However many threads there are on the main page of SC... That's how many times I just reported 3boyz.
+7
ChelseaT
ydekm
the distant one
izzi
relict
83T'na
Psalter
11 posters
For transparency's sake...
Psalter- River-God
- Post n°1
For transparency's sake...
Just so I am not one of the cowards who reports and doesn't own up to it.
However many threads there are on the main page of SC... That's how many times I just reported 3boyz.
However many threads there are on the main page of SC... That's how many times I just reported 3boyz.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°2
Re: For transparency's sake...
Psalter wrote:Just so I am not one of the cowards who reports and doesn't own up to it.
However many threads there are on the main page of SC... That's how many times I just reported 3boyz.
Why would you do that? It's not like he was interferring with the forum. There had to be no one there for him to pull that off.
As far as I'm aware, it's only been done once before. By sir_rick.
Psalter- River-God
- Post n°3
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:
Why would you do that? It's not like he was interferring with the forum. There had to be no one there for him to pull that off.
As far as I'm aware, it's only been done once before. By sir_rick.
It's flooding the forum, it's against the rules.
I was banned for six months for "swearing" even though they were asterisks.
And it does interfere with the forum in exactly the same way as the games used to.
Just because she is a bunny hugger, doesn't mean she gets away with breaking the rules.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°4
Re: For transparency's sake...
[quote="Psalter"]
So, it's ok for you to bitch and complain about getting narked on and then turn around and nark on someone else for a harmless stunt which doesn't actually break the rules?
The threads used were already on the front page so it's not really flooding the forum. Would it be better if she'd put a comment relevant to the thread in each?
83T'na wrote:
It's flooding the forum, it's against the rules.
I was banned for six months for "swearing" even though they were asterisks.
And it does interfere with the forum in exactly the same way as the games used to.
Just because she is a bunny hugger, doesn't mean she gets away with breaking the rules.
So, it's ok for you to bitch and complain about getting narked on and then turn around and nark on someone else for a harmless stunt which doesn't actually break the rules?
The threads used were already on the front page so it's not really flooding the forum. Would it be better if she'd put a comment relevant to the thread in each?
relict- River-God
- Post n°5
Re: For transparency's sake...
[quote="83T'na"]
Sorry, but it is flooding - it fits the definition exactly. If she'd left it as it was, people could see who the last real post was by, and when, and it helps them know if they want to go in or not. I've also had a considerable ban for the same; I had a good purpose/motive too.
Psalter wrote:83T'na wrote:
It's flooding the forum, it's against the rules.
I was banned for six months for "swearing" even though they were asterisks.
And it does interfere with the forum in exactly the same way as the games used to.
Just because she is a bunny hugger, doesn't mean she gets away with breaking the rules.
So, it's ok for you to bitch and complain about getting narked on and then turn around and nark on someone else for a harmless stunt which doesn't actually break the rules?
The threads used were already on the front page so it's not really flooding the forum. Would it be better if she'd put a comment relevant to the thread in each?
Sorry, but it is flooding - it fits the definition exactly. If she'd left it as it was, people could see who the last real post was by, and when, and it helps them know if they want to go in or not. I've also had a considerable ban for the same; I had a good purpose/motive too.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°6
Re: For transparency's sake...
It just irks me when people who deliberately flout the rules they disagree with moan about getting banned and then report others for relatively minor infringements.
You see where I'm coming from?
You see where I'm coming from?
relict- River-God
- Post n°7
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:It just irks me when people who deliberately flout the rules they disagree with moan about getting banned and then report others for relatively minor infringements.
You see where I'm coming from?
Yes, I can see your point, but I wouldn't see the flooding as minor at all. I think it is rude if someone asks a genuine question, like 'can you help', and someone just replies 'no' for the sake of flooding. And as someone who doesn't swear, I don't find **** to be a bother. Thirdly, Psalter, whether I agree with the action or not, spent a very long time without reporting, until moderation became so ridiculous, and other means of feedback so useless, that he openly explained the last resort means of protest.
Last edited by relict on Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°8
Re: For transparency's sake...
I think Psalter's well aware that his protests are still falling on deaf ears. His efforts, while laudable, are futile.
izzi- Nymph
- Post n°9
Re: For transparency's sake...
While I wouldn't nark I have to agree that a page full of meaningless replies is flooding.
With the speed the forum goes in the early hours, how long will it be before someone can post properly and still have the whole page.
With the speed the forum goes in the early hours, how long will it be before someone can post properly and still have the whole page.
the distant one- Nymph
- Post n°10
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:It just irks me when people who deliberately flout the rules they disagree with moan about getting banned and then report others for relatively minor infringements.
