"Abusing" the swear filter

[Raistlin]

I made a subfriends-only LJ entry about this roughly two weeks ago, and said that if most people agreed with me, I'd post it here. However, BoB told me to not bother, since they were already discussing it in Staff.

I recently asked another Staffer if anything had been decided, and he said no, and the discussion in Staff had just fizzled out.

So copy/pasted from my LJ:


From my understanding, the swear filter was originally put into place solely because Google demanded it for the ads to be put on EoFF, which Sean needed to happen so he could be at least somewhat reimbursed for the exorbitant amounts of money EoFF costs. He made it clear that he did not really agree with a filter, but it really didn't matter and money > principle.

Let me just first off make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with Cid's decision. I'd probably do the same thing if tGA took 4 terabytes/month bandwidth(or whatever it was that it takes).

However, my complaint here is the extreme lengths certain(read: one) staffer goes to enforce the "swear filter." I wasn't even aware that swearing was against the rules, merely that the filter was put in place to satisfy a third party. Actual enforcement of the rule, as far as I'm aware, does not affect the Google ads. So why is it so bad?

Anyway, what constitutes "getting around" the swear filter? Is "s***" or "$h*t" somehow less offensive than four skulls? It's the same word. However, I digress. I won't get into the arbitrariness(is that a word?) and irrationality of "offensive" words. That is for a future, possible EoEO, discussion.

I can't help but notice that only one of the Staffers even bothers enforcing the swear filter. Doesn't that tell anyone anything? Isn't it quite possible that this aforementioned staffer is following some personal preference of his/her own(yes, I'm not going to give away the identity of this staffer, though anyone who's been to EoFF should know who) rather than thinking of the board itself(which is an immature, FG-like mentality)?

Friends only.

Replies to my entry(some of them from EoFF staff):


Also, I think the swear filter was in effect for a few select words before the google ads. More words were added because of this.

And I don't think the google thing is relevant anymore. The way I remember it, google rejected him at first because of swearing on the forums, and he had it cleaned up. But I don't think he's that worried about it any more.

My personal opinion is to leave the filter as it is, and let people say what they want.


I agree with you Raistlin.
He said more, but it was a bit too specific for now.


I whole-heartedly agree, but whatever. I try not to swear on the forums anyway, so no skin off my back.


I think I know who you're talking about! It's that one guy, right?

Bleys also replied, but I'll just leave it at that he agreed with me. His was a bit too heated for now. xD


No need to make a big deal out of it in Feedback, because we're already talking about it in the staff forum anyway.
That was BoB. Even though he didn't say, I know he agreed. *pokes*

[Agent Proto]

We'll finally get to see Leeza make her case on this as she's the only staffer I know who edits most posts for "swearing". :p

[Raistlin]

*smacks Proto* when I left out the rest of your comment in my LJ, wasn't that just a little hint? Ah well.

[Leeza]

Another thread about me. How nice. :)

Discuss all you want as I won't be part of this. I've made my case in Staff and I've said everything that I'm going to say in there, where it belongs, and I don't plan on changing my mind on anything anytime soon.

[Del Murder]

Are you looking for a discussion about the issue, or just an answer to your questions?

[Agent Proto]

*smacks Proto* when I left out the rest of your comment in my LJ, wasn't that just a little hint? Ah well.

It's obvious. Really.

[Raistlin]

Are you looking for a discussion about the issue, or just an answer to your questions?
Both, actually.


Discuss all you want as I won't be part of this. I've made my case in Staff and I've said everything that I'm going to say in there, where it belongs, and I don't plan on changing my mind on anything anytime soon.
All I want to know is how strictly editting everyone who even remotely tries to "get around" the swear filter(with the exception of the f-word, which mostly everyone still agrees should be filtered) is in some way, shape, or form a benefit to the board instead of following your own personal preferences.

[Del Murder]

Ok, I will answer two of your questions, since the rest is about preferences and opinion and I don't really think it be necessary to discuss those with you, no offense. And the questions/comments about a 'specific mod' can of course be dealt with in pm form.


I wasn't even aware that swearing was against the rules
Swearing is against the rules. I don't know anything about Google ads since I wasn't on staff at that time, but this is a family friendly board, and sort of like a PG-13 movie. No f-bombs, but occasional other swearing may get through from time to time, as long as it isn't excessive.


Anyway, what constitutes "getting around" the swear filter?
Trying to spell the same word out without it being filtered. You mentioned some good examples.

I hope that clears some things up for you. If you have any more questions about clarification of what the rules are, please let me know.

[Raistlin]

It was clarified in my LJ that the swear filter was in effect before Google, but only the f-word was really concerned. I should've mentioned that in my original post. So no, that's not a question anymore.

However, other swearing, such as that allowed in PG-13 movies, were perfectly acceptable.

[Shlup]

I don't see what the problem is. Its not live we've banned anyone for going around the swear filter. Swearing makes Leeza (and probably at least some other people) uncomfortable, and she has the power to fix it. Is it a terrible thing that your swear word may change to skulls in order to make a very nice and helpful person more comfortable?

I see it like this:

Most staff members don't particularly care if people say an occasional swear word. Most of us don't change the word. Because only one staffer really enforces it I see it as less of a problem than if all or most of us did, because there's less censoring going on.

I think... a couple of times I've censored people's post because their language made me uncomfortable. And what's wrong with it? Isn't it worth the small sacrifice if it makes someone more comfortable? Yes, we still know what the skulls mean, but that mean's you haven't actually sacrificed anything, and at the same time allowed someone to be more comfortable.

By the way, Proto, smooth move naming names in the very first post after Raist typed all that without putting Leeza on the spot. Very classy.

[Yamaneko]

Does this really bother you, Wes?

[Shlup]

It'd better because hurting Leeza's feelings just for the sake of arguing is not cool.

And, for the record, if a member told me that someone's language was making them uncomfortable, and they were clearly serious, I would censor the person's language for them just the same. We're just able to do it ourselves.

[Dr Unne]

I agree with Leeza, but I don't enforce the swear filter because it's hopeless, and it's a waste of my time, and most of the staff doesn't care. I was editing swear words long before Leeza ever came to this MB. "Swearing = bad" has been the rule since the beginning. We never enforced it strictly because people didn't behave like 10-year-olds; people had respect enough not to belch profanities in every post. Bleys himself refrained from swearing here, for that very reason: RESPECT FOR OTHERS.

People often do behave (or rather, speak) like 10-year-olds now, and no amount of editing posts is going to fix it. Short of starting to ban people, nothing is going to correct this problem now. I'll just sit back and silently lose respect for people. Someday when EoFF starts sucking hard enough, maybe people will care again. Most people don't care right now, so there's nothing I can do about it.

[Loony BoB]

That was BoB. Even though he didn't say, I know he agreed. *pokes*
I don't agree that 'getting around the swear filter' is okay. I merely agree that once a word is censored by the vB, it's censored, and whatever it is censored as by the vB is fine to be left there. However if people make an effort to break the rules and go around the swear filter, then they're breaking the rules, nothing to argue about there. These are my personal thoughts, though, and I will whatever rule is made by the staff as a whole on any issue. You can't always get things your way. If I had my way, every newbie would have the chocobo7 avatar forced onto them until they passed 15 posts. :D

There will always be some words that are censored and some that aren't. Are you arguing over which words they are? There are three offensive words that are censored. That's, what, two more than there used to be a couple of years ago? Big whoop. A couple of years in therapy and you'll get over it.

I sometimes go in and censor words that aren't normally censored because people use them in offensive ways. Also, some people are very imaginative with their vocabulary. :p

[Raistlin]

I don't see what the problem is. Its not live we've banned anyone for going around the swear filter. Swearing makes Leeza (and probably at least some other people) uncomfortable, and she has the power to fix it. Is it a terrible thing that your swear word may change to skulls in order to make a very nice and helpful person more comfortable?

There's a distinct difference between using your moderator powers in order to make the board better and using them to further your own personal preference. As I said, that's not a very good staff policy.

Also, there's a big difference in posting, "that's bull<img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>" and "you fucking fuck, fuck you you fucking fuck fucker." One is appropriate in a PG-13 enviroment, which is supposedly what EoFF is rated, the other is downright rude and has been a warnable-offence for as long as I can remember.

If EoFF is a PG-13 enviroment, we should be allowed to use PG-13 language. One sect of staff furthering their own interests by editting out swear words is an abuse of power.

Also, why is $h*t somehow more offensive than four skulls or whatever you use now?

[Daryl]

If you guys can't express yourselves without using swear words, I feel sorry for you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Yeah, I'll swear as much as the next person, but only in appropriate venues. EoFF is a swearing-free forum for the most part. If I see inappropriate language, I edit it out. If I see lines and lines of skulls or words with symbals to trick their way around the filter, I edit it out. Why? Because it's still swearing. When a word is bleeped out in a song, does anyone still really doubt what was originally sang? Of course not. The intent is still there.

There are so much more important things to worry about than your distaste for a forum swearing filter and subsequent enforcement.

As I am basically repeating what others have said, I'll leave it at that.

[Citizen Bleys]

My problem is with people getting dressed down because they use filtered words "too much." Not getting around the swear filters at all, leaving it as the skulls, but doing it too much to suit one person's liking. It's not breaking any rules--that's why the filter is there in the first place--but people are still getting dressed down for it. That borders on harassment.

[Loony BoB]

My problem is with people getting dressed down because they use filtered words "too much." Not getting around the swear filters at all, leaving it as the skulls, but doing it too much to suit one person's liking. It's not breaking any rules--that's why the filter is there in the first place--but people are still getting dressed down for it. That borders on harassment.
Unless it's extremely excessive, then yeah, I think I'm on the same lines as you are.

Raist: Your request for change is denied. Live with it. I manage to get by despite a lot of request of mine being denied, so should you.


There's a distinct difference between using your moderator powers in order to make the board better and using them to further your own personal preference. As I said, that's not a very good staff policy.
As far as I know this sort of thing isn't anything that needs to be dealt with in the open. If you have a personal problem with how a staffer is dealing with someone, raise it to an admin and we'll look into it within staff. You won't see the discussion but we'll make our own decision on how things should be done and we make sure everyone on Staff knows the rules. So, if this is a personal choice thing, send me a PM and I'll make sure it's looked into. I don't need to feed the results back to you directly, though, and for all you know it's already been looked into.

As for how one thing is more offensive than another, that's up to us, again. I personally don't see any difference between 'Hell' and 'Heck' but some do, I respect that. Same with 'flipping' and another word. Same with 'crap' and another word. But the fact remains that SOME PEOPLE do, and we made a decision over certain words and that's the outcome. Also, using $h*t is different to :skull::skull::skull::skull:. If you can't fathom that, I could go into a lengthy post detailing the differences, but I don't think I really need to. To YOU they mean the same thing, but to a newbie who just joined the board, they don't. One is readable is the main point.

Finally, you don't have to like the rules, you just have to abide by them. While we're all able to discuss it in this thread (for now), that doesn't mean the rule itself is open for discussion. We've discussed it dozens of times in the past and it's changed on probably about a dozen occasions, but I don't see the point in changing it any further. There will always be a group of people on one side of the fence complaining about the rule favouring those on the other side of it.

[MecaKane]

Why was it changed to smurf anyhow? (I actually said smurf)
We need to keep appraised of these things you know, someone was repeating something I had said one time only it had smurf in it and I was all "wtf, cause I'm short :'(" Actually I thought she was just being weird. >_>

I don't really get this though, why do you need people to know which swear you're using? It's pretty obvious most of the time, unless they're pretty much synomous, like smurfhead, people don't say things are bullsexual intercourse, or that's crapping incredable, or you crapped someone, or you had sex with your pants. Anyway, I was more or less happy with f and sh being cut out, because I don't have to change what I say to avoid getting yelled at, the board will do it for me.

But of course now you don't know if someone's calling someone a [little] smurf in jest, or a c, or a [little] sh. Which would be very rude and nasty. :eek:

[m4tt]

Is it really that big of a deal?

[edczxcvbnm]

Of course I have to say something about this.

Wanting be a PG forum? Look at spaceballs. The movie is PG and it the F-Bomb in it as well as every other word.

Next, I don't have a problem with editting swears(only because I can't win the battle) but when Leeza goes and edits :skull::skull::skull::skull:...that just makes not damn sense! Seriously. The word has already been editted. No need to re-edit it AGAIN. If you are going to do this then what is the point of the swear filter. Go around and edit swears all you want such as bitch, c*nt, big floppy donkey dick and other things that are not censored. But to censor a censor...whats the point?

[Doomgaze]

Also, there's a big difference in posting, "that's bull<img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>" and "you smurfing smurf, smurf you you smurfing smurf smurfer." One is appropriate in a PG-13 enviroment, which is supposedly what EoFF is rated, the other is downright rude and has been a warnable-offence for as long as I can remember.

What, are you racist against Smurfs now? Did one steal your cane, old man?


If you guys can't express yourselves without using swear words, I feel sorry for you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

If you guys can't express yourselves without the word "the," I feel sorry for you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[Shlup]

It was changed to "smurf" because its amusing. Its hard to think of ways to discourage swearing when we don't want it.

I don't really see what the issue is, Raist. You're sad because your $*17 may become :skull::skull::skull::skull: or smurf? You... want to swear more? You think the ability to say a swear word is more important than the comfort level of your fellow members?

I don't think there's currently an issue at all with swearing being edited anyway, unless maybe its used in a really offensive context or used excessively. Even in PG-13 movies, there's a limit to how many times they can swear before it becomes R rated.

I really don't see the problem. I mean, really, I see a bunch of complaints about nothing in particular.

Next, I don't have a problem with editting swears(only because I can't win the battle) but when Leeza goes and edits :skull::skull::skull::skull:...that just makes not damn sense! Seriously. The word has already been editted. No need to re-edit it AGAIN. If you are going to do this then what is the point of the swear filter. Go around and edit swears all you want such as bitch, c*nt, big floppy donkey dick and other things that are not censored. But to censor a censor...whats the point?
No one does that anymore, so its not an issue.

[Raistlin]

As for how one thing is more offensive than another, that's up to us, again. I personally don't see any difference between 'Hell' and 'Heck' but some do, I respect that. Same with 'flipping' and another word. Same with 'crap' and another word. But the fact remains that SOME PEOPLE do, and we made a decision over certain words and that's the outcome. Also, using $h*t is different to . If you can't fathom that, I could go into a lengthy post detailing the differences, but I don't think I really need to. To YOU they mean the same thing, but to a newbie who just joined the board, they don't. One is readable is the main point.
Some people are offended by jokes about Americans - let's ban those! I'm an atheist, as are other people - I'm offended by religious discussion, so let's get rid of that too. I also have this unreasonable distaste for the word "hyperbole," so let's filter it.


Finally, you don't have to like the rules, you just have to abide by them. While we're all able to discuss it in this thread (for now), that doesn't mean the rule itself is open for discussion. We've discussed it dozens of times in the past and it's changed on probably about a dozen occasions, but I don't see the point in changing it any further. There will always be a group of people on one side of the fence complaining about the rule favouring those on the other side of it.
That's what this forum is for - discussion about the board's rules and policies and content.

