Moderators

[Dear Wiggo]

Del, if you were insulted by my use of the word, then I apologize.

I can only speak for myself and no other mod. But to be perfectly honest, I don't really mind people using swear words too much. IMO Swear words are only "bad" words if you make them out to be bad words. Or use them as bad words. You'll never see me delete, or give a warning for, or ban anyone for using a swear word in a post. Unless it is used in an insulting or derogatory way.

And that does not mean I am saying anyone can go and put constant swear words in every single one of their posts. I would consider that trolling.

Context is king, surely?

 

[Afrank]

Context is king, surely?

Yep, it's all in the context of the words use.

In my case, I used it to emphasize my excitement of Nibali winning (because large bold letters was most definitely not enough ).

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

And I'd have to agree with RF, making people out like they're being defensive or resorting to insults instead of responding to the points in a post is trolling.

Yet, this happens time and time again often when addressing Sky and yet you seem happy to let those slip.

Moderation here is becoming spineless.

Feel free to move this to the Moderator's thread.

 

[Afrank]

Yet, this happens time and time again often when addressing Sky and yet you seem happy to let those slip.

Moderation here is becoming spineless.

Feel free to move this to the Moderator's thread.

(Might as well move to mod thread)

I would recommend reporting the posts that you feel do this.

 

[RedheadDane]

Yep, it's all in the context of the words use.

So, in a grossly simplified example:

Writing: "That was f*cking awesome!" (about something during a race) would be okay.
But writing "You're just a f*cking idiot!" (about another poster) wouldn't.

 

[42x16ss]

Good luck trying to figure that one out. As near as I can figure it out, mods can use swear words, but nobody else can.

Umm context? As soon as it's directed at someone it should be seen as an issue.

Or if you're using it constantly.

*Beaten by AFrank*

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Umm context? As soon as it's directed at someone it should be seen as an issue.

Or if you're using it constantly.

*Beaten by AFrank*

*ahem*



I lead Afrank out but was concerned someone might come around so continued to sprint to the line.

 

[hiero2]

Much better would be to update the word filter so people actually respect it. Can I link to http://www.****iociclismo.it/ ? Can I write ****stan? Oh but surely it'll censor ***...

Good one on the Spa* ciclismo, nets. And I'm surprised by that last one! See next.

The thing that's frustrating is, this type of selective censorship, where it recognizes particular contexts where a word is not offensive, but does not apply it consistently.

For example, I can discuss the language of Yiddish, however if I were to use the word for 'Jew' in that language, ***, it is often used by gentiles as a racial slur and is censored.

But if this is okay, then why is it not ok to discuss the country of which Islamabad is the capital city, because the first part of its name has similarly become a racial epithet?

Why does the censor recognise that Y I D is not offensive when followed by -dish, but not that P A K I is not offensive when followed by -stan?

Not that it makes a difference, but if you are curious, the ruleset likely uses special characters somewhere (like wild cards). And it depends on how the rule is written. There are sometimes unintended consequences to special characters, and you have to go back and make specific exemptions. Given the large number of innocent words, e.g. cockatiel, that contain certain characters, without specifying a string (a series of letters or characters) exactly, you might not "catch" it. And without EXEMPTING a string specifically, you get examples like ****stan. {e.g. +yid -*yid* +paki} might result in the situation we see.

Like I said, doesn't really make a difference to us who are simply the "end-users". But, I thought some might be interested in a possible explanation of what might be occurring.

So, in a grossly simplified example:

Writing: "That was f*cking awesome!" (about something during a race) would be okay.
But writing "You're just a f*cking idiot!" (about another poster) wouldn't.

Yeah. I think Afrank actually did a good job explaining. And you've given a perfect example. And it seems like a reasonable plan to me.

 

[Afrank]

So, in a grossly simplified example:

Writing: "That was f*cking awesome!" (about something during a race) would be okay.
But writing "You're just a f*cking idiot!" (about another poster) wouldn't.

Pretty much. The first, really just an exclamation of excitement. I wouldn't take a second look. The second, an insult. I would delete.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Pretty much. The first, really just an exclamation of excitement. I wouldn't take a second look. The second, an insult. I would delete.

WHy cant the Austian race be stickied? do future's/CN hate Austria as it is the birth place of that guy who can't be named?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

(Might as well move to mod thread)

I would recommend reporting the posts that you feel do this.

I have and either the system is broken or no one can be bothered to reply.

 

[King Boonen]

I have and either the system is broken or no one can be bothered to reply.

Mods don't reply to reports. They make a judgement and act accordingly.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

WHy cant the Austian race be stickied? do future's/CN hate Austria as it is the birth place of that guy who can't be named?

or quoted in our signatures

 

[del1962]

or quoted in our signatures

Can't we quote Freud in our sigs

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Can't we quote Freud in our sigs

No, this is supposed to be a family friendly forum, we don't want Sigi coming in here calling out more mother****ers than Samuel L Jackson!

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Mods don't reply to reports. They make a judgement and act accordingly.

So, to sum up, they do nothing.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

WHy cant the Austian race be stickied? do future's/CN hate Austria as it is the birth place of that guy who can't be named?

 

[King Boonen]

So, to sum up, they do nothing.

No, they do what is required. That may or may not agree with your view on the reported post.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

No, they do what is required. That may or may not agree with your view on the reported post.

How do you know what they do or do not do? Have you got a Batman-like hotline? No? Well, best you run along then.

I know many people that have used the report button and nothing was done. I finally tried it after things were getting stupid in one thread and magically nothing happened. If nothing is seen to happen (and I don't just mean for the posts I reported) then why would anyone bother?