You see where I'm coming from?
I think marks its more about the fact of fairness in SC's moderation. Psalter is saying if I get banned for breaking one rule the 3boys should get a punishment for also breaking the same rules.
and whilst you say his actions are futile, if no one stood up for what they believed in (in this case a fair application of the rules) then we would most likely all be up shit creek without a paddle
ydekm- Nymph
- Post n°11
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:I think Psalter's well aware that his protests are still falling on deaf ears. His efforts, while laudable, are futile.
Yes, but reporting posts is how people are banned these days. It's an accumalative thing.
Plus it was flooding, and it is against the rules.
It is quite frustrating to be banned based on users abusing the report this post button (which is how I ended up with 16 years), and I would certainly return the favour if I could be bothered.
ChelseaT- Nymph
- Post n°12
Re: For transparency's sake...
The swearing rule irks me big time.
What words are considered swear words to SC? Is it just the ones that get asterisked? Because if SC can implement a function that blanks out swear words, and swear words are supposedly against forum rules, then surely they should be able to introduce a function that automatically bans people for swearing? Remove this human error of the mods and report function because it's just not fair.
And the 'censored' smiley is in total contradiction to the rule, why even have it?!
I understand some people object to swear words because their children sometimes look over their shoulder, but seriously, if you don't think they're hearing much worse at school, then you're ignorant and stupid. Besides which, it's just a fucking word!
What words are considered swear words to SC? Is it just the ones that get asterisked? Because if SC can implement a function that blanks out swear words, and swear words are supposedly against forum rules, then surely they should be able to introduce a function that automatically bans people for swearing? Remove this human error of the mods and report function because it's just not fair.
And the 'censored' smiley is in total contradiction to the rule, why even have it?!
I understand some people object to swear words because their children sometimes look over their shoulder, but seriously, if you don't think they're hearing much worse at school, then you're ignorant and stupid. Besides which, it's just a fucking word!
____- Nymph
- Post n°13
Re: For transparency's sake...
ChelseaT wrote:
I understand some people object to swear words because their children sometimes look over their shoulder, but seriously, if you don't think they're hearing much worse at school, then you're ignorant and stupid.
And ugly and fat.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°14
Re: For transparency's sake...
____ wrote:ChelseaT wrote:
I understand some people object to swear words because their children sometimes look over their shoulder, but seriously, if you don't think they're hearing much worse at school, then you're ignorant and stupid.
And ugly and fat.
If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect. I'm neither stupid nor ignorant - not even so much fat these days. Although, ugly is kind of subjective.
The rules are there for their own reasons as is their right. Railing against them is not going to get them changed. I agree that the moderation in the forum is unfair. But again, how it's done is not going to change. Accept that and move on.
ChelseaT- Nymph
- Post n°15
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:____ wrote:ChelseaT wrote:
I understand some people object to swear words because their children sometimes look over their shoulder, but seriously, if you don't think they're hearing much worse at school, then you're ignorant and stupid.
And ugly and fat.
If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect. I'm neither stupid nor ignorant - not even so much fat these days. Although, ugly is kind of subjective.
The rules are there for their own reasons as is their right. Railing against them is not going to get them changed. I agree that the moderation in the forum is unfair. But again, how it's done is not going to change. Accept that and move on.
It certainly won't change if we do nothing.
Waireka- River-God
- Post n°16
Re: For transparency's sake...
the distant one wrote:83T'na wrote:It just irks me when people who deliberately flout the rules they disagree with moan about getting banned and then report others for relatively minor infringements.
You see where I'm coming from?
I think marks its more about the fact of fairness in SC's moderation. Psalter is saying if I get banned for breaking one rule the 3boys should get a punishment for also breaking the same rules.
and whilst you say his actions are futile, if no one stood up for what they believed in (in this case a fair application of the rules) then we would most likely all be up shit creek without a paddle
^^ Exactly.
Also, Re: Swearing, SC says you can't replace the swear word with astrixes, but they provide a 'censored smiley', a contrdiction in my eyes.
ChelseaT- Nymph
- Post n°17
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect.
You're pretty naive to think your children would tell you each time a swear word was mentioned at school.
Kids forget things that aren't made to be a big deal. You hauling ass to school and making every child aware of the words will only encourage the kids to mention them.
Waireka- River-God
- Post n°18
Re: For transparency's sake...
I don't have an issue with swearing at all.
What annoys me are people who say 'blimmen fricken bee!' rather than 'bloody fucking bitch'.
