Is WTF realy any different than dropping the "F" Bomb?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You just cannot punish people for using said filter if you want it to do its job. You punish people for using the filter, you are actually training them to avoid using the filter, which, as a by product, tends to provoke the creative spelling issue. You can even filter the WT_'s if so desired. Then all you have to do is punish filter circumventers, and no actual swear words hit your screen, ever, only #'s or whatever you choose. Since #'s have the same net effect as a *snip* (in both cases, people can speculate as to the word) you really lose nothing.

The nut of the matter, I take it.

You're wrong, however,,, the censor bot is there to catch the worst, which it does, but the T&C still warns users against using those words even if they have been replaced by the #'s.

The #'s are still a problem, regardless. Censor circumvention is a worse offence, because it intentionally gets around the censor.

I've always wondered why profanity offends so many people. All of the words are in the dictionary and you're going to hear them anyways, no matter what you do. Profanity is just a label that was slapped onto a group of words by humans. Does that make it wrong to use those words? Of course not. There's no such thing as an objective moral standard for verbal communication. It's all subjective and many different people have many different preferences. I have absolutely no problem with profanity. In fact, without profanity, many of my favorite phrases wouldn't be funny anymore. The administrators and moderators of ATS think profanity is "inappropriate", but that doesn't mean it is. It's all about perception and perspective. Just because someone thinks profanity is childish doesn't mean it is.

I don't get what the issue is here...

The Terms and Conditions clearly state that net speak and censor circumvention is forbidden.

Why is it allowed? Why is a mod arguing that it should be allowed here and there? The moderator position is not forced upon anyone. My understanding is you are offered and accept the responsibilities that come with the position. This would include when you read a thread and come across someone using net speak you take care of the problem, or alert it to the moderator in charge of that thread. Am I correct?

But plain and simple, if the rules WE ALL AGREED TO are broken, no matter how dumb we think the rules are, we should not be surprised when we are punished. We should also be able to expect the moderators to enforce all rules equally at all times. You guys expect us to not break them, we expect you to enforce. That's how these sorts of situations go.

I'm not for "censorship" in general. I use many profanities daily and outside of someone's kid being around, in public as well. But I signed up here and agreed to not use profanities or any deviation of them while my browser address bar says www.abovetopsecret.com...

And seriously, using common text abbreviations is low brow. I do lose all respect for a post when it happens. Yes I have probably used them here, and I should have had action taken against me.

I expected members to come through and say "get over it" but I didn't expect Moderators to be the same way. That's got me more concerned about this place then all the crazy threads that get left with zero evidence.

reply to post by iamsupermanv2


Then, by all means, submit your 'cure' to the administrators of ATS. Point your finger directly at me when you do so, OK? I'm very willing to bear that cross. Little in this world is either black or white because it's mostly a vast plain of grey when it comes down to the nitty gritties.

Do it.

reply to post by masqua



Following and enforcing rules is black and white in this instance. You even posted the section of the Terms and Conditions that says, plain as day, that the sort of net speak is not to be tolerated as well as censor circumvention. The term in question is both. No one can logically deny that.

The fix is, like I said, when a Moderator comes across it either in a thread they moderate or otherwise, they take the appropriate action. As should members that come across violations.

That's the fix. If more moderators are needed then maybe the administration here should consider it. Maybe even moderators who's sole purpose is to seek out censor circumvention and net speak. I do feel that is overkill, but right now a THREAD TITLE on the recent post page is currently using the abbreviation in question. That, in my opinion, should be strictly enforced with prejudice.

I'm not expecting Moderators to find everything and I fully understand that this is a non paid job for you guys and you do it out of the kindness of your hearts, but you did accept a job.

Rules are supposed to be black and white. That's why they are rules. We all agree to follow them and accept the consequences of our actions. It's similar to getting a driver's licence. You agree that if you use said licence to operate a motor vehicle you will agree by the rules of the road in the area you are. There's no black and white if you are caught. Yes the officer may let you off with a warning but you were still reprimanded. The stop is the reprimand.

Using the abbreviation in question should not be a first time ban offence, but the rule should be enforced regardless.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
Rules are supposed to be black and white. That's why they are rules. We all agree to follow them and accept the consequences of our actions. It's similar to getting a driver's licence. You agree that if you use said licence to operate a motor vehicle you will agree by the rules of the road in the area you are. There's no black and white if you are caught.

If that's true, then why are courts, complete with judges and juries of our peers required?

Each case is different.
Every individual charged with serious crime is innocent until proven guilty.
Every case has extenuating circumstances.

On this website, when a post is alerted for profanity, the resulting staff action is weighed in the balance of intent.

