Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tiresias · Mar 9, 2007, 09:45 PM

I will quote myself from the Ezeikel thread in the Political/War Lounge:

It's also a measure of [vmarks] religious devoutness that he has gone about deleting crude words in this thread where they appear next to the word Holy or God.

Question: Should mods be using their ability to edit other people's posts to make those posts conform to their religious views?

Mods should follow the rules. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Will they started editing our opinions too?

centerchannel68 · Mar 9, 2007, 10:12 PM

War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

Thinine · Mar 9, 2007, 10:19 PM

In a similar theme, the censoring of Jesus or God on TV pisses me off. "Sweet zombie _____" just doesn't have the same ring as "Sweet zombie jesus!"

Tiresias · Mar 9, 2007, 10:29 PM

The asterisk is a conventional means of censoring swear words in the print media.

For example, would you permit me to say: "F**k you" ? What about, "F*** you" ? Or just "**** you" ? We need to be clear on such things so as to know to what extent you are likely to bowdlerize our posts.

reader50 · Mar 9, 2007, 10:47 PM

I once edited a light hearted poll to add more interesting options. Turned out the thread starter seriously did want to know what computers do at night.

BlueSky · 12:22 PM

It's also a measure of [vmarks] religious devoutness that he has gone about deleting crude words in this thread where they appear next to the word Holy or God.

I came to Feedback to ask about this and woo-ha...someone already did.

AFAIC the subject (Ezeikel & human dung) practically begged the response "Holy shît". And that was my post.

I noticed yesterday that vmarks had edited my post and replaced it with "holy ahem" . So I edited my post to say "holy sh*t" (with asterisk).

Today I noticed he put the "ahem" back, and I again edited to spell "sh*t". This is NOT trying to defeat the filter, it's basically doing what everyone else does, and it's respecting vmarks' apparent problem with the profanity.

I've been here 3-4 years and I've never seen anyone hassle anyone about sh*t, especially when the profanity in question was so incredibly appropriate.

vmarks is on a personal trip. I understand if he may be offended, so maybe the PL isn't the best place to be a mod if you offend that easily.

Spelling it "sh*t" is respecting the filter, and any meddling beyond that is out of line, AFAIC.

centerchannel68 · Mar 10, 2007, 02:11 PM

Actually, I've been yelled at quite a few times for writing 'f*ck' or 'sh*t', on the basis that I was circumventing the filter. So.. I'm pretty sure it's against the rules, unless the rules here are only enforced selectively...... which....could never happen. Right? Rigghtt?

vmarks · Mar 11, 2007, 12:44 AM

I've always edited those words, and they are skirting the filter.

It's not a personal reason, and it's not religious in basis.

We even have infractions set up for inappropriate language, and the word filter helps make most of those a non-issue. But when a user insists on posting it anyway, by substituting characters, whether #, *, î, <, or others, it's a violation of the rules.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 11, 2007, 01:07 AM

It's a drag having mods who believe in faerie tales.

vmarks · Mar 11, 2007, 09:08 AM

It's a drag having to explain to people that the rules are the rules, when they'd rather ascribe enforcement of the rules to personal beliefs.

But in the end, it doesn't much matter: You all agreed to abide by the rules when you signed up for these forums.

Peter · 09:52 AM

*shrug

vmarks · 09:53 AM

The curse word filter does replace the whole word with asterisks, except that when a char like #, *, or < is used, the word filter doesn't see that, and is therefore skirted.

As far as the filter is concerned, a # or * is the same as î or <.

Skirting the filter is against the rules.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

It's a drag having mods who believe in faerie tales.

It's even a bigger drag having bigoted posters who make comments like you did above.

This has nothing to do with vmarks's religion.

This thread is teh suck. And the title is dishonest.

Forum rules do not = personal reasons.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 11, 2007, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's even a bigger drag having bigoted posters who make comments like you did above.

But it's OK to break the rule you just did. Calling me a bigot is a personal attack, bub.

That makes you a hypocrite.

Of course vmarks won't do anything about it because many of us know he is biased.

Tiresias · 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's even a bigger drag having bigoted posters who make comments like you did above.

This has nothing to do with vmarks's religion.

This thread is teh suck. And the title is dishonest.

Forum rules do not = personal reasons.