Another question which has not yet been addressed: what's the board's rating: G or PG-13?



If you guys can't express yourselves without the word "the," I feel sorry for you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
I love you, Doomy. That's exactly what I was thinking.


Even in PG-13 movies, there's a limit to how many times they can swear before it becomes R rated.
Exactly, it's the policy of EoFF before the swear filter: swearing was a non-issue unless used in excess.

[Loony BoB]

EoFF carries a WeDecideWhatWeAllowBecauseIt'sUpToUs rating. In other words, we make the rules, and comparisons to other rating systems are just that - comparisons. :p Cid, the admins and the CK's make the rules. Simple.

And yes, you can discuss the rules in this forum, but as far as I know it won't change much with just Raistlin and Doomgaze getting annoyed or somethin'. We counter your Raistlin and Doomgaze with Dr Unne and Leeza. :p Even edc and Bleys seem to be fine with the current state of EoFF, since their problem has already been looked into within staff before this thread was even made. :D

[m4tt]

If you guys can't express yourselves without the word "the," I feel sorry for you. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.Yeah because swear words are just as important as the word "the".

[Shlup]

I seriously don't see where there's an issue. Saying the f-word is as important to you as the word "the"? You're stretching for reasons to complain. You think we're too strict, you think we're too lax, you think we're too uptight, but if something happens once in a while that you find fun to complain about, you want exact and unbendable rules.

We do our best to avoid unbendable rules. But you want them? We'll look into that. We'll get the board a rating, and be sure every post does not exceed that rating, no matter how funny or appropriate it may be. Offended by religious discussion? Gone. Jokes can be offensive? Gone. Because swearing is such a big issue, and we want to be sure we have a nice big list of rules so everyone's decisions of what's right and wrong can be made for them. Don't say it if you don't mean it; I'll take it seriously.

I'm mostly just annoyed because I think an issue is being made about nothing. Nothing. What do you want, Raist? You want us to un-censor sh<b></b>it? You want there to be no limit to how much a person can swear, as long as its censored, like on Jerry Springer or something? When was the last time a staff member edited a post you considered acceptable?

I call shenanigans on you! Shenanigans!!

[Raistlin]

Even edc and Bleys seem to be fine with the current state of EoFF, since their problem has already been looked into within staff before this thread was even made.
Not according to what he's *beep* elsewhere.


I'm mostly just annoyed because I think an issue is being made about nothing. Nothing. What do you want, Raist? You want us to un-censor <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>? You want there to be no limit to how much a person can swear, as long as its censored, like on Jerry Springer or something?
I have no problem with the current swear filter for the current reason(Google). My question remains:

1. Why do staff members(one, anyway) edit peoples' *arf* where they try to "get around" the swear filter, even though the addition of all but the *honk* to the swear filter was solely because of Google, and not because of *trumpets*? Cid even made it clear he didn't like the *train goes by*.

2. Is the swear filter still necessary to keep the *explosions and whatnot*?

My personal preference(barring any offers for money from Google, as I stated in my original post), is that of the original EoFF: swearing allowed, but not in excess. However, I fully agree with Cid's right to add words to the filter to get extra *cow stampede*. I don't support, however, *Beethoven's <em>Pastoral Symphony</em>* of that filter when it wasn't even added in the first place because people were *Raist complaining incessantly.... oh wait*.

[Loony BoB]

Times changed, rules changed. *shrugs* Minimal complaints about the things that haven't been looked into already, so I don't see a problem. If we pleased you, we'd just have another member complaining constantly about the swearing. But you complain all the time anyway, so this way we aren't suffering any losses. *doges flying objects* :D

[Dr Unne]

*wanders off*

[Shlup]

1) Because its annoying. I usually don't change it if the swear was used in an okay context though. And what BoB said.

2) Yes. They don't just check once and then stop caring. Spiders, you know.

And you so did not just say "draconian enforcement." xD

[edczxcvbnm]

I wouldn't say that I don't care. I would say that I am uncomfortably content. But after waging this war for what? 3 or so years, this is probably about the best comprimise I can hope for. After 3 years I just go "At least I got them to stop editting edits."

[Shlup]

Well a person can only hear so many "bleeps" before they change the channel. Your swearing doesn't bother me though, ed. I usually tune you out anyway. ;)

[Raistlin]

1) Because its annoying. I usually don't change it if the swear was used in an okay context though. And what BoB said.
Personal preferences != good rules. Post counts were taken away, not because people were complaining about post counts, or found them irritating or annoying or whatever, but because it had the direct result of limiting spam. It was better for the board.


2) Yes. They don't just check once and then stop caring. Spiders, you know.
Huh?

EDIT: Nevermind; I just had to look back at my question to understand your answer. But anyway, then the swear filter itself is fine.


And you so did not just say "draconian enforcement." xD
You're damn right I did. You got a problem with it? >=o

[edczxcvbnm]

Well a person can only hear so many "bleeps" before they change the channel. Your swearing doesn't bother me though, ed. I usually tune you out anyway. ;)

I thought I had been doing a fairly good job of keeping it down...until I decided to for that election party with heartshot. Then I felt the need to swear more just for the sake of the party and stuff. It takes time to go back. Habits die hard :crying2:

[Shlup]

Personal preferences != good rules. Post counts were taken away, not because people were complaining about post counts, or found them irritating or annoying or whatever, but because it had the direct result of limiting spam. It was better for the board. I don't understand what one has to do with the other. You saying that us trying to do things to discourage swearing in the same way we removed post counts in order to discourage spamming is good or bad?
You're damn right I did. You got a problem with it? >=oDepends on what you mean by it. To someone who doesn't no any better, that would likely imply the use of rules without question or reason. But, knowing draconians, I would say that it'd more accurately implicate that we're all enforcing what's best for us, as a draconian, in the end, only follows what suits him best. Or something. I hear the draconian race seems a bit more complicated if you read Draconian Measures, but haven't.

Besides the fact that you're a giant nerd. NERD!
I thought I had been doing a fairly good job of keeping it down...until I decided to for that election party with heartshot. Then I felt the need to swear more just for the sake of the party and stuff. It takes time to go back. Habits die hard :crying2:
I honestly don't notice it anyway. Its not me that the swearing bothers, unless someone's going around the swear filter for no reason other than they want to swear. Most of the time when I see someone going around the swear filter it doesn't bother me personally though. *shrug*

[Loony BoB]

Personal preferences != good rules.
You're damned right! Which is why your personal preference of having more swear words removed is being declined. :D

[Raistlin]

You're damned right! Which is why your personal preference of having more swear words removed is being declined.
No, my personal preference is that the swear filter be removed entirely. However, thinking of Cid and the members and the general outlook of the board, I would agree that the best course of action would be the keep the swear filter, but not have the enforcement be by one moderator taking things to extremes. The mere fact that only one staffer does it shows that most of the members don't give a damn.


I don't understand what one has to do with the other. You saying that us trying to do things to discourage swearing in the same way we removed post counts in order to discourage spamming is good or bad?
I'm saying that in the first case(removal of post counts), the staff took the good of the board over any personal preferences. It was obvious that removing the post counts would directly help the board by not having any encouragement for spam. No subjectiveness, no personal opinions: just fact.
The unreasonable extreme of editting and warning people who try to "get around the filter" has nothing to do with objectivity or facts. It's sheer personal preference of one specific staff member.


Depends on what you mean by it. To someone who doesn't no any better, that would likely imply the use of rules without question or reason. But, knowing draconians, I would say that it'd more accurately implicate that we're all enforcing what's best for us, as a draconian, in the end, only follows what suits him best. Or something. I hear the draconian race seems a bit more complicated if you read Draconian Measures, but haven't.

Besides the fact that you're a giant nerd. NERD!
Wait...I'm the nerd for using a legitimate English word...and you're not a nerd for taking that aforementioned word out of context and using it in the context of a fantasy book series?

[Shlup]

Its a real word? o.O Is not!

And there is no "one specific staff member taking things to extremes." When was the last time this "one staff member" did anything you're accusing her of? Was it before the last time this was brought up? 'Cause I'm pretty sure it was. The issue has already been addressed, taken care of, laid to rest. If the whole point of this thread was just to say "stop dong that thing" then there's no reason for it 'cause she already did, although I think its sad that's she's had to come under such scrutiny for something that shouldn't be a big deal, and feels less comfortable here because some people value their swear words.

[Dr Unne]

Raist, you've convinced me to start editing people's profanities again. Apparently I don't exist otherwise, since only one specific person in the whole world cares about people swearing.

[Raistlin]

And there is no "one specific staff member taking things to extremes." When was the last time this "one staff member" did anything you're accusing her of? Was it before the last time this was brought up? 'Cause I'm pretty sure it was. The issue has already been addressed, taken care of, laid to rest. If the whole point of this thread was just to say "stop dong that thing" then there's no reason for it 'cause she already did
...That's not what Kishi told me! >=o

He just told me the Staff discussion had fizzled out, or something("no decisions had been made").


Raist, you've convinced me to start editing people's profanities again. Apparently I don't exist otherwise, since only one specific person in the whole world cares about people swearing.
There's a distinct difference between editting profanities of someone cussing-out someone/thing and someone just saying on swear word in the middle of a thoughtful post.

Oh, and go to *arf*.:p

[m4tt]

I edit out swear words in the FF forums all the time. I even edit out things like "i think tidus is GAY cuz he looks GAY OMG GAY!" because it's offensive and immature. So it's not just one mod doing it.

[Shlup]

That's what you get for listening to Kishi!

[Loony BoB]

*raises hand* I comment out filthy language from time to time. Just not as often, but then Leeza checks reported posts far, far more often than I do, too. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be checked. What Leeza, Matt and I do is done not out of personal preference but with the backing of staff.


No, my personal preference is that the swear filter be removed entirely. However, thinking of Cid and the members and the general outlook of the board, I would agree that the best course of action would be the keep the swear filter, but not have the enforcement be by one moderator taking things to extremes. The mere fact that only one staffer does it shows that most of the members don't give a damn.
We're LAZY. That's all. :p But it still seems like you're voicing your personal preferences. We have rules in place that are based on discussions we have in staff and anything you see done is done in accordance to our rules. It seems to be your personal preference that we stop editing out such words.

Also, how would this change that you are suggesting be good for the boards? As far as I know it would only serve to be a discomfort to certain members. Are you discomforted somehow? Is there any other reason you want this rule changed? If not, you haven't got any better argument than they do, that's for sure.

[Agent Proto]

Ok, so it's a staff-backed up thing. Alright. I can agree with that. :thumb:

[Citizen Bleys]

Even edc and Bleys seem to be fine with the current state of EoFF

Don't count on it. Oh, I won't speak for ed, but I'll thank you not to speak for me.

[Shlup]

Plus, if we're going with the "it only bothers a couple of people" reason... I only see a couple of people complaining about swears being edited. I see a couple of people who make complaining about message boards their hobby, and then ed just barely said anything and he's the one who does most of the swearing around here. Sure, people agreed with an LJ entry. If <s>I</s> BoB made a similar entry stating the opposite point of view, I'll bet my hat he'd get a lot of people agreeing with him too.

But its a nice mountain we've made out of this molehill. Great view. Look! You can almost see the real world from up here! Wow, is that what outside looks like these days?

[Loony BoB]

Don't count on it. Oh, I won't speak for ed, but I'll thank you not to speak for me.
You spoke for yourself earlier in this thread, I was just taking your words to the argument. You said that your problem was with the editing out of skulls, not with the words which are censored... right? Or did I misread that? *totally lost now*

[eestlinc]

I am personally opposed to censorship in any way for any reason. I do however feel that one should censor oneself in situations where lewd or adult commentary could be inappropriate out of respect for others. On the rare occasion that I feel so strongly about a topic that I <i>need</i> to use a filtered word, I will do so, and I will usually get around the swear filter as well. If someone comes along and edits it I really don't care that much since the act of being so deliberate as to go around the filter usually expresses enough of my feelings on the matter.

If everyone understood that a swear word's intensity and effect is indirectly related to it's frequency of use, and if everyone acted in accordance with that, then there would be no need for the filter in the first place. Unfortunately people of all ages around the world are immature and all the fun gets ruined. <!---F<i></i>uck<i></i>ers.--->*snip* - Bad eest! ~Big D

[edczxcvbnm]

I edit out swear words in the FF forums all the time. I even edit out things like "i think tidus is GAY cuz he looks GAY OMG GAY!" because it's offensive and immature. So it's not just one mod doing it.

That's GAY :laugh:

Anyways let me state a few things for the record here.

1) Who here remembers the last time I started a bit of a war with the swearing? Does anyone remember what happened to me? I bet a certain Dr. does. Bye bye sig.

2) I don't believe anything should be censored and agree with eestlinc that there is a time and a place where swearing is acceptable and this just happens to be one of those acceptable places. Why you might ask? I view this place like my friends house and not my job. I think that is all that needs to be said on that one.

3) Loony BoB...just because one problem is solved doesn't mean that Bleys nor I are actually in agreement with the staff as to what goes on here. I don't mean to speak for Bleys but I think he was talking in general and just that specific occurence of stuff.

4) Know whats really wierd. I don't swear a great deal offline. I do swear but considering I work 40+ hours a week and am around my house almost all the time(live with the parents for now)...I just don't swear that much because it isn't the time or the place. *refer to point 2 about a friends house and unwinding*

5) I had to say that's gay above for the sheer comedic value of it.

[Citizen Bleys]

You spoke for yourself earlier in this thread, I was just taking your words to the argument.

You say "taking my words to the argument," I say "putting words in my mouth." Isn't rhetoric wonderful? Such twisting of words -- as well as having to enforce a swearing ban that goes against the fiber of my being -- are one of the many reasons why I left staff in the first place, and such twisting of words is the primary reason that I'm not willing to come back to this day. You're usually not bad for it, though.

[Big D]

2) I don't believe anything should be censored and agree with eestlinc that there is a time and a place where swearing is acceptable and this just happens to be one of those acceptable places. Why you might ask? I view this place like my friends house and not my job. I think that is all that needs to be said on that one.Well holy crap! I play sadomasochist bondage games with my friends, and I treat this place like my friend's house too. That means I'm allowed to post SMBD porn all over the place. The mods have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to do anything about it. They can shove their "rules", they should be glad to have me on their board. I'm doing them a friggin' favour just by being here.
I don't CARE that I agreed to abide by the rules when I joined; I think they should be different so I am going to do what I like and post a whiny thread in Feedback every time I don't get my own way.

...Actually, I'm not into SMBD, but that's not the point.

The rules are the rules, and that's the end of the matter. If you don't like the rules, you're welcome to suggest that they be changed, and present your reasons in a sensible way. However, no-one's welcome to ignore the rules merely because they dislike the rules, or personally dislike a Staff member.

[Shlup]

Now you're all just being... I can't think of a word that wouldn't get censored. Think of "t" words.


...Actually, I'm not into SMBD, but that's not the point.
Why must you hide your true self from us? Why must you lie?

