Moderation

[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

[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

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?f...aringandfilter

[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?f...aringandfilter

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 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 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 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.

[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.