 

[Afrank]

King Boonen is right actually. We do what we feel is required. Sometimes we delete posts, sometimes post a warning, or send a warning in a PM; all depends on how serious the reported post is.

And yes, there are times when a reported post will slip by us and we don't get to it. Or sometimes we might feel no action is required. But I'd say more often the not reported posts are dealt with. And not noticing anything happen one time doesn't mean that is the norm.

 

[red_flanders]

How do you know what they do or do not do? Have you got a Batman-like hotline? No? Well, best you run along then.

Is that necessary? He's actually completely correct. Doesn't really matter how he knows.

The point of reporting a post is to let the mods know there's a perceived issue and then move on. Not to ensure the action you think is necessary is taken.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Is that necessary? He's actually completely correct. Doesn't really matter how he knows.

The point of reporting a post is to let the mods know there's a perceived issue and then move on. Not to ensure the action you think is necessary is taken.

If you don't like my post then you should probably report it, no?

Read my post again and you will see I was not talking about my reports specifically. Seems mods are happy to jump in when someone is ribbing someone about predictions but post something as fact that is a lie then they are happy to let it ride. In fact the same posters get away with the same stuff time and time again and I include posters with all different views. What do most of the mods do? Nothing.

Just, whatever you do, don't insult one because then you are shafted.

 

[hiero2]

How do you know what they do or do not do? Have you got a Batman-like hotline? No? Well, best you run along then.

I know many people that have used the report button and nothing was done. I finally tried it after things were getting stupid in one thread and magically nothing happened. If nothing is seen to happen (and I don't just mean for the posts I reported) then why would anyone bother?

Oy, you make it so much fun to want to jump in. Let me get this straight, make sure I understand, right?

You saw many reportable posts, yet did nothing.
Then you reported one.
And, you expected that the mods would automatically agree with the fullness of your wisdom and experience in these matters. Not to mention that their experiences with you should lead to nothing except for trust in your judgement. Right?
Ditto all the above for the "many people" you know have also reported posts. And you've got that bat-radar thing going so you KNOW they've actually reported something. Right?

Next, you did not intend for the "run along then" statement to be demeaning or belittling - that was not anything like what you meant. Right?

Ok - so we've gone through a few numbers now. If the reasoning you present had been presented by, say, daotec, what would you say is wrong with it?

And, last point, what makes you think, that because no action was taken (visible to you), and no response was received by you, what makes you think the mods did not consider and think about your report?

Now, all that done, I will say it is my opinion that the whole modding process would be better and more responsive if replies were sent out to the folks doing the reporting. But I never got anywhere with that change. In part because it would represent a massive increase in mod workload, the way things are set up now.

But, you know, with all the negativity I sense in that post, Moriarty, I was strongly inclined not to offer anything positive in return at all. You may consider yourself lucky that I felt generous. Or, you may not, but that will reflect on your capacity to listen and absorb some learning, more than the quality of your luck.

Oh, and just in case you've lost your sense of humor at this point?
I am Oz, the Great and Powerful, Ruler of the Emerald Jersey

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Oy, you make it so much fun to want to jump in. Let me get this straight, make sure I understand, right?

Right...

You saw many reportable posts, yet did nothing.
Then you reported one.

No, I reported multiple,

And, you expected that the mods would automatically agree with the fullness of your wisdom and experience in these matters. Not to mention that their experiences with you should lead to nothing except for trust in your judgement. Right?

Not just mine but many people. It is clear that many threads go well off topic and nothing is done yet Afrank jumps in calling someone a troll for something so minor it would not even register in most of the other.

Ditto all the above for the "many people" you know have also reported posts. And you've got that bat-radar thing going so you KNOW they've actually reported something. Right?

Yes, because they have posted that (On this very thread I think). As well as a number posting about the report button not working.

Next, you did not intend for the "run along then" statement to be demeaning or belittling - that was not anything like what you meant. Right?

Like I said, if you find it offensive report it. The system clearly works, no?

Ok - so we've gone through a few numbers now. If the reasoning you present had been presented by, say, daotec, what would you say is wrong with it?

Who is daotec?

And, last point, what makes you think, that because no action was taken (visible to you), and no response was received by you, what makes you think the mods did not consider and think about your report?

As I said it was not just specific to the posts I reported. But the fact that the same people get away with the same things time and time again shows that sod all is being done to deter them.

But, you know, with all the negativity I sense in that post, Moriarty, I was strongly inclined not to offer anything positive in return at all. You may consider yourself lucky that I felt generous. Or, you may not, but that will reflect on your capacity to listen and absorb some learning, more than the quality of your luck.

I am not sure you have really offered anything at all Sherlock..? But maybe that is just the quality of my luck?

 

[hiero2]

Right...
. . .

Like I said, if you find it offensive report it. The system clearly works, no?

Oh, my, well done. Reported as a direct attack on other posters.

Who is daotec?

You are being disengenuous. And you are avoiding the question.

As I said it was not just specific to the posts I reported. But the fact that the same people get away with the same things time and time again shows that sod all is being done to deter them.

Again, we come to a basic perception problem. YOU perceive that

the same people get away with the same things . . .

. But, apparently other people do not perceive these posts in the same way.

I am not sure you have really offered anything at all Sherlock..? But maybe that is just the quality of my luck?

Oh, my, again - well done. Well replied, dblP! Score one for rational, sober faculties present. However, you left some questions unanswered, and dodged others. Care to elucidate?