[Del Murder]

The rules are the rules, and that's the end of the matter. If you don't like the rules, you're welcome to suggest that they be changed, and present your reasons in a sensible way. However, no-one's welcome to ignore the rules merely because they dislike the rules, or personally dislike a Staff member.
:)

You guys can, of course, discuss the rules all you want, just as long as you all follow them. That's all that really matters to me.

[Shlup]

Next person to capitalize "staff" gets one in the ear.

[Yamaneko]

Staff is discussing this once again in the staff forum.

[Shlup]

Yeah. So far the "Ban Raistlin" option is... I don't know how to spell that word. Unanamous? That's not right. Damn. This was almost funny too.

[Agent Proto]

As far as I'm concerned, this is straight from the FAQ



<b>Why have some of the words in my post been blanked-out?</b>
The F-word is censored here. Don’t use it.


So, that's only saying that only the F-word is censored.

And another one



<b>Profanity.</b> The F-word is censored automatically by the MB. Don’t try to get around the censor. We will be angry. Profanity in general isn’t censored, but try not to use it too much. We have a lot of young people at the MB; keep it clean for the most part.

Again, that's saying the F-word is automatically censored, however missing the point that the S-word was also censored. Also, let me repeat the part where it says " Profanity in general isn’t censored, but <u>try not to use it too much</u>." Just the fact that most people are complying with the rules, with an occasional slip-up here and there. Though, I don't know if the staff should edit out words they deem inappropriate unless it's stated in the FAQ that staff can do that.

Now, let me quote what the forum rules says when one registers.



Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.


That says that the owners of EoFF reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. That's nice, but where does it say they can edit posts, or by thread, do they also mean posts within the thread? Anyway, I will agree that the staff can do what they please to edit out posts for any "swear words" because of the statement "By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws." in the forum rules. But that's just my opinion. Anyways, the staff here are great, but sometimes they make some dumb stuff I don't agree with.

[Shlup]

I keep forgetting why the s-word is censored. Did we fix that? 'Cause of the <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>ake and etc issue?

Dammit, will you guys get jobs or something? Too much time on your hands and I have homework to do.

But, in any case, there's no issue. There isn't. Your posts aren't being censored unless a staff member deems that your swearing is indeed "too much" or "vulgar." So there's really nothing to say about it unless you want to argue for the sake of having nothing better to do with your time.

[Del Murder]

Well, we all make dumb stuff sometimes. Can't please everyone. I think 'edit threads' implies 'edit posts', Prot. ;)

[edczxcvbnm]

Well holy crap! I play sadomasochist bondage games with my friends, and I treat this place like my friend's house too. That means I'm allowed to post SMBD porn all over the place. The mods have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to do anything about it. They can shove their "rules", they should be glad to have me on their board. I'm doing them a friggin' favour just by being here.
I don't CARE that I agreed to abide by the rules when I joined; I think they should be different so I am going to do what I like and post a whiny thread in Feedback every time I don't get my own way.

...Actually, I'm not into SMBD, but that's not the point.



YEAH BOY! Now your on the mother fuckin' trolly!!! ALL ABOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD the SMBD EXPRESS! w00t!

[Shlup]

There's an SMBD Express? Why am I only hearing of this now??

[Yamaneko]

:up:

[Agent Proto]

Super Mario Bros. Delight Express!! w00t!

[Big D]

That says that the owners of EoFF reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. That's nice, but where does it say they can edit posts, or by thread, do they also mean posts within the thread?A thread consists of a series of posts; thus, in order to edit a thread, a moderator must edit posts. But, in any case, there's no issue. There isn't. Your posts aren't being censored unless a staff member deems that your swearing is indeed "too much" or "vulgar." So there's really nothing to say about it unless you want to argue for the sake of having nothing better to do with your time.That just about sums it up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a train to catch.
<img src = http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/wink.gif height=40 width =40 >

[krissy]

toot tooot!

[Citizen Bleys]

Technically, the rules say the staff has the right to edit every post on the board into a declaration of homosexuality. That doesn't make it right.

[Shlup]

Thanks for saying something totally irrelevant.

[eestlinc]

isn't the usual acronym BDSM?

I saw we stage a hunger strike to protest censorship. We can get Chris Cornell to sing for us too.

[Del Murder]

eest, I get what you are saying, but a degree of censorship is necessary due to the way human nature is. In a perfect world it wouldn't be needed. Censorship is the answer to flaw.

[Yamaneko]

I don't know about human nature, but socialization, yes.

[Del Murder]

That's what I meant, thank you.

[eestlinc]

I know, which is why I am opposed to it but accepting of the reality. I also wanted to throw my hat in the ring since it was being portrayed that only two or three members are opposed to it. Now you can make that three or four!

[Shlup]

Okay, well its also at least three or four for it, and those three or for can and will ban anyone who "protests" inapporpriately.

[edczxcvbnm]

The fact that F-mucky-yucky is smurf from the filter just reminds of that one part of Family Guy.

"So then I walked outside and she was totally smurfing me"
"No smurfin way"
"Yeah, I totally smurfed her"
"Get the smurf"
"Smurf"

[Shlup]

It probably reminds you of that because that scene is the entire reason I suggested that change. Muahaha.

[edczxcvbnm]

Excellent!

[Jojee]

I just saw that! That was great :) Smurf you <3

[Citizen Bleys]

Okay, well its also at least three or four for it, and those three or for can and will ban anyone who "protests" inapporpriately.

Aye, and what is and is not "appropriate" gets decided after the fact by any staffer with a bone to pick.

[Loony BoB]

After what fact? *even more confused*

[edczxcvbnm]

You are confused Loony BoB...so very very confused. I agree with Bleys.

[Loony BoB]

I agree that we get to decide what is and isn't appropriate, if that's what he meant. edcwhtvr is righ. I am so very very confused. ;_;

[Shlup]

I'm seeing that he's trying to imply that we're likely to come down hard on someone who is doing something that would normally be fine because we don't like them. Nice.

What crawled up your butt and died lately, Bleys? Seems like all your comments Feedback lately have been awfully... bitter.

[Raistlin]

waaaay too many new posts for me to look over in the amount of time I have, so if I miss something important, forgive me.


I edit out swear words in the FF forums all the time. I even edit out things like "i think tidus is GAY cuz he looks GAY OMG GAY!" because it's offensive and immature. So it's not just one mod doing it.

I agree 100% with that. That's not merely "getting around the swear filter," it's a legitimate threat to the board's maturity. Plus it's just downright rude. I'd edit that out, too.


We're LAZY. That's all. But it still seems like you're voicing your personal preferences. We have rules in place that are based on discussions we have in staff and anything you see done is done in accordance to our rules. It seems to be your personal preference that we stop editing out such words.
There's a distinct difference between personal preference and what I consider to be best for the board. My personal preference is that the swear filter be removed entirely. However, I accept that, under the circumstances, that the filter is beneficial to the board. However, I feel that the draconian enforcement of the unnecessary filter(unnecessary due to the fact that if it weren't for Google, only the f-word would be filtered) is detrimental.


Plus, if we're going with the "it only bothers a couple of people" reason... I only see a couple of people complaining about swears being edited.
I only see a couple of people that would complain about the swears being uneditted. The amount of people to complain whether or not something happens is immaterial to the effect it has on the board itself and the atmosphere.
Plus, if I make a public LJ entry and link people to here, I could get a helluva lot more than "a couple" of people that agree with me. :p


Yeah. So far the "Ban Raistlin" option is... I don't know how to spell that word. Unanamous? That's not right. Damn. This was almost funny too.
I almost laughed out loud upon reading that. xD


Your posts aren't being censored unless a staff member deems that your swearing is indeed "too much" or "vulgar."
All I'm asking is that "sh<i></i>it"(yes I'm "getting around" the filter here to make a point) in the middle of an otherwise perfectly fine post not be considered "vulgar." Everything outside the f-word, even according to the Forum Rules, is fine unless the usage is excessive.


Technically, the rules say the staff has the right to edit every post on the board into a declaration of homosexuality. That doesn't make it right.
Exactly.


Thanks for saying something totally irrelevant.
Bleys's point was perfectly relevent. It states that Staff(*ducks BooB*) shouldn't act out of personal preference - just because they <i>can</i> do it.


I agree that we get to decide what is and isn't appropriate, if that's what he meant. edcwhtvr is righ. I am so very very confused. ;_;
Yes, Staff decides what is and isn't appropriate - but that should be on a <i>case by case</i> basis. Editting out of swear just because it's a swear is not only obsessive, but also against Forum Rules as Proto(I think) posted.

EDIT:


I'm seeing that he's trying to imply that we're likely to come down hard on someone who is doing something that would normally be fine because we don't like them. Nice.
No, he's merely pointing out that Staff in general seems to have a habit of making up rules to justify past actions - which would have normally been fine. Remember Kane's sig?
Whether I agree with him or not based on one incident, I really can't say. But the point is somewhat justified.

[edczxcvbnm]

Know what I hate. Mods and Admins posting in closed threads to add their two cents to the whole situation. You want to say something more? Why can't I? I thought the thread was closed because 'this discussion is over' and yet it continues on an unfair advantage of power abuse(although unbelievably minor).

[Loony BoB]

Raist: I guess you'll just have to live with the rule staying in place. We did discuss all of this but we came to a conclusion. Sorry to disappoint! *pat* (This thread got boring so I thought I'd finish up).

Also, I capitalise Staff, it's Shlup you need to duck from. :p


Know what I hate. Mods and Admins posting in closed threads to add their two cents to the whole situation. You want to say something more? Why can't I? I thought the thread was closed because 'this discussion is over' and yet it continues on an unfair advantage of power abuse(although unbelievably minor).
Perks of the job. :)

[edczxcvbnm]

Bart: "Sez you, woman." XD

[Shlup]

There's a distinct difference between personal preference and what I consider to be best for the board. My personal preference is that the swear filter be removed entirely. However, I accept that, under the circumstances, that the filter is beneficial to the board. However, I feel that the draconian enforcement of the unnecessary filter(unnecessary due to the fact that if it weren't for Google, only the f-word would be filtered) is detrimental.
I don't think the inforcement is "draconian" (I still refuse to believe that's a real word). How many staff members just edit out a swear word as soon as they see it? Leeza did, at one point. Unne did, but has been worn down by the system. I don't think anyone else does. I know I don't. I will enforce it if I think the particular use is inappropriate, as will any other staff member, but you yourself, I believe, said its fine if the swear is over used or misused.

I only see a couple of people that would complain about the swears being uneditted. The amount of people to complain whether or not something happens is immaterial to the effect it has on the board itself and the atmosphere.
Plus, if I make a public LJ entry and link people to here, I could get a helluva lot more than "a couple" of people that agree with me. :p
Well we just have different opinions on how this travesty, which I'm becoming more and more convinced does not actually exist, affects the atmosphere of the board. You think we're being to harsh on the swear filter, I think we're being just fine. And we both know my opinion is always the right one.

I almost laughed out loud upon reading that. xD
Its not nice to laugh at the special kids.


All I'm asking is that "sh<i></i>it"(yes I'm "getting around" the filter here to make a point) in the middle of an otherwise perfectly fine post not be considered "vulgar." Everything outside the f-word, even according to the Forum Rules, is fine unless the usage is excessive.
I go around the swear filter too sometimes. Who cares? Who here is saying you can't swear at all, ever? Unne thinks you shouldn't, but he's taken to just sitting back in his rocker and silenty shaking his cane. We only edit them if we find them excessive or used inappropriately. If you think our definitions of "excessive" and "inappropriate" may vary, you're right. We're human. We don't have a hotline we can call where an operator goes through the adjective and verb contents of the post to determine what percentage of appropriate each curse word may be. Want us to employ one? Too bad!

Bleys's point was perfectly relevent. It states that Staff(*ducks BooB*) shouldn't act out of personal preference - just because they <i>can</i> do it.
We base these decisions on what we feel is the best way to handle a situation. Like I said, we don't have some hotline to call. Suggesting that we should somehow manage to be of one mind (your mind, I'm assuming) or make a discussion thread so we can discuss the existance of each swear in each post before acting is... making me want to hurt you.

Yes, Staff decides what is and isn't appropriate - but that should be on a <i>case by case</i> basis. Editting out of swear just because it's a swear is not only obsessive, but also against Forum Rules as Proto(I think) posted.
There is a "case by case" basis for just about everything, especially swearing. If you honestly think we've decided there's some rule where we must get rid of all swearing, you're just plain wrong. If you think you're seeing this happening, you're seeing something that isn't there. I know its not there because I see swearing occassionally myself and usually pass it by. I rarely see anyone go and snip it out.

No, he's merely pointing out that Staff in general seems to have a habit of making up rules to justify past actions - which would have normally been fine. Remember Kane's sig?
Whether I agree with him or not based on one incident, I really can't say. But the point is somewhat justified.
You said the same thing I said, but, yes I remember Kane's sig. Kane's sig was removed because of lack of knowledge on the part of a couple of moderators, and removed perminantly because he reacted inappropriately to that. And if I hear one more person say that the entire staff should apologise or something after being attacked like that over a mistake due to lack of knowledge of one or two people, I'm gonna... make things pink or something.

Know what I hate. Mods and Admins posting in closed threads to add their two cents to the whole situation. You want to say something more? Why can't I? I thought the thread was closed because 'this discussion is over' and yet it continues on an unfair advantage of power abuse(although unbelievably minor).
That bugs me too, actually. You can make another topic on it if you want. *shrug*

[edczxcvbnm]

Maybe I will make a topic about it later on. It has been bugging forever but it is just so minor but because this is the "bitch about what you don't like about the forum or staff" forum, I just might. XD

[Citizen Bleys]

What crawled up your butt and died lately, Bleys?

This did:


Technically, the rules say the staff has the right to edit every post on the board into a declaration of homosexuality. That doesn't make it right.


Thanks for saying something totally irrelevant.


I'm not exactly very fond of seeing a staff that once meant so much to me degenerate into a group to whom morality is considered "totally irrelevant."

[Shlup]

You've seemed fairly cranky since before I said that, but I suppose this isn't the place to discuss it.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't find editing every post on the board into a declaration of homosexuality to have anything to do with discouraging swearing or enforcing the swear filter. If you think the morals of EoFF's staff members is so off that the next step is that we start just editing posts as we please, then I'm hurt.

As far as I see, most of us agree on what is wrong and what is right in regards to the swear filter, and you guys are either complaining about situations that don't exist, an occassional situation where a swear is borderline and you don't personally agree with how it was treated, or bringing up things that staff members used to do, but have already agreed not to do anymore.

What I'm seeing is:
"You should do things case by case." - We do.
"You shouldn't edit out every swear word; some are used in an appropriate context." - We don't.
"You can change everyone's post to say they're gay, but that's wrong." - Good thing we don't do that then.
"Editing out a swear that is already covered by the swear filter is stupid." - No one does that.

So what's the problem?

[Jojee]

And if I hear one more person say that the entire staff should apologise or something after being attacked like that over a mistake due to lack of knowledge of one or two people, I'm gonna... make things pink or something.

The entire staff should apologize or something over a mistake due to lack of knowledge of one or two people. NOW. O=)


Know what I hate. Mods and Admins posting in closed threads to add their two cents to the whole situation. You want to say something more? Why can't I? I thought the thread was closed because 'this discussion is over' and yet it continues on an unfair advantage of power abuse(although unbelievably minor).