The title is a question. Questions cannot be dishonest because they are not affirmative, indicative or negative. They are interrogative. Of course, some questions do presuppose (e.g. "Does John still beat his wife?" presupposes John used to beat his wife); but I don't think my question necessarily presupposes mods edit post for personal reasons because it is in the subjunctive mood: Should...?. To commit the fallacy of presupposition my question would have to be something like: "Why do mods edit posts for personal reasons?"

Kevin: To indicate that you agree with me completely and solemnly renounce your hasty accusation, please do one of the following:

A) Submit a post to this thread of any description
B) Do not submit a post to this thread

Thank you.

P.S.
What's wrong with sweary words anyway? They now use them in numerous media sources uncensored.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

But it's OK to break the rule you just did. Calling me a bigot is a personal attack, bub.

That makes you a hypocrite.

I attacked you for making personal attacks? No. You made a bigoted statement. You got called on it.

BTW, if I came in here making homophobic comments, and someone called me a homophob do you think that the mods would ban the person that called me that? Of course not. The mods would tell the person if he didn't want to be called a homophob, to stop making such statements.

Of course vmarks won't do anything about it because many of us know he is biased.

vmarks has deleted plenty of things I have said. Even banned me once.

So much for that.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

The title is a question. Questions cannot be dishonest because they are not affirmative, indicative or negative.

Your rant was about vmarks. So was your topic. You insinuated vmarks was deleting things for personal reasons in your thread. He was not. That is what makes it dishonest. Your question wasn't IF he was doing this. It was that he WAS doing this and should he be?

AKA vmarks wasn't editing anything for personal reasons. He was following the channel rules.

This whole thread is silly.

BlueSky · Mar 11, 2007, 11:24 AM

Tiresias brought this up in the thread in question, and since it went unanswered I'd like it clarified here:

The asterisk is a conventional means of censoring swear words in the print media.

For example, would you permit me to say: "F**k you" ? What about, "F*** you" ? Or just "**** you" ? We need to be clear on such things so as to know to what extent you are likely to bowdlerize our posts.

It's not like I'm a-rarin' to git out there and cuss up a storm, but these situations do arise now and then and I'd like to know, especially since I've received a warning from vmarks.

The above quote wasn't censored by vmarks, why is that? If it wasn't because it's a question of context, i.e. Tiresias asking for information as opposed to someone using the "s" word (groan) in a flippant manner, then it would appear that it's not the appearance of the word itself (or asterisked version) that offends, but the context it appears in.

Also, my descriptive earlier post in this thread wasn't censored by vmarks, and I assume he has read it since he has replied in this thread. It would appear we're left to figure out whether or not the context in which the word appears is appropriate, since the two aforementioned posts were not censored.

I've been here 3 years and I've never seen the censoring of profanities by a mod, I've used many myself, asterisked and otherwise. It would indicate that mods enforce the rule when it personally suits them.

vmarks · Mar 11, 2007, 11:36 AM

The filter makes asterisks of the whole word.

You can do the same manually, or you can just use more appropriate words.

Link me to your more descriptive post, I can't recollect it.

That particular post should be edited for the violations there, and deleted because it's not even on the topic of the thread, but then how would you know how to read it? Since that post isn't on topic, and this thread is about that topic, I believe I'll move it here.

You received a warning, not an infraction, because you persisted in editing the post back after it had been corrected - the warning was to show that there is an infraction called 'inappropriate language'. It's meant to be enforced all the time. I know I enforce it as consistently as I can.

Tiresias · Mar 11, 2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Kevin: To indicate that you agree with me completely and solemnly renounce your hasty accusation, please do one of the following:

A) Submit a post to this thread of any description
B) Do not submit a post to this thread

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your rant was about vmarks. So was your topic. You insinuated vmarks was deleting things for personal reasons in your thread. He was not. That is what makes it dishonest. Your question wasn't IF he was doing this. It was that he WAS doing this and should he be?

AKA vmarks wasn't editing anything for personal reasons. He was following the channel rules.

This whole thread is silly.

I see that you have chosen option A.

I accept your solemn renouncement of your accusation.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 11:44 AM

You only accept dishonesty it seems.

oh well.

Again this thread is silly.

Tiresias · Mar 11, 2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

This whole thread is silly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again this thread is silly.

No, no no. This sausage is silly.

The thread is just contentious.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 11:58 AM

Yeah I got one of those too

And I stick by my original silly call.

There really isn't anything to argue about. Baseless accusations were made. They then got shot down.

End of thread.

