is that the shorthand for Richard or a 5 letter T word ending with S? I'm stumped by what word you said :P I assume if you said the D word you sort of proved my point - you'd be met with an unhappy member/moderator.

And that is why it shouldn't be unfiltered - as clearly it does still cause offence lol

And yeah *for purposes to show what I meant* Di.cks

[GommeInc]

And that is why it shouldn't be unfiltered - as clearly it does still cause offence lol

And yeah *for purposes to show what I meant* Di.cks
So does idiot, arse, ass, imbesile, berk and so many other unfiltered words, the difference is the context they're used in. It won't cause offense unless directed at members or being used in a graphic way. I don't see the harm in calling Ed Milliband a "bit of a di.ck" at all, as it's about as rude as calling "Ed Milliband a bit of a berk". There are a few interesting discussions on the word Di.ck, but that's for another time :P