Haha, where did that come from. But yeah, those kinds of things make me wish I were staff :( I would go spam in all of them. Maybe that's why I'm not staff... *shakes fist*

[Big D]

"draconian" (I still refuse to believe that's a real word). It's a real word, for sure. It's more common in the Commenwealth than it is in America, though.What I'm seeing is:
"You should do things case by case." - We do.
"You shouldn't edit out every swear word; some are used in an appropriate context." - We don't.
"You can change everyone's post to say they're gay, but that's wrong." - Good thing we don't do that then.
"Editing out a swear that is already covered by the swear filter is stupid." - No one does that.

So what's the problem?I have to agree.

[eestlinc]

we need a hack for the board so each member can individually decide if they want the swear filter to operate when the forums display for them. That way Bleys and I could see all the shi<i></i>ts and fu<i></i>cks we want but by default it would filter and most people would just see fuck. I propose The Man finds/writes the hack and is temporarily adminned to implement it.

[Del Murder]

Are you saying that because you are against censorship, or are swear words really that important to you? For example, if we said you couldn't use the word 'barometer' at this board, would you ask for a hack that allows people to switch the 'barometer' filter off? (I picked that word because the wall next to me used to have a barometer on it, I wonder what happened to it)

The difference between the word 'barometer' and swear words are that when young people are allowed to swear some tend to act like idiots. I've noticed the maturity level drop significatly in places where swearing is allowed. That's why I've always been behind the censoring of most swearing, filter or no. If everyone was able to handle it and still be mature then it wouldn't be a problem. Swears are powerful words, and when some people are given such power they will abuse it, which is what I was touching on earlier.

[eestlinc]

I was joking about that suggestion, as is indicated by the end of it.

I guess we need to keep things like the swear filter so the Cid's Knights can keep their ShinRa aura.

[Shlup]

Oh, admin The Man. I get it. xD

Oh, eest, you crack me up.

[Yamaneko]

Where is The Man, anyway?

[Shlup]

Quit spamming, Yams! *bans*

[Agent Proto]

Don't bother adminning The Man. He wouldn't be arsed to do anything here.

[eestlinc]

I think I will set myself on fire in protest!
<img src=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:etwO6p8o5AoJ:http://www.greasefire.com/blog_images/fire.jpg>

or, if you prefer...
<img src=http://bfarber.com/screens/maninfiresm.jpg>

[Shlup]

Yeah, Prot, 'cause we were really gonna do it. :rolleyes3

[Jojee]

Aren't you going to make things pink, Shlup? >=\ *disappointed*

[Shlup]

Yes.

[Jojee]

...Squee XD YOU DID. *dies* I was wondering what happened...

[eestlinc]

I actually kinda like the pink.

[Shlup]

I can't stand non-pink EoFF.

Okay, but srsly, back on topic 'cause we have to wait for Raist to come back and be like "omfg i sux." Yes.

[eestlinc]

You could allow swearing and then just ban people who abuse it.

[Shlup]

I'm pretty sure Raist has enough material for his LJ entries without us doing stuff like that.

[eestlinc]

everyone could just curse in albhed

[Del Murder]

It would just turn into 'smurf' in al bhed.

[eestlinc]

fro dra vilg fuimt ed tu dryd?

[Big D]

You could allow swearing and then just ban people who abuse it.Or we could just not allow swearing and ban people who do it gratuitously.

Oh, wait, that's what we do already:p

[edczxcvbnm]

Who the <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif> swears that <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>ing much mother <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>er? :D

[Doomgaze]

"draconian" (I still refuse to believe that's a real word). It's a real word, for sure. It's more common in the Commenwealth than it is in America, though.

I'd say more common among educated people, but I suppose that's more or less the same thing. It's from a Greek politician named Draco who decided that the death penalty should be applied to pretty much everything.

[Shlup]

Nice thinly veiled insult there, Doomy.

[Big D]

I'd say more common among educated people, but I suppose that's more or less the same thing. It's from a Greek politician named Draco who decided that the death penalty should be applied to pretty much everything.Well, that's something I didn't know:)
I figured that 'draconian' meant 'like or pertaining to a dragon', i.e. all evil and fire-breathey and stuff. You learn something new every day.
Which means that I have fulfilled today's quota, and I now needn't learn anything for another twenty-four hours.:cool:

[Citizen Bleys]

"Editing out a swear that is already covered by the swear filter is stupid." - No one does that.

No one does that? What about the people who have got official warnings for using filtered words "too much" (meaning 3 times, which would be a good example of degree being decided after the fact by a staffer with a grudge) even though the words are already hidden by the filter?

[Loony BoB]

No one does that? What about the people who have got official warnings for using filtered words "too much" (meaning 3 times, which would be a good example of degree being decided after the fact by a staffer with a grudge) even though the words are already hidden by the filter?


Next, I don't have a problem with editting swears(only because I can't win the battle) but when Leeza goes and edits :skull::skull::skull::skull:...that just makes not damn sense! Seriously. The word has already been editted. No need to re-edit it AGAIN. If you are going to do this then what is the point of the swear filter. Go around and edit swears all you want such as bitch, c*nt, big floppy donkey dick and other things that are not censored. But to censor a censor...whats the point?
No one does that anymore, so its not an issue.
That was already taken care of before this thread was even started. Hooray!

[m4tt]

Nice thinly veiled insult there, Doomy.
It helps him sleep better at night when he puts a few people down.

[Raistlin]

I think Doomy was more insulting to Britain than Shlup. :p

Shlup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=draconian


There is a "case by case" basis for just about everything, especially swearing. If you honestly think we've decided there's some rule where we must get rid of all swearing, you're just plain wrong.
However, it appears that certain staff members are following that policy - which, as several people have pointed out, contradicts the Forum Rules and oral policy of the Staff.


You said the same thing I said, but, yes I remember Kane's sig. Kane's sig was removed because of lack of knowledge on the part of a couple of moderators, and removed perminantly because he reacted inappropriately to that. And if I hear one more person say that the entire staff should apologise or something after being attacked like that over a mistake due to lack of knowledge of one or two people, I'm gonna... make things pink or something.
You don't need to apologize for anything; I wasn't remotely inferring that. I was merely stating that, before that whole mess was sorted out by intelligent-minded people like Doomy-kins and I(:rolleyes2), several staff members used various excuses and general staff-rules to justify their mistaken action. Which was, as was pointed out then, the wrong thing to do.

I agree with pretty much everything you posted there, Shlup - I just don't feel that the application from the Staff is uneven and, in some circumstances, blatantly contradicts that.


What I'm seeing is:
"You should do things case by case." - We do.
"You shouldn't edit out every swear word; some are used in an appropriate context." - We don't.
"You can change everyone's post to say they're gay, but that's wrong." - Good thing we don't do that then.
"Editing out a swear that is already covered by the swear filter is stupid." - No one does that.

1. Some staff members seem to not do things case-by-case.
2. Some staff members seem to edit out every swear word.
3. Agreed.
4. We've all seen it done. However, from BoB's response, this is already been discussed and decided upon in Staff. So no one does that <i>anymore,</i> which I think was Bleys's problem with it.


Swears are powerful words, and when some people are given such power they will abuse it, which is what I was touching on earlier.
Or, when it's filtered, it gives them the misguided notion that they can swear however much they want, as it will all change to skulls(or smurf) anyway.

[Doomgaze]

For those of you playing along at home, I said that the Commonwealth is more educated, in general, than the US. Let's get it straight just who it is I am insulting, ok?

[Raistlin]

Oops, I read it backwards. Yeah, I'd agree with that. Americans in general don't like words longer than two syllables.

[Jojee]

Good thing I'm Chinese! *whew*

Edit: Urgh. What am I saying. Wesly, you're Chinese.

[Citizen Bleys]

Swears are powerful words...

Because you give them power. 50 years ago, saying "damn" would get you ostracized from your community. Now they say it every day on TV. Why? Because people started saying it, and got desensitized. Now nobody gives a damn if you say damn. It's just like Carlin's sketch on how anything can be funny if you don't have a rod wedged in your buttocks. By laughing at something, you deny something's power over you. By getting your panties in a knot over something minor, you're only affirming that power and tightening its grip on you.

[Jojee]

Actually I went to a Christian school in 5th-6th grade, and they cared pretty damn much if you said damn ;) In fact, they got pretty mad if you said darn. :( ...And you had to answer all the questions, "Yes, mamn" or "No, mamn"! Couldn't just say "okay" or "yes." :( :( *falls over* Boy, back in the days... *^_^*

[Shlup]

No one does that? What about the people who have got official warnings for using filtered words "too much" (meaning 3 times, which would be a good example of degree being decided after the fact by a staffer with a grudge) even though the words are already hidden by the filter?
Editing out an already filtered swear and warning someone for excessive swearing are two totally different issues. Accusing someone of deciding how much swearing is over the line based strictly on a grudge is a pretty heavy accusation. Where have you seen this happening? I'd like to hear about it.

For those of you playing along at home, I said that the Commonwealth is more educated, in general, than the US. Let's get it straight just who it is I am insulting, ok?
I'M EDUMACATED! *pokes your eye out*

Because you give them power. 50 years ago, saying "damn" would get you ostracized from your community. Now they say it every day on TV. Why? Because people started saying it, and got desensitized. Now nobody gives a damn if you say damn. It's just like Carlin's sketch on how anything can be funny if you don't have a rod wedged in your buttocks. By laughing at something, you deny something's power over you. By getting your panties in a knot over something minor, you're only affirming that power and tightening its grip on you.
So are you saying our goal should be to revolutionize society by taking power from curse words? I mean, I agree, the words have power if you give them power, but most people do give them power so, uh... I don't know what I was trying to say. Mayhaps you should be counseling the staff members who're so offended by swear words personally, since they're all avoiding this thread anyway.
I think Doomy was more insulting to Britain than Shlup. :p

Shlup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=draconian
I finally taught myself to spell refrigerator the other day. :p

However, it appears that certain staff members are following that policy - which, as several people have pointed out, contradicts the Forum Rules and oral policy of the Staff.
Well then that's something the members should bring up on a case by case basis, instead of letting it go in one big accusation with no examples because I don't see this happening, and that makes it a little hard to fix.

You don't need to apologize for anything; I wasn't remotely inferring that. I was merely stating that, before that whole mess was sorted out by intelligent-minded people like Doomy-kins and I(:rolleyes2), several staff members used various excuses and general staff-rules to justify their mistaken action. Which was, as was pointed out then, the wrong thing to do.
Bringing up things that are over and done to make a point... You're worse than a girlfriend! Why don't you just bring up that time I forgot Valentines Day next?

I agree with pretty much everything you posted there, Shlup - I just don't feel that the application from the Staff is uneven and, in some circumstances, blatantly contradicts that.
I would say that's one of the downfalls of doing things on a case by case basis. Some people's case by case gets the same "omg swearing is teh sux" every time. If you have a problem with this, I would advise you to bring it up with the staff members privately. I think you would get better results that way.

1. Some staff members seem to not do things case-by-case.
I disagree. They just get the same result for each case. Its part of being human, having different morals and opinions. But, like I said, I think you should bring your feelings up with them yourself.

2. Some staff members seem to edit out every swear word.
Some staff members don't like swearing. At all. Ever. If you see a particular case you have a problem with, I consider it your responsibility to report it then, so we know exactly what post you're talking about, and can address it. But, again, your opinion is different, so maybe most staff members will agree with the edit. I get the impression that the main issue of most, if not all, of your issues with any forum staff is that we're all different people with different opinions.

We're not a giant computer brain running the forum from some warehouse. Sowwy.

3. Agreed.
We'll see how long that lasts. >_>

4. We've all seen it done. However, from BoB's response, this is already been discussed and decided upon in Staff. So no one does that <i>anymore,</i> which I think was Bleys's problem with it.
*yoink* happens. *shrug*

Or, when it's filtered, it gives them the misguided notion that they can swear however much they want, as it will all change to skulls(or smurf) anyway.
Both yours and BoB's statements are true. Unfortunately for you, we choose to deal with the issue one way, while you would deal with it another. Sux 4 u!

EDIT BY BoB: Please do not go around the swear filter. This is an official warning.

[Citizen Bleys]

Accusing someone of deciding how much swearing is over the line based strictly on a grudge is a pretty heavy accusation. Where have you seen this happening? I'd like to hear about it.

I'm sure you would--but we both know that trying to prove that something was based on a grudge, even when it's plain as day, is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall--and if I ever say that the sky is blue without documented, signed evidence to prove it, we both know that it'd just get dismissed out of hand with some nonsense rhetoric that obfuscates the actual issue without ever addressing it.


So are you saying our goal should be to revolutionize society by taking power from curse words?

I can't feed all the hungry in Africa just by wishing it, either. It doesn't mean that I should condone the actions of corrupt governments that are taking the food out of their peoples' mouths so that the rich can get richer.


Mayhaps you should be counseling the staff members who're so offended by swear words personally, since they're all avoiding this thread anyway.

You can't counsel someone who won't listen.


Why don't you just bring up that time I forgot Valentines Day next?

Or better yet, just get everybody to forget Valentine's day every year.


If you have a problem with this, I would advise you to bring it up with the staff members privately. I think you would get better results that way.

That would be the most efficient way to get ignored.


They just get the same result for each case.

Well, then, it's not bloody well a matter of degree, then, is it? It's saying one thing and doing another. That's called deception.


I consider it your responsibility to report it then, so we know exactly what post you're talking about, and can ignore it.

And we all know how far reporting posts gets. Thank the gods for the Ignore function.

[Dr Unne]

Should we abolish manners?

[Del Murder]

Bleys, are you just having some fun, or is something really bugging you? I can see Raistlin doing his thing, but you really sounds like something is eating at you. I read the majority of the posts at these forums, and try to stay up on the current issues, and I don't see evidence of the stuff you're talking about. If you're just letting off steam then that's ok, we all have bad days. Feel free to air your grievences, I won't judge you because of it, if that matters at all to you. Otherwise, I'd like to know where this is coming from.

[Shlup]

I'm sure you would--but we both know that trying to prove that something was based on a grudge, even when it's plain as day, is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall--and if I ever say that the sky is blue without documented, signed evidence to prove it, we both know that it'd just get dismissed out of hand with some nonsense rhetoric that obfuscates the actual issue without ever addressing it.
You may view these instances as a grudge, but perhaps there's a different reason. I can't say either way because you have no examples to support your complaint.

I can't feed all the hungry in Africa just by wishing it, either. It doesn't mean that I should condone the actions of corrupt governments that are taking the food out of their peoples' mouths so that the rich can get richer.
I don't think that discouraging swearing is making anyone richer.

You can't counsel someone who won't listen.
I'm sure they'd have an equally fun time trying to get you to see their point of view. But you're convinced that allowing people to swear is the best course of action, so wouldn't listen to them either. Seems like you should either try, agree to disagree, or just drop it. There's no way to force your point of view.