BlueSky · 06:39 PM

edit: It appears the whole thing's academic, **** it.

imitchellg5 · Mar 11, 2007, 12:05 PM

Mods do follow the rules. You need to read the forum rules again. Mods are under no contract. They can edit and change stuff as they wish.

Tiresias · Mar 11, 2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

You need to read the forum rules again.

Again?

Atomic Rooster · Mar 11, 2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's even a bigger drag having bigoted posters who make comments like you did above.

This has nothing to do with vmarks's religion.

This thread is teh suck. And the title is dishonest.

Forum rules do not = personal reasons.

Americans must have their asshole in a pinch. ****. piss. **** and other words are used every day on TV and the paper in Canada if they are quoted by someone, even in parliament.

Jeezuz they had The Osbournes on at primetime on a network TV uncensored.

And I get a warning or an infarkion for f#ckupidness which isn't even a word. I was told to change it so I changed it to fekkupidness. The whole thing was so god damned stupid.

Things seem to be going backwards and I can only believe it's because of conservative jewish/christian faerie tails and puckered american assholes.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 11, 2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

Mods do follow the rules. You need to read the forum rules again. Mods are under no contract. They can edit and change stuff as they wish.

So you're saying there are no rules as far as mods are concenred? I'ts whatever whatever.

Atomic Rooster · Mar 11, 2007, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW, if I came in here making homophobic comments, and someone called me a homophob do you think that the mods would ban the person that called me that? Of course not. The mods would tell the person if he didn't want to be called a homophob, to stop making such statements.

That would explain why you stalk SWG. You're homo whatever.

vmarks · 03:13 PM

Atomic Rooster:

You can believe what you please.

The rules were like this before you got here, and they'll very likely be like this after you're gone.

You can continue to ascribe my enforcement of the rules to personal beliefs if you wish, but you'll be mistaken.

Big Mac · Mar 11, 2007, 03:03 PM

Looks like a pretty stupid thread to me.

Kevin · Mar 11, 2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

Americans must have their asshole in a pinch. ****. piss. **** and other words are used every day on TV and the paper in Canada if they are quoted by someone, even in parliament.

Jeezuz they had The Osbournes on at primetime on a network TV uncensored.

And I get a warning or an infarkion for f#ckupidness which isn't even a word. I was told to change it so I changed it to fekkupidness. The whole thing was so god damned stupid.

Things seem to be going backwards and I can only believe it's because of conservative jewish/christian faerie tails and puckered american assholes.

It has nothing to do with America., or Religion. Stop being silly.

imitchellg5 · Mar 11, 2007, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

So you're saying there are no rules as far as mods are concenred? I'ts whatever whatever.

Look at the rules. They can make their own judgements about what is appropriate or not.

Kevin · Mar 12, 2007, 05:52 AM

This is just another lame "I dislike vmarks" thread. Move along

Tiresias · Mar 12, 2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

This whole thread is silly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again this thread is silly.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And I stick by my original silly call.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Stop being silly.

Here, let me help you bring a little variety to your writing:

silly adjective 1 don't be so silly foolish, stupid, unintelligent, idiotic, brainless, mindless, witless, imbecilic, doltish; imprudent, thoughtless, rash, reckless, foolhardy, irresponsible; mad, scatterbrained, featherbrained; frivolous, giddy, inane, immature, childish, puerile, empty-headed; informal crazy, dotty, scatty, loopy,wingy, ditzy, screwy, thick, thickheaded, birdbrained, pea-brained, dopey, dim, dimwitted, halfwitted, dippy, blockheaded, boneheaded, lamebrained; daft, chowderheaded; dated tomfool.

subego · Mar 12, 2007, 03:47 PM

Here's an idea...

Let's keep the swears and ban personal attacks.

Kevin · Mar 12, 2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Here, let me help you bring a little variety to your writing:

No thanks.

I am particularly fond of the word silly.

subego · Mar 12, 2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

No thanks.

I am particularly fond of the word silly.

Dotty is pretty good though.

brassplayersrock² · Mar 12, 2007, 04:13 PM

the filter is there for a reason. no ONE should change a post except for the org. of said post. not a mod, not an admin. if it has a cuss word filtered. Porn i can understand, spam another, but to change a post due to little stars? **** you

-a

centerchannel68 · Mar 12, 2007, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW, if I came in here making homophobic comments, and someone called me a homophob do you think that the mods would ban the person that called me that?

