| Author | Flooders Tenthouse |
|---|
These conditions are met in posts 3942 and 4141 for example
What does this mean ? |
It does not matter whether one individual finds something offensive for it to be classed as offensive, merely for there to be individuals in the general population who would. The threshold of classification is based upon the lower end of tolerance not the higher. If with swearing this is less clear, take the same principle and apply it to whether a comment is racist, or homophobic, or sexist or not and the reason for this interpretation is perhaps more clear.
Citing someone who did not get banned is not in any way proof of your innocence. It just proves the fallabity of humanity, this is not pokemon, we are not gonna catch em all. Imagine for a second someone on trial for murder saying, well I did kill him, but I know another murderer and you did not catch him when I think you should. So let me go. |
| Also further to this I believe the moderation of this thread and ones like it is slightly different, such that they deliberately tend to let pass the aspects of forum moderation designed to prevent it being unreadable. Ie the redundant character and long string aspects, as it is after all a flooders thread. I do not think however that means they will let everything pass (as indeed we have found out) |
It depends on the person mostly :P
I have seen some of them working lightly and giving ban only where it's necessary or anyone can clearly tell, that a rule has been broken or the post is offensive. While some just like to ban for any mistake they see xD |
I do not think however that means they will let everything pass (as indeed we have found out)
Oh dear. I am going to assume that the "lower end of tolerance" in real life must be a giant to you. Ah well, have fun protecting your vacuous ideals or whatever pretense you ought to make about your refinement. |
I never sighted the idea of letting me go, read my posts again. It was more about the unjust of banning me for an hour longer than others for a censored enquiry not in context. Now, the reason for that was propositioned to me that in '2013', i got a red post because sweared in a sentence in hindi (as there were several Indians in that thread at the time). This seemed rather unfair to me and if the mod insists of being so meticulous on his job, I expect him to treat everthing and everyone in the same way or not at all.
It seems, not at all is the with exception of extreme situations must be the eoad to take here. And for all future references, there could be some leeway provided to the players that deviates slightly from the rules.
Another way to look at it is the way vv talked to me about earlier today. All mods when recruited are made to read all rules and regulations and tolerate no deviation at all, to prevent making transgressions exceptions and not norms. The trading section is a good example. There, your thread will get locked for the incorrect use of parentheses. The mods must prove their activity (or more so, lack of inactivity) by banning and deleting posts. And we could just let them be as people doing there job. It might not matter if an individual is offended at all. Even the mod might find it irrational but he must do his job |
| I'm sorry for so many typos. I am typing with a phone right now |
I just had woken up and had typed that.. Now that i read it it makes no sense to me.. Let me make a few corrections please.
Cited*, insists on*, be the road*, to prevent making transgressions norms but exceptions*, their job* |
| Must be a nightmare for anyone who tries to read it initially and make sense out of it :p |
for virtual_vitrea:
I am going to assume that the "lower end of tolerance" in real life must be a giant to you.
Not to me at any rate, you will be hard pressed to ever offend me, I grew up a ginger geek with incredibly bad teeth and bad hair. I learned from a very early age to brush off pretty much anything. However, I also appreciate that in judging a situation from my own views is inherently biased, and therefore try and judge things from a neutral position outside of how it may affect me. There are sensitive people out there, and ultimately this is open to public viewing, therefore we do not know who is actually reading it and what their sensitivities, or their age for that matter. The responsible thing therefore with aspects that can clearly cause offense is a lower end judgement. IF you are going to do this, you then need to be able to police it fairly. In effect this means consistently. With swearing where context can make a huge difference this can lead to ambiguity, and therefore an increased risk of unfairness. It would seem prudent therefore to have a list of words agreed to be swear words, which one then acts upon whenever they are observed.
AS to my vacuous ideals I work as a teacher, and am applying principles that I am legally bound to apply to things like racism, to a less significant problem. The notion of not wanting to overly offend people and being considerate to the wide variety of views that exist in the world is to me far from vacuous. If they can say it on Simpsons then you can say it on the forum, if they cannot say it on The Simpsons then it is a swear word. That is how I would look at it.
This would not explain the different length of ban, which may be an oversight, or may be based upon timings (if you swear after you have just seen people being banned for swearing, I would thing it reasonable to increase the ban time slightly since they have clearly not heeded the punishment of others). I have not gone to check if this was the case as am on this page typing. IT does however for you Pankaj seem a touch harsh, however I am not a forum mod and don;t really know anything at all. I am just avoiding doing some work really if I am honest. |
I'll give a small timline, but this will be my last time addresding this. For I will have clinged to enough insignificant things for the day.
Intially they write->i wrte with no bans in place at the moment->he bans everyone at the same time, insinuating prejudice (which he agrees upon by citing posts from 2013)->vv posts and get banned too |
I can't seam to qoute from a phone but as you said,
context can make a huge difference this can lead to ambiguity, and therefore an increased risk of unfairness. It would seem prudent therefore to have a list of words agreed to be swear words, which one then acts upon whenever they are observed."
That must mean equality and equity on the forums are one and the same thing to a certain degree of tolerance. However, if we see a person is swearing and flaming others, he is, by virtue of common sense, entitled to a longer ban others; and not otherwise. This where ambiguity of context and personal views come into effect. Which, to me must not exist in these forums, in the least. And, you are very correct in saying that guidlines are a sensible method of avoiding disagreement. |
What is the point of this conversation ? :P
Nothing will ever change the way moderators work. Not fair but this is how it is. |
What is the point of this conversation ? :P
Its a flooders thread. One can argue the purpose is an end to itself.
I just get bored and feel like making points and seeing what people say. Some would call this discussion. An argument after all is just a form of discussion, granted a little more of a heated one.
And for those who know Monty Python
It is not just the automatic gainsay by contradicting someone |
| Well that's the power of one wrong word I used xD |
| What the ship ? |
Too long didn't read >.>
Hello ! |
| Hello traveler :P |
| Heelo |
you either quit the game forever
Or go away long enough to get called a traveller :o |