Or better yet, just get everybody to forget Valentine's day every year.
But I like my annual Lemon Heads. :/

That would be the most efficient way to get ignored.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but, as it is, I'm pretty sure all the staff members you're talking about are ignoring this thread anyway, chalking it up to another one of Raistlin's "complain because I'm bored" threads. Is there a way to please you short of just letting people swear? Seriously. I don't think you even know what you want.

Well, then, it's not bloody well a matter of degree, then, is it? It's saying one thing and doing another. That's called deception.
To them any degree of swearing is too high of a degree, and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but to you any degree of swearing is not too high of a degree, so you would get consistant results the other way. Its not only a matter of degree, but a matter of personal bias. If you're saying certain staff members, one of them being Unne, who I'm under the impression you really want to remain on staff, need to either change their views on swearing or get off staff, I don't know what to tell you. Especially since you already stated you're not at all willing to bring these issues up with them personally.

And we all know how far reporting posts gets. Thank the gods for the Ignore function.
I don't know of a case where a reported post went completely ignored, so excuse me for thinking that's a rediculous statement. Reported posts are dealt with as we see fit.

I honestly don't see any way to please you, Bleys. You're making a lot of complaints and rejecting every solution without offering your own.

EDIT: And what Del said. For at least the past few days you've seemed, uh... extra and seriously displeased. Its a bit worrysome.

[eestlinc]

Shlup: it's spelled ridiculous as is <i>worthy of ridicule</i>. No e in there.


Good thing I'm Chinese! *whew*

Yea, the Chinese are well educated but they eat dogs. Sounds like a break even to me... :D

I think the thing that stands out the most to me about this sort of discussion is that anyone who suggests that the staff has a bad policy or whatever is pretty much just shot down and told to get over it. I'm not saying the staff are the ShinRa or anything, but when dissent is squelched like that it breeds an undercurrent of anger that occasionally boils over like this. I get the impression that the staff doesn't really care what the non-staff members think about the forum rules. You certainly don't <i>have</i> to care, but I think it would help the general dynamic of the forums.

People talk about "the new anti-staff sentiment at EoFF" and I think this is a good illustration of where that comes from. When you set a certain small group apart as elite with statements like "we set the rules and you have to live with it" or "watch me post in closed threads just because I can, even though its usually spammy and there was a good reason it was closed in the first place" then divisons are created and resentment follows naturally.

[Shlup]

Shlup: it's spelled ridiculous as is <i>worthy of ridicule</i>. No e in there.
Thanks, eest. No one's corrected my poor spelling in public for at least a week. :weep:

I think the thing that stands out the most to me about this sort of discussion is that anyone who suggests that the staff has a bad policy or whatever is pretty much just shot down and told to get over it.
I don't think that's true, really. I mean, like in this case, I think our policy is bad. Its not perfect, no, but I haven't seen anyone suggest anything better.
I get the impression that the staff doesn't really care what the non-staff members think about the forum rules. You certainly don't <i>have</i> to care, but I think it would help the general dynamic of the forums.
We do care, and it hurts me when people don't think we do. Even if an idea gets shot down, we're often talking about it in the staff forum. We should probably make it more apparent that we care, but I think these kinds of threads wear staff members down pretty quick. I know many staff members would rather see this thread closed beacause we're so tired of hearing how much we suck when we really think we're doing our best. I mean, I don't think a lot of these threads are constructive, to be honest. Its a lot of complaining, and rarely is there a solution that we think would work. You can't fault us for turning down ideas that we honestly don't think are good, and a lot of them aren't good.

When you set a certain small group apart as elite with statements like "we set the rules and you have to live with it"
I have to agree with you there. I mean, its true, but that makes it sound like we just don't care and don't listen when we do, we just don't agree.
or "watch me post in closed threads just because I can, even though its usually spammy and there was a good reason it was closed in the first place" then divisons are created and resentment follows naturally.
Yes, that can be annoying too. Obviously we're not perfect, but I think we do a damn good job! I'm actually going to bring up some of these seperate issues in the staff forum then, since they don't have to do with the swear filter.

[eestlinc]

When longstanding members criticize staff it is usually meant constructively and we give it because we care too. It's not meant to insult (although some of us are more tactful than others). Being in a leadership position means being criticized (and often also being insulted). I think the more open the dialogue is, the more healthy the social dynamic of the forums.

So I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, Shlup. And I usually don't correct anyone's typing but you use that word a lot and it's kinda funny. :D

To get back to the topic a bit, I think the issue is not so much that we have a swear filter (although some of us wish that we didn't), but the way it is treated. I think we make too big a deal about it and try to "punish" people for fighting it.

I think the best solution would be to leave the swear filter as is, leave anything that makes it through as is or discreetly edit it, clean up anything horrible, warn/politely-ask-to-stop excessive offenders privately, and let it keep a low profile. Ideally, we should have a swear filter without it really being obvious we have one. I like less obvious filters like "smurf" better than skulls because skulls stand out while replacing the f-word with smurf often is indistinguishable from someone self-censoring themselves by using smurf in the first place. Eventually we might get to the point where people just always type smurf instead of the f-word anyway, although that might make Smurfette cry.

[Agent Proto]

eest's idea is very good. I approve! :thumb:

[Jojee]

I don't like skulls either :( Can we replace that with smurf?

Also what makes the four :</>love: smileys come up?

[Kawaii Ryûkishi]

eest's idea is very good. I approve! :thumb:I think I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called What Kishi's Been Doing for Four and a Half Years.

[Shlup]

When longstanding members criticize staff it is usually meant constructively and we give it because we care too. It's not meant to insult (although some of us are more tactful than others). Being in a leadership position means being criticized (and often also being insulted). I think the more open the dialogue is, the more healthy the social dynamic of the forums.
We're very aware that being in a leadership position means being criticized. Very aware. I just think it wears some of us down sometimes. Its not an excuse for poor behavior, but it happens.

Its true that an open dialogue is good, but both staff and non-staff have to be willing to work towards solutions. I don't think that happens a lot of the time. Like right now, I think the dialogue is open, but the problem isn't being solved. I don't think the problem has so much to do with the swear filter as it does differences of opinion.

So I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, Shlup. And I usually don't correct anyone's typing but you use that word a lot and it's kinda funny. :D
Its okay. I'm used to having my spelling corrected. xD

To get back to the topic a bit, I think the issue is not so much that we have a swear filter (although some of us wish that we didn't), but the way it is treated. I think we make too big a deal about it and try to "punish" people for fighting it.
I agree that the issue isn't so much having a swear filter as it is how its treated, but I just don't see many or any of the complaints about the way its treated coming from any actual situations. I see people saying "this shouldn't happen" and it doesn't happen so there should be nothing to complain about. How do we "punish" people for swearing? Have we ever banned anyone? That's about all we can do.

We "punished" ed once for repeatedly swearing in his sig by taking away his sig entirely. Was that wrong? I don't think it was.<s>
I think the best solution would be to leave the swear filter as is
That's the plan.

leave anything that makes it through as is or discreetly edit it
Define "discreet." See, there's a conflict here too. We can edit it and not say anything for the sake of being discreet, but then someone complains that we've changed their words. We can say that we changed the words and then we get complaints that we've "made a big deal" out of it.

warn/politely-ask-to-stop excessive offenders privately
I'd have to see an example where we didn't do that because that's what we do. I'll bet half the PMs Leeza sends is her (being "Nicest Member") nicely asking people to tone it down.

and let it keep a low profile
I think it would be pretty low profile, except no one discreetly mentions it when a staff member does something they don't agree with. They wait until they see it two or three times, then make a thread about the general topic so that none of the past issues actually get solved.

Ideally, we should have a swear filter without it really being obvious we have one.
I thought we did.

I like less obvious filters like "smurf" better than skulls because skulls stand out while replacing the f-word with smurf often is indistinguishable from someone self-censoring themselves by using smurf in the first place. Eventually we might get to the point where people just always type smurf instead of the f-word anyway, although that might make Smurfette cry.I agree. ^_^

I don't like skulls either :( Can we replace that with smurf? We did like a week or something ago. Hehe

Also what makes the four :</>love: smileys come up?
I think that's just people censoring themselves with it... *shrug*</s>

EDIT:
Nevermind, Kishi wins. You've pretty well described the current policy as it is, eest. Whether you feel we follow it or not I can't really comment on, since no one has given me any reason to believe any staff member is doing otherwise.

[Loony BoB]

Just one thing I really think needs to be said is that, yes, we are quick to reject a lot of ideas and so forth, but more often than not we're quick to come to a conclusion because either we've already discussed it beforehand with the members of EoFF or else because we've already discussed it in Staff - sometimes more than once, sometimes very recently. It's quite common for these things to be raised as issues to us before threads are even made in Feedback. For example, this thread stems from Raistlin's LJ entry. I could see that LJ entry, as could a few othe staffers. So we looked into it within Staff. Other people sometimes raise concerns about certain members or Staff, and we look into these things without even being told to.

Right now, there are 1,698 threads in Staff - 60 threads since the start of February alone. We're constantly checking ourselves, coming up with ideas that we end up rejecting, overlooking the rules and deciding on the fate of various members. So it's fairly rare that we have Feedback threads about things we haven't already discussed. It's not that we don't consider your ideas - we do - it's just that we've already talked about it and come to a conclusion. This is what we're put into the job to do - not just moderating but making the laws we will have to enforce. If we've recently come to a decision in Staff and then a thread is made about the issue we concluded on, then we'll be quick to say yes or no.

Also, I don't know who Bleys talks to when he has an issue with a Staffer, but I know a fair few people talk to me about stuff like that and I always make sure I get that looked into. =]

[edczxcvbnm]

I think I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called What Kishi's Been Doing for Four and a Half Years.

The way you editted my posts encourged me to swear more...just to see what you would edit it next. One of my favorite closing threads was in the FFVII forums. "Love is hard to find on the battle...let alone the FFVII forum". That is just <img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif><img src=http://forums.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/rpg_009.gif>ing awesome.

[eestlinc]

Since we don't know what gets discussed in the staff forumwe can't really eb expected to know what decisions you have come up with recently and/or some time ago. When someone posts a thread in feedback about an issue and the staff response is "we've already discussed this in staff and come to a conclusion" then a message this sends is "we already made up our minds so what you think doesn't matter". I've seen the feedback forum morph from a real staff-membership discussion forum to a member question - staff response place. If that's the way feedback is going to be, we might as well just have a PM link set up so members can send questions and ideas and then get a private response back. I think threads like this where there is a running dialogue are much more benficial. Even if you already have discussed and made a decision, that doesn't mean members can't add to the discussion and bring fresh and different views into the mix. Then even if the decision has already been made and its not going to change, you at least present the illusion of including the membership. So much of the social dynamic is what everyone perceives regardless of how things actually are. "We discussed this in staff already" gives the impression of our views not mattering or being considered whether that is actually the case or not.

[Shlup]

I agree with eest, which is why, in the staff forum, I suggested that staff members who aren't willing to at least pretend to care are welcome to leave these types of threads to staff members who are.

This thread, for example, was briefly closed. Now that its been left open and we've pretty much gotten past the swear filter, I think we've gotten into a discussion that's actually beneficial.

I mean, yeah, staff makes the decisions and we don't have to pretend to care and all that, and we don't have to change our minds just because members don't like our policies, but sometimes I don't think we send a very good message about how much we value member's feelings and input.

[Loony BoB]

Since we don't know what gets discussed in the staff forumwe can't really eb expected to know what decisions you have come up with recently and/or some time ago. When someone posts a thread in feedback about an issue and the staff response is "we've already discussed this in staff and come to a conclusion" then a message this sends is "we already made up our minds so what you think doesn't matter". I've seen the feedback forum morph from a real staff-membership discussion forum to a member question - staff response place. If that's the way feedback is going to be, we might as well just have a PM link set up so members can send questions and ideas and then get a private response back. I think threads like this where there is a running dialogue are much more benficial. Even if you already have discussed and made a decision, that doesn't mean members can't add to the discussion and bring fresh and different views into the mix. Then even if the decision has already been made and its not going to change, you at least present the illusion of including the membership. So much of the social dynamic is what everyone perceives regardless of how things actually are. "We discussed this in staff already" gives the impression of our views not mattering or being considered whether that is actually the case or not.
I agree for the most part and that's why for the first couple of pages we were actively discussing it and so on - the only time I mentioned "we've already discussed this" was when the thing they wanted had actually been brought about. eg. People say we should do something, I say we have talked about this in staff and what you want to happen is now in action (whee)! Stuff like that. The only things that really get shot down dead-straight are the things that are really obvious and often mentioned in the FAQ, or have been discussed many many many times before.

I think we discuss swear filters on a bi-monthly basis right now, sorry if I've at any point appeared too closed-minded about it.

[Shlup]

Yeah, the swear filter has really been discussed to death. There's no way everyone's going to agree, but I think we've got everything pretty settled.

[Del Murder]

The majority of the threads in here are ask-answer, aren't serious, or are asking one of the 'make fun of' questions. The ones that are tackling a serious issue get their fair discussion, so I'm not seeing what you're saying, champ.

This was how I was brought up. When someone has feedback about something they submit it to the authority. The policymakers then get together and discuss the matter (or don't depending on how relevant the think the feedback is. Since this is a small community and all conversation is logged, making it much easier to hold discussions, most everything can be discussed). The authority then tells the person what was decided, and the person can either accept it or not. If not they have the option of leaving the establishment, or working to complete the necessary steps to being on the committee that makes the rules. I have never been in a situation where, when I was not in charge, and I had feedback about the way things were run, I got to sit and discuss the matter openly with the rulemakers and the rest of the establishment. To me that is a recipe for chaos. Everyone has an opinion, if we hear them all, and give them all a back and forth discussion, it would get confusing and hostile. Just look at it now. There are around 5-10 non staffers who get involved in the feedback issues, and it already gets heated as it is sometimes. That type of system just doesn't work. It's fine now when we have a small number of people (even though Raist counts for 7) who want to put in their two cents and be a part of a dialogue, but if 50 people came in with 50 different opinions on the swear filter, it starts to become harder to make each one feel important, or even give the 'illusion' of it.

An open dialoge is open to more than dialouge. One bad egg can spoil the whole discussion, and send it on a tangent that may or may not me relevant at all. Some people might misinterpret others. There are a lot of things that can go wrong in that type of format. I truly believe that the 'say your piece and why you feel that way, then we go and discuss it and tell you what the result is' system is the best one. If it was something that was already discussed, and your opinion does not add any new information or insight, then you'll be told so. But like I said before, there aren't that many people who participate in these feedback discussions, and for the most part they are veteran members who act maturely, so these problems aren't that big a deal, and also like I said before, I don't see much of the 'we discussed it already' stuff going on in the first place, at least in the serious topics, so I don't think any change is needed. I'm only giving the reason why I don't usually get invloved in these types of discussions. I'll gladly clarify a rule, or explain why certain suggestions will not be carried out, but the way you guys pick apart each other's posts to 'discuss' the issue is not the way I was raised to deal with leaders or authority figures. I have no problem of course with the rest of you doing it. As long as it is just the 12 of you and not the 900 or so active members here, the problems that arise as a result of this system can be easily contained, and even some benefit may come of it. I only post now because I like and respect the champ more than most people, and I enjoy having discussions with him in particular, much like I'm sure BoB and Raist enjoy going back and forth about newbie threads and their impact on board morale.