Yes. One person on this forum suggested using egg yolks to clean your car, which risked costing someone thousands of dollars if they actually tried this. I called them an asshole for making such a suggestion, and received an infraction. I'm sure that if I had a bunch of infractions previously, I would have been banned for it. Sorry Kevin, you are teh wrong.

centerchannel68 · Mar 12, 2007, 05:08 PM

So question for vmarks or any other mod... if I DO NOT evade the filter, and just write full on curse words like ****, ****, and ****, is that okay since the filter is effectively censoring what I'm trying to say?

subego · Mar 12, 2007, 06:12 PM

Common sense dictates it would depend.

"****" is not the same as "**** your mother"

mac128k-1984 · Mar 12, 2007, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

The curse word filter does replace the whole word with asterisks, except that when a char like #, *, or < is used, the word filter doesn't see that, and is therefore skirted.

As far as the filter is concerned, a # or * is the same as î or <.

Skirting the filter is against the rules.

That's all fine and good except that I've seen too many posts that have the *#$& characters instead of the obscenity and other mods do nothing, infact you can see mods interacting in the threads and not doing anything about it.

Additionally I've seen images with profanity here, even reported them and nothing was done, so how is it that holy sh*t is changed but f**k (or worse the f-bomb in a jpg ) remained?

I agree with the profanity rule but the application of the rule is anything but even handed.

Kevin · Mar 12, 2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Yes.

Well you are wrong. It's happened.

FireWire · Mar 12, 2007, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

Americans must have their asshole in a pinch. ****. piss. **** and other words are used every day on TV and the paper in Canada if they are quoted by someone, even in parliament.

Jeezuz they had The Osbournes on at primetime on a network TV uncensored.

Exactly.. calm down with your obsession to censor everything..

And what exactly is wrong with the word sh*t? It's in the dictionary... and I dare you to find one single house where the word is never pronounced on a quasi-daily basis...

And finally, how come saying "sh*t" is circumventing the filter.. you don't want us to say "sh!t" so we say "sh*t".. S-H-*-T, **** is spelled with a "i" as the third letter.. Do you see a "i"? The best example I can find is the song "Fack" by Eminem.. Everyone knows what he means, but you don't see it censored.. because it's not the word, it's a look-alike, so your poor innocent eyes are preserved...

Gossamer · Mar 12, 2007, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by FireWire

Exactly.. calm down with your obsession to censor everything..

And what exactly is wrong with the word sh*t? It's in the dictionary... and I dare you to find one single house where the word is never pronounced on a quasi-daily basis...

And finally, how come saying "sh*t" is circumventing the filter.. you don't want us to say "sh!t" so we say "sh*t".. S-H-*-T, **** is spelled with a "i" as the third letter.. Do you see a "i"? The best example I can find is the song "Fack" by Eminem.. Everyone knows what he means, but you don't see it censored.. because it's not the word, it's a look-alike, so your poor innocent eyes are preserved...

It's in the dictionary because it has a definition, and its appearance there has nothing to do with it's appropriateness or cultural significance. Come to my family's house, and $1,000,000,000 says you could sit there for a year and still never hear the word ****.

Tiresias · Mar 13, 2007, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Common sense dictates it would depend.

"****" is not the same as "**** your mother"

What? When I read "**** your mother" the first thing that comes to my mind is "Love your mother."

centerchannel68 · Mar 13, 2007, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

It's in the dictionary because it has a definition, and its appearance there has nothing to do with it's appropriateness or cultural significance. Come to my family's house, and $1,000,000,000 says you could sit there for a year and still never hear the word ****.

Weird. You must live in a leave it to beaver style household or something. Do your parents sleep in the same bed?

Tiresias · Mar 13, 2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Weird. You must live in a leave it to beaver style household or something. Do your parents sleep in the same bed?

Not swearing to me says someone is pretentious, or bland or a religious zealot or all of the above. **** that.

Kevin · Mar 13, 2007, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by centerchannel68

Weird. You must live in a leave it to beaver style household or something.

As if having morals is bad.

Originally Posted by Tiresias

Not swearing to me says someone is pretentious, or bland or a religious zealot or all of the above. **** that.

That says more about you than it does them. BTW you used pretentious poorly.

I have found people that regularly cuss have little to say as far as anything of importance.

I know people that can't say a sentence without throwing one in. It makes them sound ignorant.

Nothing more pretentious than a computer geek cussing to sound "cool" or "tough"