It's not the word that is bad, it is the intent it is said with. Both means the same thing and should be equally offensive.
What annoys me are people who say 'blimmen fricken bee!' rather than 'bloody fucking bitch'.
It's not the word that is bad, it is the intent it is said with. Both means the same thing and should be equally offensive.
Psalter- River-God
- Post n°19
Re: For transparency's sake...
I have taught at decile 1-9 schools. I have taught at catholic schools... every child hears swearing at least once a week... if not once a day.
It is ignorant to think otherwise.
It is ignorant to think otherwise.
Lynz- Nymph
- Post n°20
Re: For transparency's sake...
[quote="ydekm"]
We'd still be one-celled entities if futility of effort was a reason for giving up. While most efforts, in many areas, are wasted, occasionally one works. Evolution in action.
83T'na wrote:I think Psalter's well aware that his protests are still falling on deaf ears. His efforts, while laudable, are futile.
We'd still be one-celled entities if futility of effort was a reason for giving up. While most efforts, in many areas, are wasted, occasionally one works. Evolution in action.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°21
Re: For transparency's sake...
ChelseaT wrote:83T'na wrote:If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect.
You're pretty naive to think your children would tell you each time a swear word was mentioned at school.
Kids forget things that aren't made to be a big deal. You hauling ass to school and making every child aware of the words will only encourage the kids to mention them.
No, they wouldn't tell me every time. But they would if it was directed abusivly at another person.
ChelseaT- Nymph
- Post n°22
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:ChelseaT wrote:83T'na wrote:If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect.
You're pretty naive to think your children would tell you each time a swear word was mentioned at school.
Kids forget things that aren't made to be a big deal. You hauling ass to school and making every child aware of the words will only encourage the kids to mention them.
No, they wouldn't tell me every time. But they would if it was directed abusivly at another person.
Lol.
ydekm- Nymph
- Post n°23
Re: For transparency's sake...
83T'na wrote:ChelseaT wrote:83T'na wrote:If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect.
You're pretty naive to think your children would tell you each time a swear word was mentioned at school.
Kids forget things that aren't made to be a big deal. You hauling ass to school and making every child aware of the words will only encourage the kids to mention them.
No, they wouldn't tell me every time. But they would if it was directed abusivly at another person.
Hmm we'll all have to agree to disagree. Learning to swear at people is one of the great joys of primary school isn't it??
Well it was for me
As someone who, in the past, utilised the nark button more than others it seems odd you disagree with using it when 1. someone is actually breaking the rules (so a valid nark, even if the rule breaking doesnt bother YOU personally) and 2. That you think it's futile, when it works - it is obviously how Psalter ended up banned (as well as myself, TDO and others).
Very proactive form of protest really.
83T'na- Nymph
- Post n°24
Re: For transparency's sake...
ydekm wrote:83T'na wrote:ChelseaT wrote:83T'na wrote:If I heard that my children were hearing some of those words at school, I would report it to the school, as is appropriate and what they would expect.
You're pretty naive to think your children would tell you each time a swear word was mentioned at school.
Kids forget things that aren't made to be a big deal. You hauling ass to school and making every child aware of the words will only encourage the kids to mention them.
No, they wouldn't tell me every time. But they would if it was directed abusivly at another person.
Hmm we'll all have to agree to disagree. Learning to swear at people is one of the great joys of primary school isn't it??
Well it was for me
As someone who, in the past, utilised the nark button more than others it seems odd you disagree with using it when 1. someone is actually breaking the rules (so a valid nark, even if the rule breaking doesnt bother YOU personally) and 2. That you think it's futile, when it works - it is obviously how Psalter ended up banned (as well as myself, TDO and others).
Very proactive form of protest really.
What I'm disagreeing with is the method more than the sentiment. To deliberately get yourself banned for breaking rules you disagree with is what I think is futile. Isn't it better to stay in the forum and 'educate'? When I was using the nark button, it was to try and get other people to stop breaking the rules about swearing and insulting others. Another practice that's proven to be entirely futile. I honestly don't know how to change the way the forum is run so I've given up on it. I get what jollies I can out of it and ignore the rest.
For what it's worth, I get what you mean now about 'flooding the forum'. 3boyz did it again and, while it didn't bother me personally, I can see how it would others. I don't go into a thread just to see what the last person has said - I catch up with everything I've missed.
ydekm- Nymph
- Post n°25
Re: For transparency's sake...
I think I missed the "deliberately get yourself banned for breaking rules you disagree with" bit?