"Abusing" the swear filter

[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!

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.

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.

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*

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 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.