[Citizen Bleys]

Bleys, are you just having some fun, or is something really bugging you? I can see Raistlin doing his thing, but you really sounds like something is eating at you.

Actually, now that I think of it, it's not so much the swear filter itself, although the first thing I ever hated about being on staff, which eventually snowballed into my departure from it, is that I had to enforce a swearing rule. What's really eating me, when I look into it a little deeper, is the attitudes I've been seeing from the staff lately. Each and every thread made in here is simply shot down out of hand, usually mocking and insulting the thread-maker. I remember a time when we (as in the staff of then) decided not to make sarcastic comments when closing a thread out of respect for the members that keep this forum alive. Where's the respect for members here? All I'm seeing is respect for staff members, and only from other staff members.

Honestly, if this is the way you're going to be treating the Feedback forum, you might as well just close the bloody thing.


I don't think that discouraging swearing is making anyone richer.

Thanks for saying something completely irrelevant


To them any degree of swearing is too high of a degree, and, excuse me if I'm wrong, but to you any degree of swearing is not too high of a degree.

Correct. But when I was on staff, I enforced the swearing rule, no matter how much I hated doing so--out of respect for the staff, the rules, and the members. I didn't then turn around and swear up a blue stream in every post because I, personally, thought it ought to be allowed. Look at my LJ, and then look at my posts at EoFF and tell me I'm not restraining myself here.


I don't know of a case where a reported post went completely ignored, so excuse me for thinking that's a rediculous statement. Reported posts are dealt with as we see fit.

How about the last post I reported? I didn't even get an acknowledgement. And that's why it'll be the last post I ever report, as long as the Ignore List function remains available on the board. And should the staff ever disable the Ignore List, I hope there's a good, non-rhetoric-obfuscated for it, otherwise I'll have to simply stop showing up.

[Loony BoB]

We'll definitely look into that first bit.

We won't be removing the ignore function any tiem soon, that's for sure.

[Shlup]

Alright, this whole thing with generalizing everyone on staff so that if one person does one thing then all staff must do it always is starting to get to me. I'm taking a break.

[RSL]

I'm guilty of not checking reported posts. My reasoning behind this is that when I used to, I was always beat to the punch by a quicker, more active staffer. I know this isn't the right attitude to have, so starting now I will check them all.

I didn't realize that you had a warned post get ignored, Bleys. Do you have an approximate date that this post occured? My whole email inbox is basically reported posts (I never delete them even though I don't look at them.)

Once again, sorry that this happened.

[Citizen Bleys]

Alright, this whole thing with generalizing everyone on staff so that if one person does one thing then all staff must do it always is starting to get to me. I'm taking a break.

That's the pitfall of the whole "not naming names" bit. I'm not saying anything with the intention of singling one person out and making them feel bad, which is exactly what'll happen if I even once name a name, regardless of whether or not everyone knows who I'm talking about. And obviously, not everyone does, since Unne's name came up. I like the way Unne deals with this. He and I will never see eye to eye on swearing, but back when we were both on staff together, the issue never became significant. Why? Because we both respected not only the staff and the rules, but the members (or at least those worthy of respect). I tone down the swearing while I'm here -- regardless of whether or not my word of choice is in the censor -- and he doesn't go all nazified and edit every single post and dress people down for doing something that's not against the rules. He doesn't like swearing, to be sure, but he doesn't let that cripple the way he does his job. Sure, I wish that I could drop the F-bomb here as often as I do in my LJ and on Primeaux, but I don't let that affect the way I post, and when I was on the staff, I enforced that rule, no matter how much I hated it.


We'll definitely look into that first bit.

Fact is "Looking into something," or "discussing it in staff" usually means a thread is made, a few people post in it, and everybody "agrees to disagree" and precisely squat ever changes. Only here in Feedback does an issue ever get any actual air, and then usually it's regular members raising an issue and staff dismissing it and saying "Yeah, yeah, we'll talk about it," or "We already have talked about it," leaving out the fact that the discussion in staff was utterly effectless, and everybody who even cares a little is as thoroughly ignored as people who use the warn feature.


I didn't realize that you had a warned post get ignored, Bleys. Do you have an approximate date that this post occured? My whole email inbox is basically reported posts (I never delete them even though I don't look at them.)

I can't give you an exact date, but it was pretty recent. Someone (Again not naming names, I don't want the contents of my Ignore list to be a matter of public record) made an off-topic post exclusively to flame me. Instead of flaming back, I was a good little boy and followed what was written in the (then) latest announcement and used the warn feature, whereupon I'm sure every staffer who even read the email just said "Oh, pssh, it's just Bleys. *delete*"

Which brings up another matter: I've noticed that certain members (including Kane, Doom, WesLY, and I'm sure some others that I don't notice as much because they're not such good friends of mine) can't post "hi" without getting shat upon by the staff. I'm sure someone will promptly call it banter, but I of all people know the difference. You want to see an example of bantering with WesLY? http://www.gamers-alliance.org/forums is the place to go. You want to see incessant reaming and insulting of him, the place to go is http://forums.eyesonff.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40.

Maybe I, too, belong on that list with Kane, Doom, and WesLY, but when it's me, I am much more inclined to give the other poster the benefit of the doubt.


Should we abolish manners?

Already taken care of.

[Loony BoB]

Fact is "Looking into something," or "discussing it in staff" usually means a thread is made, a few people post in it, and everybody "agrees to disagree" and precisely squat ever changes. Only here in Feedback does an issue ever get any actual air, and then usually it's regular members raising an issue and staff dismissing it and saying "Yeah, yeah, we'll talk about it," or "We already have talked about it," leaving out the fact that the discussion in staff was utterly effectless, and everybody who even cares a little is as thoroughly ignored as people who use the warn feature.
I'm happy to say you're wrong here. Sometimes we agree that it's not worth doing anything about because, well, it's not. Sometimes we find ourselves at a standstill on things and then we generally end up either going to Cid or coming up with a compromise that we settle on. Sometimes we agree to make a change - this has happened recently to tend to the thing you were complaining about in your first post. So yeah, that base is covered. :) Yay.

Also, every warned post is looked into, as far as I know. I go through a dozen or so of them about once a week/month to see who is reporting posts and I notice that 90% of the stuff in them is tended to. I actually have some of the funnier reported posts saved. =P


I can't give you an exact date, but it was pretty recent. Someone (Again not naming names, I don't want the contents of my Ignore list to be a matter of public record) made an off-topic post exclusively to flame me. Instead of flaming back, I was a good little boy and followed what was written in the (then) latest announcement and used the warn feature, whereupon I'm sure every staffer who even read the email just said "Oh, pssh, it's just Bleys. *delete*"
Luckily, I have the latest 402 reported posts saved. xD *checks*

Ah, the post you reported on 20/02/05 was edited by a Cid's Knight with an in-thread warning. I noticed that your Reported Post was pretty spiteful, though... do you ever get the feeling that you're taking stabs at us fairly often, too? =/ Staff have feelings too. We just try our best not to get ourselves phased... but that doesn't mean stuff like that doesn't bring us down, too.


Which brings up another matter: I've noticed that certain members (including Kane, Doom, WesLY, and I'm sure some others that I don't notice as much because they're not such good friends of mine) can't post "hi" without getting shat upon by the staff. I'm sure someone will promptly call it banter, but I of all people know the difference. You want to see an example of bantering with WesLY? http://www.gamers-alliance.org/forums is the place to go. You want to see incessant reaming and insulting of him, the place to go is http://forums.eyesonff.com/forumdisplay.php?f=40.

Maybe I, too, belong on that list with Kane, Doom, and WesLY, but when it's me, I am much more inclined to give the other poster the benefit of the doubt.
I've noticed this is a two-way affair. While we take a lot of flack, and while we shouldn't get hurt or offended and retaliate instinctively, we sometimes do and I get complaints by members when they read it, and I've had complaints about me, too, and I take note of them and do my best not to re-do them. If I ever say something that offends you, send me a PM, I'll definitely apologise... or send another Staffer a PM and they can tell me to apologise, so that way there's someone in the middle making sure it's not a personal spat.

Hmm... *gets an idea*

[Citizen Bleys]

I'm happy to say you're wrong here. Sometimes we agree that it's not worth doing anything about because, well, it's not. Sometimes we find ourselves at a standstill on things and then we generally end up either going to Cid or coming up with a compromise that we settle on. Sometimes we agree to make a change - this has happened recently to tend to the thing you were complaining about in your first post. So yeah, that base is covered. :) Yay.

I've noticed this tends to be the exception rather than the rule, and then only when someone raises a stink in Feedback. Such as this.



Luckily, I have the latest 402 reported posts saved. xD *checks*

Ah, the post you reported on 20/02/05 was edited by a Cid's Knight with an in-thread warning.

I didn't check after a couple of days, that should be plenty of time. Also, I'm not removing that individual from my Ignore list.


I noticed that your Reported Post was pretty spiteful, though... do you ever get the feeling that you're taking stabs at us fairly often, too? =/

There's a reason for that, in the few instances where I'm actually serious.


Staff have feelings too. We just try our best not to get ourselves phased... but that doesn't mean stuff like that doesn't bring us down, too.

I, of all people, know this.




Hmm... *gets an idea*

Looking forward to it

[Loony BoB]

I've noticed this tends to be the exception rather than the rule, and then only when someone raises a stink in Feedback. Such as this.
Don't be so pessimistic. :p We're generally talking about subjects before they even get started, sort of a pre-emptive move. Like I said earlier, we had sorted out something you had a problem with before you even raised it as a problem. Surely you can't complain about that! :(


I didn't check after a couple of days, that should be plenty of time. Also, I'm not removing that individual from my Ignore list.
I wouldn't ask it of you. *nods* I can't tell how long it was before the mod edited the post (and I can't be arsed checking the mod logs). But you can put 90% of the board on ignore if you want to and I wouldn't be bothered. :p It's up to you. :)


There's a reason for that, in the few instances where I'm actually serious.
I guess I have trouble telling the serious side from the non-serious. Seems like you're serious 90% of the time lately. =x


I, of all people, know this.
Yeah, I know, that bit was more directed towards the people that insult us.


Looking forward to it
Don't get your hopes up too fast, I probably get more ideas shot down than any other member, purely because I come up with so many. xD

[Citizen Bleys]

Like I said earlier, we had sorted out something you had a problem with before you even raised it as a problem. Surely you can't complain about that! :(

That's the way it should be.



I wouldn't ask it of you. *nods* I can't tell how long it was before the mod edited the post (and I can't be arsed checking the mod logs). But you can put 90% of the board on ignore if you want to and I wouldn't be bothered. :p It's up to you. :)

Not even close. One name in there now, pondering adding two more.



I guess I have trouble telling the serious side from the non-serious. Seems like you're serious 90% of the time lately. =x

If I'm ever serious 90% of the time, kindly shoot me in the face with a rocket launcher.


Don't get your hopes up too fast, I probably get more ideas shot down than any other member, purely because I come up with so many. xD

If there's a mountain of crap with two diamonds in it, most people would slog through the crap to get to the diamonds.

[Del Murder]

Actually, now that I think of it, it's not so much the swear filter itself, although the first thing I ever hated about being on staff, which eventually snowballed into my departure from it, is that I had to enforce a swearing rule. What's really eating me, when I look into it a little deeper, is the attitudes I've been seeing from the staff lately. Each and every thread made in here is simply shot down out of hand, usually mocking and insulting the thread-maker. I remember a time when we (as in the staff of then) decided not to make sarcastic comments when closing a thread out of respect for the members that keep this forum alive. Where's the respect for members here? All I'm seeing is respect for staff members, and only from other staff members.

Honestly, if this is the way you're going to be treating the Feedback forum, you might as well just close the bloody thing.
I am satisfied with this response and the ensuing discussion you and BoB had. Thank you.

[Citizen Bleys]

I am satisfied with this response and the ensuing discussion you and BoB had. Thank you.

I'm glad you brought it up, since I hadn't really thought about what was really bothering me behind the lines. That question turned this into an actual productive thread which may just have a positive impact on the forums as a whole. Thank you.

[Dr Unne]

*makes a rare serious post*

Shooting down threads in Feedback, in my case, is just a joke. Most of the suggestions here I don't agree with. When someone makes a valid suggestion I give it a valid response. <a href="http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57398">See?</a> <a href="http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57454">See?</a>

Posting in already-closed threads and other forms of "abusing power" is 100% stress relief in my case. SOMETHING about being an admin has to be fun. I'm sure you understand this Bleys. Who here changed everyone's style to ed's technicolor nightmare?

I do respect mostly everyone here. I respect the members, which is why I continue to do this job. Even though I always say things like I ignore name requests and stuff, I don't actually do those sorts of things. I still like this MB, even though it's quite different than it used to be. I respect the staff enough that I will do what they wish, even when it's not what I wish.

Bleys, look at my very first post in this thread.

"Swearing = bad" has been the rule since the beginning. We never enforced it strictly because people didn't behave like 10-year-olds; people had respect enough not to belch profanities in every post. Bleys himself refrained from swearing here, for that very reason: RESPECT FOR OTHERS.

You are 100% right, we got (get) along well because we respected each other. I don't have a problem with people swearing, per se. I have a problem with people being disrespectful. You tried not to swear, and I tried not to care when you did. Respecting each others' beliefs. I've never edited one of your posts here, and you've sometimes said some fairly editable things.

That's not the same as what people are doing today. Look at this post: http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1013675&postcount=36

Now someone tell me, does this show respect? Given this entire huge thread, where the staff have made our views clear, what are we to do with this kind of thing, short of going into Nazi enforcement mode? I hope you can see how I can become a bit discouraged. I'm being forced into making decisions I don't want to make. In this case I choose to do nothing, because I don't think that doing anything will make a difference.

Every time the MB has ever been in my opinion "good", one single thing was true: Everyone was nice to each other voluntarily. Short of that, we're screwed. I can't ban half the MB. Rather I can, but I don't, out of respect for the members and respect for staff, which would disapprove. I'm now in the minority on staff when it comes to the issue of swearing. I act like I don't care sometimes, because I don't. If I cared this place would make me quite sad sometimes. Just sometimes, but still.

I'm sorry to say, I have a lot of more important things to care about as of late. I try to keep the place going enough so that the good people here can still have a place to talk, and in hopes that the disrespectful people will one day shut up or leave. I'm only speaking for myself here, not for anyone else, not for the staff as a whole.

[edczxcvbnm]

That is what you think. Little do you know there is a non stop party going on in staff forum about how gullible bleys is. Life is so cruel :cry:

EDIT: I just Dr. Unne's post. That made me crack up man. I haven't laughed that hard...since last night when watching Family Guy.

EDIT: THE revenge of the edit: I wasn't laughing at what he had to say but that it was my post that he quoted more or less.

