Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Lohrenswald, May 28, 2017.
That is not what they typed! We can see what they typed and meant.
Yes, I got that, I read the thread, but what I don't get and still haven't had explained is why infractions are needed when what they typed is not what shows up in their post.
It hasn't yet been explained why there is a need to type that in the first place? Perhaps you would prefer I turn off the autocensor?
I am not a stupid person and I do have a decent vocabulary - but it doesn't include most legal terms, and odd words that are impossible to infer the meaning of by looking at the context. If I ask the meaning of a word, it should be explained, instead of chastising/mocking me for asking.
Considering that there are some moderators on this site who prefer to regurgitate law books rather than use normal language (sorry, but I haven't attended law school, nor am I fluent in Latin), I have a short fuse when it comes to lack of clarity in Site Feedback. I'm not impressed by walls of text full of unfamiliar technical terms (or other unusual terms) that could be expressed more clearly. I'm also not impressed by references to popular culture that I'm unfamiliar with. References to movies/TV shows I haven't seen are useless for "explanations."
So no, I should not have to "google it myself." This is the part of the forum where rules and policies are discussed. It's the part of the forum where the staff should absolutely be clear and use language that is designed to explain, not sound like they're spitting out a dictionary.
As someone whose language hasn't been grandmother-approved over the years here (although I haven't gone anywhere near as far as what some have), my view of this is that of course people will want to swear. Since nobody on this site (including me) is going to revert to "goshdarnshucksgollygeewhizohdear" language to express disapproval of something, all I ask is that CFC has a CONSISTENT policy about workarounds, and a willingness to periodically review the autocensor list - because language is always changing, new definitions are coined for old words and phrases, and some of those are downright vile.
The way I handle swearing on the forums I run is to think of the commonest situations where it's apt to come up, set the filters accordingly, and take the rest as the situations may occur. I've let the membership know that there are some words that will absolutely NOT be permitted under any circumstances, but I would allow alternate phrasing or the use of particular smileys to express negative thoughts.
Interestingly, the only place where I ever had a problem with this was the Dune forum. My staff colleagues were ready to permaban someone for her swearing habit, and when I asked about the language filter, they said it hadn't been turned on. I asked why not, and they said, "because people should know better."
Yes, they should... but that's not a realistic expectation on the internet. So I went ahead and set the language filters (using the four-asterisks as the substitute for the objectionable words) and told them that it would be a solution that would keep the bad words from being visible and the member could type normally and not worry about getting warned, infracted, or permabanned.
It's a solution that worked. And on the Doctor Who forum, most people who want to swear use the smileys to express that they are swearing. I haven't come across more than one instance of inappropriate swearing/swearing substitutes - and that ex-member had a whole lot of other issues going on, and was permabanned for a whole laundry list of rules violations. The most recent instance of swearing on that forum was a few days ago, by me (I was discussing the Photobucket situation)... using a smiley:
Leif, please keep in mind that while YOU can see it, the rest of us can't see it.
As the saying goes: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference."
I mean, yes, as I stated in my initial post in this thread I would prefer that the autocensor be turned off, but I get that that isn't happening, and I'm just asking for an explanation of why posts that trigger the autocensor get infracted. You offered this:
...which I respect, but then you seemingly contradict this with your use of "we" in post 81.
"Bowdlerize" is a much more succinct way of conveying "make sanitizing changes to" than any alternative formulation I can think of. Also, incidentally, I already knew the word but I tested it and it literally took me three seconds to google it (the definition is the first thing that comes up if you just google the word).
Literally three seconds.
This is what I've been getting at. It seems inconsistent, and thus unfair, for "female dogging" to get a pass while simply triggering the autocensor gets an infraction. Particularly since "female dogging" is actually more obvious to the general posting public than a lot of what comes out of the autocensor.
I, as well as the rest of the staff, can see whatever was typed both in the respective forum and/or in the reported post forum. As I said, I am not an OT Moderator, so I do not take action in those forums unless there is a serious problem and no OT Moderators are available. Ori, Flying Pig, Arakhor and Vincour pretty much handle OT.
The OT swearing policy is currently to ding partially-obscured swearwords, but to allow fully-obscured words and various euphemisms (within reason). E.g. I recommend using effing, but not dafuq as that is simply the f-word spelt 'creatively'.
Congratulations. That's three seconds for you. Did you ever consider that some of us may have slow computers or cranky browsers and that it often takes considerably more than 3 seconds to do stuff?
My point stands that since this is the part of the forum where clarity is critical, it really doesn't serve any purpose to regurgitate law books or odd words other than the poster is showing off. It's like people who write manuals for people who already know enough that they don't need to read a manual.
During my time on staff, I always made the effort to explain myself as clearly as possible to people, whether I was posting in this forum or in a PM to an infractee. At no time did I shrug and say, "google it yourself." That's rude.
And to be clear, we know this is arbitrary and not exceptionally logical. Changes will likely happen to this approach in the near future... but members should still expect to be trusted to avoid swearing by their own volition instead of by relying on the censor to do it for them regardless of any changes made. No matter what we decide on for OT, we still have to abide by the overarching site rules.
Conversely when I see a word I don't know my instinct is always to blame myself for being ignorant, as it were, and to learn the word rather than to blame other people for knowing/using words I don't know.
I can dig that I guess.
So I should blame myself for not having taken Latin, when it's not something that was offered within a hundred miles of where I live, and not reading law books so I can wade through one of your colleagues' typical walls of text?
What's wrong with just using ordinary language?
(And something bizarre just happened... first this post was double-posted, then I deleted the extra, the first one disappeared as well, I reposted it... and half of my last sentence was gone. Did I just swear? Oh, you'd better believe I just swore! )
1 - I am not a lawyer
2 - I may have missed something, wasn't the word that prompted this 'bowdlerize'? What does Latin have to do with that?
Yes, you did miss something. I moved on from that to include walls of text containing Latin words and phrases and legal terms.
@Arakhor: Moderators should set an example of the courtesy they want to see in other members. If you want people to start mocking other people for not knowing unfamiliar words, you're off to a great start.
I realise that you're sensitive that I apparently used a word with which you weren't familiar, but I'm not mocking you in the slightest. I'm merely agreeing with Lexicus that the word has nothing to do with Latin.
And evidently both of you skipped the parts of my posts that reference other examples of moderators not using clear language. At this point I can't really get too much more specific or I'll probably get slapped with a PDMA infraction.
I would rather there be no autocensor and for it to fall on me to censor myself than for there to be an autocensor and be infracted for using it. What's the point of having an autocensor if you're going to come through and <snip> the autocensored words anyway?
Right now, in OT at least, the only times <snip> is used is when some of the word remains intact or the censor was evaded.
That's certainly not been the case in any of my experiences thus far. On any of the the subfora including OT.
It does fall on you to censor yourself, no one else can control your behavior.
Separate names with a comma.