[Citizen Bleys]

*makes a rare serious post*

Shooting down threads in Feedback, in my case, is just a joke. Most of the suggestions here I don't agree with. When someone makes a valid suggestion I give it a valid response. <a href="http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57398">See?</a> <a href="http://www.eyesonff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57454">See?</a>


I usually don't see the cocky attitude from you personally. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and I'm not going to run around trying to find examples that will just be dismissed as an "isolated incident"


Posting in already-closed threads and other forms of "abusing power" is 100% stress relief in my case. SOMETHING about being an admin has to be fun. I'm sure you understand this Bleys. Who here changed everyone's style to ed's technicolor nightmare?


You're conveniently forgetting the cataclysmic backlash that came with that where hundreds of people, at the time, wanted my head for it. Which is why I get so cranky when someone (usually Psy) says "Oh, but if Bleys did the same thing, it would be OK." When I did something, it was never OK until 6 months later when people look back at it and laugh, seeing it in the same light that I did at the time.


You are 100% right, we got (get) along well because we respected each other. I don't have a problem with people swearing, per se. I have a problem with people being disrespectful. You tried not to swear, and I tried not to care when you did. Respecting each others' beliefs. I've never edited one of your posts here, and you've sometimes said some fairly editable things.

And as I said, I've never had a problem with how you handle the swearing issue. I actually used you as a shining example of how it should be done.


In this case I choose to do nothing, because I don't think that doing anything will make a difference.

Now you've hit on the biggest reason why I retired.

[Psychotic]

You're conveniently forgetting the cataclysmic backlash that came with that where hundreds of people, at the time, wanted my head for it. Which is why I get so cranky when someone (usually Psy) says "Oh, but if Bleys did the same thing, it would be OK." When I did something, it was never OK until 6 months later when people look back at it and laugh, seeing it in the same light that I did at the time.I used you as an example because you were the first person who sprung to mind who wasn't on Staff who I felt fitted the situation. If it really annoys you, then I won't use you as an example again. But seriously Bleys, let's take Peter as an example. If, like him, you had genuinely accidentally posted that image, do you really think they'd have banned you? I doubt it. But like I said, I won't use you again if you don't feel comfortable having me single you out.

[Doomgaze]

It's banter :p

Anyway, I hereby offer this peace offering on behalf of Raist and myself:


All you mothersmurfers are gonna pay, You are the ones who are the smurf-lickers. We're gonna smurf your mothers while you watch and cry like little smurfs. Once we get to the server room and find those smurfs who are hosting this site, we're gonna make 'em eat our smurf, then smurf out our smurf, then eat their smurf which is made up of our smurf that we made 'em eat. Then you're all smurfing next.

Love,

Doom and Silent WesLY


That said, Kane is actually smurfed on whenever he opens his smurfing mouth. Linus was often treated the same way while he was still here.

[Dr Unne]

Now you've hit on the biggest reason why I retired.

I think I've retired too, just in a slightly different way. :)


But seriously Bleys, let's take Peter as an example. If, like him, you had genuinely accidentally posted that image, do you really think they'd have banned you?

I'd ban anyone for posting porn, including CURRENT staff, with the exception of Sean. I'd expect to be banned myself if necessary.

[Citizen Bleys]

But seriously Bleys, let's take Peter as an example. If, like him, you had genuinely accidentally posted that image, do you really think they'd have banned you?

In a heartbeat. I've seen it happen to current staffers before. Remember Krel? Remember Chewbacca? Didn't think so.

Furthermore, if I were banned, I'd never be back, so there'd be no sense in making 16,000 annoying sigs about me.

[Psychotic]

I'd ban anyone for posting porn, including CURRENT staff, with the exception of Sean. I'd expect to be banned myself if necessary.Not what another prominent staffer said they'd have done, but that was off the record and I shall say no more of it. (And yes, I know that what one staffer says doesn't necessarily apply to any other members of staff.)


In a heartbeat. I've seen it happen to current staffers before. Remember Krel? Remember Chewbacca? Didn't think so.You are most correct, I don't remember them, as presumably those incidents occurred before I was a member. But the fact that I don't is enough: It's obviously long ago not to be relevant to all situations regarding such things now.

[Citizen Bleys]

It doesn't matter, if someone posts porn, unless there isn't a shadow of a reasonable doubt that it was accident, someone on staff would do their job. I may not have a lot of faith left in today's staff, but I'll give them that much.

[Psychotic]

It doesn't matter, if someone posts porn, unless there isn't a shadow of a reasonable doubt that it was accident, someone on staff would do their job. I may not have a lot of faith left in today's staff, but I'll give them that much.Well, theoretically everyone should be banned when porn is posted, whether it was accidental or not. This is due to the precedent of the Peter situation. However, I firmly believe that had someone more popular/well-known/whatever you want to call it than Peter had posted that originally, the outcome in that situation (pre-precedent) would have been different, and so do many others, hence the "annoying sigs" as you have indirectly referred to them as. You fit that description, in my personal opinion, hence why you would have been used in an example for such a situation, until you had expressed your concerns about being used in such a way.

[Endless]

So far, I carefully avoided to reply to that thread, thinking that maybe I should suggest in a new thread we rename this forum into the "feedback & drama" forum, since it's what it looks like happens on a fairly regular basis. Let me detail: in my opinion, there are two sides to this coin, one is the impression the Staff gives, which has been debated by BoB, Bleys, Unne, etc.. to which there isn't much to add, and the other, of which I think Bleys is touching the surface, is the attitude of (some) members. I remember the complaints because Bleys could post his crotch, because he could play pranks (Lesbian Seagull, the old pirate), and members couldn't (more on that later, let's note that item a), and later on, when, while I was a mod, I started the "kick that thread" here. I think it lasted a good, hmm, three days before some members complained about us kicking a closed thread around for fun (that's item b).
So, about a) I think, retrospectively, what pissed off the members at that time is that none had the guts to try and pull that kind of prank, because it requires to *gasp* prepare it a little with a few select staffers/members.
This brings us to b), there's a long running problem (it was there when I was a mod) with the members of EoFF not tolerating the fact that Staff can have fun too.

Oh, Unne, about that thread you quoted, here's a suggestion: when people start to go the cussing way, why not warn the thread (as in, "cut down the cussing or this thread gets the axe"), because it leads to the individual getting the thread closed losing all support/be ignored/banned with the other people's approval.

[MecaKane]

Well, theoretically everyone should be banned when porn is posted, whether it was accidental or not. This is due to the precedent of the Peter situation. However, I firmly believe that had someone more popular/well-known/whatever you want to call it than Peter had posted that originally, the outcome in that situation (pre-precedent) would have been different, and so do many others, hence the "annoying sigs" as you have indirectly referred to them as. You fit that description, in my personal opinion, hence why you would have been used in an example for such a situation, until you had expressed your concerns about being used in such a way.
Why don't you just use yourself as an example? As you posted something that was as inappropriate as a 60x60 .gif or a body part made of snow, and nothing was done about it. Or how 'bout Bert? Oh but you guys aren't exactly 'staff pets' so it'd just poke one giant hole in your theory.

Although I do agree that there shouldn't really be a case-by-case with porn, the cases aren't as stacked aganist you as you'd like to tell people.

[Psychotic]

Why don't you just use yourself as an example? As you posted something that was as inappropriate as a 60x60 .gif or a body part made of snow, and nothing was done about it. Or how 'bout Bert? Oh but you guys aren't exactly 'staff pets' so it'd just poke one giant hole in your theory.Because only you made a fuss about it Kane, and it's pretty obvious you were doing it because you don't like me as no-one else was upset or warned the post. I posted nothing wrong, which is why the staff did nothing about it...I don't think Flying Mullet's quote was removed either.

As for Bert, he is a well-known member and posted his image deliberately but not so as to cause offence, and I, like others, cited his example as to reasons why Peter being banned was unfair.

[Loony BoB]

Wow, this thread changed topic damned fast. =P I think I might have been the Staffer Psy talked to in the past and I was just saying my opinion. Anything I said would have been personalised speculation since I've never been in the situation of that happening.

[Raistlin]

*skims through the last 4948059783405 posts*

eest: I <3 you :love: :love: :love:

In response to the entire Bleys-BoB discussion:

Bleys: I agree with you, for the most part, just not to that degree. However, look at my past threads here, and other threads that I've had a discussion here. I've been cussed out and insulted by staff(not naming names, as per my policy in a public conversation) on several occasions, but have yet to do anything remotely like that to any staffer. For two examples(in the same thread, even!), check past private LJ entries.

BoB: I know, from past experiences/discussions, that staff here discusses a lot of things. However, that needs to show in the forums themselves, and it often doesn't. Remember my LJ entry way-back-when that got 100+ replies(it was when someone was banned for something that a past offender had gotten off for, or something like that)? That's a natural result of staff not showing how much they privately discuss issues in staff.
Ideas in Feedback nowadays seem to get dismissed out-of-hand. Again, a result of staff placing personal preference above the board's interest. When a staff member posts saying, "This doesn't matter; why are you posting this?" it reflects back on the staff in general.

The biggest thing the staff here needs is a healthy dose of professionalism. Spamming up closed threads when regular members would be warned for spamming up a thread about to be closed? That's something simple that reflects badly back upon the entire staff. Staff members can still play "pranks"(changing everyone to ed's technicolor nightmare) and such that everyone can enjoy, but when they start breaking the rules of the forum for their own enjoyment, that reflects badly back upon the staff in general.
Also, in Feedback threads, there is a definite need for a more professional attitude. Yes, Shlup, I'm being a bad girlfriend here, but the Kane's sig thread resulted me in making a very nasty LJ entry - however, I didn't post anything bad here. You can cuss us out all you want to in the staff forum or wherever, but on the boards we, as members bringing something to your attention, expect a little courtesy and professionalism from such an esteemed staff. EoFF has the best staff of any larger board I've ever been to, and it depresses me to see stupid things like this put a very bad image on the staff as a whole.

Oh, and about the porn thing: BoB once told me that he'd ban his own grandmother if she was a member here and broke the rules. I think that pretty much sums it up.

...are we still talking about the swear filter, or has that issue been covered? xD

[Dr Unne]

The biggest thing the staff here needs is a healthy dose of professionalism.

*steals your staff* *dances a merry jig*

[RSL]

I agree with your comment on professionalism. I'm going to try and improve in that area.

[eestlinc]

So, about a) I think, retrospectively, what pissed off the members at that time is that none had the guts to try and pull that kind of prank, because it requires to *gasp* prepare it a little with a few select staffers/members.

*whistle*


This brings us to b), there's a long running problem (it was there when I was a mod) with the members of EoFF not tolerating the fact that Staff can have fun too.

maybe I think swearing is fun but I still can't break the rules.

[Loony BoB]

Staff spam a lot less than other members here, including our posts in closed threads. :p We just happen to be able to post in closed threads, so that means we're able to post either on-topic or off-topic stuff. Anyway, it's not against the rules to post in closed threads. You guys just can't. :D

I seriously don't think that us having our bit of fun is going to hurt anyone. Like I said before - perks of the job. If I had to give up my right to use my admin/mod powers for personal enjoyment, I'd probably give up being an admin. I don't want to end up getting all stress and no play.

[Shlup]

Unne, quit using that avatar! Confusing the hell outta me...

And I guess I will try harder to be more professional. ;_;

And, yes, Raist, the swearing issue was covered before this thread was made, whether you choose to believe it or not, you spoon. I mean... sir.

[Raistlin]

Staff spam a lot less than other members here, including our posts in closed threads. :p We just happen to be able to post in closed threads, so that means we're able to post either on-topic or off-topic stuff. Anyway, it's not against the rules to post in closed threads. You guys just can't. :D

I seriously don't think that us having our bit of fun is going to hurt anyone. Like I said before - perks of the job. If I had to give up my right to use my admin/mod powers for personal enjoyment, I'd probably give up being an admin. I don't want to end up getting all stress and no play.
I said Staff can have fun! I actually encourage it, because it's...well, fun! However, our point is that they(you) don't have to break the rules to do it. Changing everyone's style set, messing around with the banner, randomly spamming/banning/editting profiles(i.e., the Bleys vs. Unne days) are all great. But spamming closed threads and flaming? Those can cross the line.
However, I agree that some members need to lay off - as they can have fun too. How about that huge spam thread in GC a while ago? Or hell, our recent attempt to fill the first page of General SE into all Xenogears threads, where 3/4 of the threads(read: "all those not posted by Doomy") were pure spam? That wasn't given staff-approval, it just happened, and it was fun.

The thing is: Staff is expected to set an example - both an example for how to have fun, and an example on how to follow the rules. I'm sure people as intelligent as you all(well, excluding Shlup, of course) can figure out how to draw a line between the two.

You reference to "perks" also irritates me. Staffing isn't a privilige - it's a responsibility. You're expected to uphold to certain standards, which should be much higher than those for regular members. I can tolerate a helluva lot more from regular members than I can from staffers. DocFrance(he needs to post here >=o) will know what I'm talking about. xD



*steals your staff* *dances a merry jig*
:mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


I agree with your comment on professionalism. I'm going to try and improve in that area.
I don't think anyone has any complaints about you, Red Sexy. :love:


And I guess I will try harder to be more professional. ;_;
That's been my biggest complaint about you for quite a while now. If you improve, I might have to actually start liking you. :rolleyes2


Also, what the hell's up with the male staff members using female avatars? xD

[RSL]

I don't think anyone has any complaints about you, Red Sexy. :love:


I doubt that.

[Shlup]

This is me showing restraint for the sake of professionalism.

...

*explodes*

I don't know if I agree that staffing is such a big "responsibility," which may be where problems (with me) stem from. I just don't think its a big flippin' deal either way. I don't get paid enough to force myself to be uptight. I'll try to behave better for the sake of other's comfort levels though... asshole.

[Del Murder]

Oh well, at least you tried.

[edczxcvbnm]

In a heartbeat. I've seen it happen to current staffers before. Remember Krel? Remember Chewbacca? Didn't think so.

Furthermore, if I were banned, I'd never be back, so there'd be no sense in making 16,000 annoying sigs about me.

I remember them. Go Chewy! He was awesome with is Frog avatars. I miss him ;_;

[Agent Proto]

Chewy was banned? ;_;

[Dr Unne]

No he wasn't.

[Raistlin]

I don't know if I agree that staffing is such a big "responsibility," which may be where problems (with me) stem from. I just don't think its a big flippin' deal either way. I don't get paid enough to force myself to be uptight. I'll try to behave better for the sake of other's comfort levels though... asshole.
So if it's not a responsibility...what it is? What's the reason people become staffers? Why do staffers continue to stay on...staffing(for lack of a better term)? If it's not a responsibility, it's a privilige, complemented with "perks" and other such jobs to make it more "fun" and "worthwhile." The worthwhile part should come with making a difference at the board. Basically, if you don't care enough to be able to put in the small amount of effort needed to follow the rules enough to do your job on the forums, you shouldn't be part of staff. For instance, Bleys. He didn't like the swearing restrictions, but followed them out of respect. Everybody who knows him would know that he also could have been very unprofessional on the forums by being rude/cussing at members, but he didn't out of respect for the board(as he has already stated), and out of the sense of responsibility he felt towards it.

I'll just leave it at this: hypothetically, back when I adminned at FG(supposedly more "laid back"), if I had seen some of the language and attitudes from the staff there that I have seen here, they probably wouldn't have been on staff anymore(or at the very least, had a looooong very one-sided talk with me, as happened to DocFrance when he was rude to an admittedly obnoxious member; yes, I swore a lot).


Oh, and I remember Chewy! *elitist*

[Doomgaze]

Unban Chewy! I will be making sigs soon.

[meowwl]

As far as word filters, I don't think this one is very bad at all..It could be worse..It could be completely anal, like the Adult Swim boards, which won't even let you say jackass, or it could change all your swearwords into the word sunshine :barf: like one of the other boards I frequent...That would sure discourage swearing! sunshining sunshineers! :tongue: I'll be happy as long as I can still say "There was a pert lass from madras, Who had a remarkable ass. It wasn't rounded and pink as you probably think, it was gray, had long ears and ate grass!"

[Loony BoB]

I said Staff can have fun! I actually encourage it, because it's...well, fun! However, our point is that they(you) don't have to break the rules to do it. Changing everyone's style set, messing around with the banner, randomly spamming/banning/editting profiles(i.e., the Bleys vs. Unne days) are all great. But spamming closed threads and flaming? Those can cross the line.

I don't flame. At least I hope I don't.

There is no rule against spamming closed threads. In fact, randomly spamming/banning/editting profiles seems a hell of a lot worse than 'spamming in a closed thread'. Every Staffer has done it, including all the Staffers you've praised and I'd be very surprised if you've not done it before, too. =P

I mean, I could just open the thread, post in it and close it again... :D It's also notable that most people I've talked to about us posting in closed threads have said they love it, they find it amusing and some of the posts made by Staffers in closed threads are the best posts on the board. :) I guess it's just your personal viewpoint.

And yes, Staffing is a responsibility. So is my job at work. In my job at work, I have huge responsibilities, as do all my superiors, but we still abuse our powers every now and then for our own amusement. Having an admin password on my computer at work is something few people in my company are allowed to have, but I have it - and that means I install all sorts of non-work related programs on it. Do my bosses care? Not one bit. I think you'll find more people enjoy our posts in closed threads than there are against such activities. When I was a regular member, I never had a problem with it. I was more likely to read a thread if it was closed, because I liked reading the final posts made by Staffers of the time. :D

In short, just because it's a responsibility doesn't mean we can't have perks to go with it. If we were breaking rules by posting in closed threads, we wouldn't have the option for our usergroups to be able to post in closed threads turned on.

[Raistlin]

There is no rule against spamming closed threads. In fact, randomly spamming/banning/editting profiles seems a hell of a lot worse than 'spamming in a closed thread'. Every Staffer has done it, including all the Staffers you've praised and I'd be very surprised if you've not done it before, too. =P
Yes, but I wouldn't do it if members complained about it. Also, there's no that staff can't randomly ban people for fun or edit their profiles, or even randomly spam(since regular members can do it also). However, every time members try to spam up a thread about to be closed, the staff bitches about it(the latest announcement, anyone?). So when the staff then continues to spam it up after it's closed, it looks like they are contradticting their own policy.
Yes, I've done it before. But I also never complained about the regular members spamming it up first. :p


I mean, I could just open the thread, post in it and close it again... It's also notable that most people I've talked to about us posting in closed threads have said they love it, they find it amusing and some of the posts made by Staffers in closed threads are the best posts on the board. I guess it's just your personal viewpoint.
I've only witnessed members complaining each time this discussion is brought up. And they do have a point.


And yes, Staffing is a responsibility. So is my job at work. In my job at work, I have huge responsibilities, as do all my superiors, but we still abuse our powers every now and then for our own amusement. Having an admin password on my computer at work is something few people in my company are allowed to have, but I have it - and that means I install all sorts of non-work related programs on it. Do my bosses care? Not one bit. I think you'll find more people enjoy our posts in closed threads than there are against such activities. When I was a regular member, I never had a problem with it. I was more likely to read a thread if it was closed, because I liked reading the final posts made by Staffers of the time.
I never said abusing staff powers was bad; didn't I just say I encouraged it? But there's a way to do it that doesn't break the rules and doesn't irritate some of the members.




In short, just because it's a responsibility doesn't mean we can't have perks to go with it. If we were breaking rules by posting in closed threads, we wouldn't have the option for our usergroups to be able to post in closed threads turned on.
Perks is a horrible word; stop using it. The point is that, despite being staff, you can <i>still have fun.</i> That means you can still spam, and have all the extra "fun" of messing around with your admin powers(RSL Day anyone?). That is a given that I don't think you realize that everybody here would accept(otherwise, why are you arguing it?). However, there's a way to do that that doesn't fly in the face of the rules and doesn't contradict your own policies. Members have been yelled at before for spamming up a thread about to be closed.

For the record, I couldn't give a damn what staff does in closed threads. However, I've noticed numerous people complain about this every time the issue is brought up, and they are right.

[Loony BoB]

But I mostly hear people saying they enjoy it. It seems it's just another case of some people like it, some people don't. If we didn't do things that a few people complained about, we'd be screwed. :p I've already had people IM me after reading this thread saying that they have no problem with me posting in closed threads and that they enjoy it. If I stopped, then they would complain, and then I'd have to start again, since they're complaining, and then I'd have to - you get the idea. :D

However, you brought up the announcement. I wouldn't complain about people posting in threads they knew would get closed if they were posting something different to "This thread is going to get closed! :D" Also, if a staffer was to repeat something that somebody had already said - for example, if I closed a thread saying "This is the reason this thread is being closed." and then another staffer came along and said "Haha! This thread has been closed!" then I'd probably slap them on the back of the head. It's not just "oh, they can't post but we can" it's "don't post saying that a thread is going to get closed, just use the warn button instead." If they're going to come up with something witty, so be it.

It's fairly rare that we have staffers post twice over in threads that are obviously going to get closed, too. The most common example of people stating that a thread is going to get closed is during an advertisement thread. I don't remember staffers posting in those closed threads, or anything very similar to them.

[Raistlin]

But I mostly hear people saying they enjoy it. It seems it's just another case of some people like it, some people don't. If we didn't do things that a few people complained about, we'd be screwed. I've already had people IM me after reading this thread saying that they have no problem with me posting in closed threads and that they enjoy it. If I stopped, then they would complain, and then I'd have to start again, since they're complaining, and then I'd have to - you get the idea.
You can't go by who likes it who enjoys it. People would enjoy not having spam regulations, and I'm pretty sure I could dig up a few twits who would like a spam forum. That doesn't make it justified. You have to be completely objective here, and the people complaining about staff spamming up closed threads have a point.


However, you brought up the announcement. I wouldn't complain about people posting in threads they knew would get closed if they were posting something different to "This thread is going to get closed! " Also, if a staffer was to repeat something that somebody had already said - for example, if I closed a thread saying "This is the reason this thread is being closed." and then another staffer came along and said "Haha! This thread has been closed!" then I'd probably slap them on the back of the head. It's not just "oh, they can't post but we can" it's "don't post saying that a thread is going to get closed, just use the warn button instead." If they're going to come up with something witty, so be it.
I'll agree with that. If you allow members to spam up threads-about-to-be-closed as well, then allowing staff members to do the same after it's been closed does not blatantly contradict your own policy. :D

Now let's just see how much of staff actually follows that.

[Loony BoB]

If someone is going to make a witty post then so be it, but I'm sure you agree that "This thread is going to be closed." is lacking any decent wit. You could even go as far as to say that you don't say "this thread is going to be closed" because that's mod-whoring as well as spamming.


If you allow members to spam up threads-about-to-be-closed as well, then allowing staff members to do the same after it's been closed does not blatantly contradict your own policy. :D
Depends on what kind of thread and what kind of spam. Like I said - I don't see staff posting in threads that are closed when the threads are nothing more than an advertisement for some other site. However, we already allow you guys to spam up Feedback threads on a pretty constant basis, don't we? That's the only place that I can think of right now that Staff consistently post in closed threads... it's very rare in other forums as far as I can recall.

[Psychotic]

However, we already allow you guys to spam up Feedback threads on a pretty constant basis, don't we? Oh really? (http://forums.eyesonff.com/showpost.php?p=995792&postcount=23)

I could also probably find the billions of threads in Feedback where Shlup told myself and Baloki to stop spamming and accused us of drinking tea, or something.

[Loony BoB]

I'm pretty confident I can find more threads that you haven't been told off in. :p And isn't that post taken from a thread where people had already asked you to stop spamming it up? I think it was the thread-starter that told you to stop, too. =P On a whole, people don't joke about calling the Feedback Forum the "unofficial spam forum" for nothing. I won't encourage it and every now and then we will have to tell you to stop, yeah, but you get away with enough as it is. :p To take your tactic of quoting examples: Oh really! (http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=56729)

[Psychotic]

I'm pretty confident I can find more threads that you haven't been told off in. :p And isn't that post taken from a thread where people had already asked you to stop spamming it up? I think it was the thread-starter that told you to stop, too. =P On a whole, people don't joke about calling the Feedback Forum the "unofficial spam forum" for nothing. I won't encourage it and every now and then we will have to tell you to stop, yeah, but you get away with enough as it is. :p To take your tactic of quoting examples: Oh really! (http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=56729)No, I only posted two spammy posts in it and no-one asked me to stop before you did....and what the heck's with that example? I posted ONCE in it on a related tangent. :(

And besides, I only posted that link because I like to whine when I don't get my way 110% of the time.

[Raistlin]

If someone is going to make a witty post then so be it, but I'm sure you agree that "This thread is going to be closed." is lacking any decent wit. You could even go as far as to say that you don't say "this thread is going to be closed" because that's mod-whoring as well as spamming.
I agree that those kind of posts should be discouraged as mod-whoring, NOT spamming.


Depends on what kind of thread and what kind of spam. Like I said - I don't see staff posting in threads that are closed when the threads are nothing more than an advertisement for some other site. However, we already allow you guys to spam up Feedback threads on a pretty constant basis, don't we? That's the only place that I can think of right now that Staff consistently post in closed threads... it's very rare in other forums as far as I can recall.
I've seen it happen fairly regularly in GC...but does that matter? Is there a point regarding to what forums this happens in?
If you don't want to discourage staff from spamming closed threads, then members should be allowed to spam up a thread(spam, not mod-whore) for the brief amount of time it remains open. If something is said out of line which violates another rule, then that should be handled on a case-by-case basis.


Psy: staff does a pretty good job of not discouraging fun-spamming. It's the way they handle suggestions/feedback that's an issue, as certain staffers have been clearly wanting in that regard as of late. :p


EDIT: <a href="http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=57605">this</a> is a great example of how it should be done.

[edczxcvbnm]

I don't have too much of a problem with staff spamming up closed threads but I agree with Raist on this one. Let the members have their fun spam also. Fair is fair.

They type of post in closed threads I am talking about is the ones where staff comes in that say their personal thoughts on the situation. That pisses me off because I can't come in and say what I want to because appearantly the discussion is back open on a one sided basis. If you have to say something that is that important then make an announcement. If it is something directed towards the members in the thread you should send a PM.

[RSL]

Luckily for you, ed, I never have anything important to say so I don't do that.

[MecaKane]

There are, what Murder said something like 900 active members? There are 15 people on staff.
And before people made a big fuss over it, the annoucement said not to make idiotic posts, which I guess means you're allowed to make non-idiotic posts! Now shutup. They make the site work, keep it fun, and stop stupid people from running amok, they should be allowed to "break" some rules, that wouldn't even be in place if there were only 15 people here, since they're the only 15 that can. Even if anyone <i>could</i> find an example where people got bitched out for being witty in an about to be closed thread.

[Citizen Bleys]

And that is why Kane should be an admin.

[RSL]

I wouldn't be opposed to it.

[Raistlin]

And before people made a big fuss over it, the annoucement said not to make idiotic posts, which I guess means you're allowed to make non-idiotic posts! Now shutup. They make the site work, keep it fun, and stop stupid people from running amok, they should be allowed to "break" some rules, that wouldn't even be in place if there were only 15 people here, since they're the only 15 that can. Even if anyone could find an example where people got bitched out for being witty in an about to be closed thread.
I didn't say anyone was at all. I merely stated that regular member should be allowed to spam in about-to-be-closed threads, BoB stated that they are, as long as they don't mod-whore, and I said great: issue settled! G'job reading through to the end. :p

To quote you: now shutup. :love:

[Citizen Bleys]

Time for a Kane-WesLY mudwrestling match!

[RSL]

I would be opposed to that.

[Del Murder]

There are, what Murder said something like 900 active members? There are 15 people on staff.
And before people made a big fuss over it, the annoucement said not to make idiotic posts, which I guess means you're allowed to make non-idiotic posts! Now shutup. They make the site work, keep it fun, and stop stupid people from running amok, they should be allowed to "break" some rules, that wouldn't even be in place if there were only 15 people here, since they're the only 15 that can. Even if anyone <i>could</i> find an example where people got bitched out for being witty in an about to be closed thread.
Around 900 members have posted here in the last month, but to the credit to the people who have posted in this thread, most of those members only post in the gaming boards, where the stuff discussed in Feedback has little or no impact.

[Loony BoB]

There are, what Murder said something like 900 active members? There are 15 people on staff.
And before people made a big fuss over it, the annoucement said not to make idiotic posts, which I guess means you're allowed to make non-idiotic posts! Now shutup. They make the site work, keep it fun, and stop stupid people from running amok, they should be allowed to "break" some rules, that wouldn't even be in place if there were only 15 people here, since they're the only 15 that can. Even if anyone <i>could</i> find an example where people got bitched out for being witty in an about to be closed thread.
According to previous posts by members in this thread, everytime you post we crap on you or something. I'm not sure how I'm meant to deal with this post! :D

<3 Kane for that. He said what I was going to say about the "don't make non-idiotic posts."

Raist, you need to check your post, you never said "great: issue settled!" or any other such positive thing. I thought you were still arguing too. xD Unless you give positive thumbs-up style statements then it's difficult to tell. :p

[eestlinc]

I just dropped a big turd in my toilet and now the stench is seeping into my bedroom as well.

[Raistlin]

Raist, you need to check your post, you never said "great: issue settled!" or any other such positive thing. I thought you were still arguing too. xD Unless you give positive thumbs-up style statements then it's difficult to tell.

I'll agree with that.
How much more "thumbs-up" can I get?

[Loony BoB]

Oh. But in the other half of the post you were... ah, forget it. If it ain't broke... :D

[Raistlin]

You're just a poor, confused little BooB. *pat pat*

[Loony BoB]

I'm also cuddly.

[Raistlin]

*cuddles BooB*

[Loony BoB]

I have a thread for this purpose in General Chat however there should be no limit to cuddles so *counter-cuddles* Thankyou Raistlin!

[Raistlin]

After reading through that thread in GC, I have to say that I think you finally lost it, Daniel.

[Shlup]

I don't even get what's going on anymore. Have we solved all the world's problems yet?

[Raistlin]

Hunger, at least. We're working on AIDS.

[Loony BoB]

I read this thread in the morning and was intending on posting pretty much exactly what Raistlin said. Freaky.

[Raistlin]

I read this thread in the morning and was intending on posting pretty much exactly what Raistlin said. Freaky.
Extremely demented minds think alike!