If you want to make the rules black and white, then I urge you to contact the administrators of this website with that notion. It is THEIR decision to make and staff, like myself will abide by whatever they say. As it stands, it's obvious that SHTF is allowed.

reply to post by masqua


Not every case has extenuating circumstances. People do just up and break the law. People steal for no reason, people kill for no reason and people speed for no reason. We have our court system to, despite what many around these parts think, protect us from false accusations.

This is the model the administration on this site uses and for good reason. You guys could just take off any post that is flagged but you do not. That's fine with me.

But it comes down to what rules are going to be enforced and which ones will we let slide? If you guys want to allow net speak go for it. But take out the rule that strictly forbids it. That's my issue here. Why have the rule if there is zero intention of enforcing it? Terms like those in question here break two rules as they currently stand: censor circumvention and net speak. Either the site needs to agree to enforce said rule or get rid of it. Either way is ok with me. I will just continue to pass up people who use net speak on a serious topic.

It's completely clear why the administration wishes to have this rule in place and that is in order to keep a certain "professional" feel about the place. That and we do have younger individuals who frequent this site.

This rule really doesn't leave any room for interpretation:you either used net speak, circumvented the censor, or blatantly used what is commonly referred to as inappropriate language for "mixed company" . It's clear and concise and I am still at a loss as to why it is not enforced. Not that every instance isn't taken care of, but it's just passed up as if it doesn't exist. The rule is either there or it is not.

Originally posted by masqua


You're wrong, however,,, the censor bot is there to catch the worst, which it does, but the T&C still warns users against using those words even if they have been replaced by the #'s.

The #'s are still a problem, regardless. Censor circumvention is a worse offence, because it intentionally gets around the censor.

Its not the nut of the matter. I actually said IF your goal is to prevent swear words from hitting the screen, THEN.......

And IF the goal is to prevent "pound signs" from hitting the screen, THEN............

You are trying to make this about me. Its not about me. I have had some issue with this too, but not because I want to break the rules, because the rule is unclear. If it were me causing all the swear words and pound signs to hit the screen the fix would be remarkably easy. But....................its not me that is causing all the swear words and pound signs and swear word circumventions to hit the screen. It happens with a fair degree of regularity from a wide variety of angles.

The problem is the rule, and how it is enforced. If you dont have clearly stated goals, you probably wont have clearly stated rules and procedures for enforcing them. If you dont have clearly stated rules and procedures for enforcing them, you probably wont have good compliance.

From the various threads on the topic I have read in my time here, it APPEARS to me that the goal has morphed over time. From "ATS just doesnt want to get hung up in filters and limit our traffic" to a more puritanical, "We want to be the family conspiracy site." Which is fine. The owners of any enterprise have the right to set and reset their goals, and make new rules to help them achieve those goals.

What doesnt work so well is frankensteining the rules meant to further one goal onto the rules meant to further the new goal.

And like you seem to want to ignore, consistent application of the rules is just what is necessary to make ANY rule "legitimate" in the philosophical sense. Im not saying it because I want the life of a mod to become unbearable. Im saying it because IF you want consistent behavior, THEN you need to have consistent consequences that are applied without prejudice. Like it or not, thats just the way human (and animal) psychology works. Im not making it up, as I have said. Its a known known to steal line from Donald Rumsfeld.


Another unfortunate thing about how human psychology works is that people do not just learn rules or determine the legitimacy of a rule by READING rules. As social animals, we also take our clues from actual behavior and observation, and in fact this is the primary way we learn. Reading is relatively new on the scene for humans and our wiring doesnt have it at the top of the priority list in terms of acquiring social behaviors. Which is why "do as I say, not as I do" is also incredibly ineffective. A mod participating in a thread who ignores violations of a rule in a post above theirs, is unintentionally sending a message that "this is ok" not only to that one person violating that rule, but to every single person who reads that thread. And if there are people in the thread who arent sure exactly WHAT words are no-nos, they internalize "ah ok, you can say _________ and thats not a forbidden word."

IF you want a system that works, it cannot be based on fallacies about how human behavior works, or what motivates people, or how people learn social norms. You are just setting yourself up for a continual uphill battle if you do. If you want a system to work, you need to design it to work with the reality of human beings, and then weed out the those that are true outliers or "forum sociopaths," if you will.

You can be as mad at me as you want for saying it, but it doesnt make it any less true.

First of all, it's YOU that made this about you, not me. This isn't about me either. It's about how all of staff hande this.

Secondly, if you're determined to make this change, then you need to talk to the administrators of this website, not me. If they decide you and those who agree with you are right, then staff will action these things as they determine is correct and in the interest of this website.

My position is clear, your position is clear, but what is NOT clear is how the owners will decide to answer once they do.

Originally posted by masqua

If that's true, then why are courts, complete with judges and juries of our peers required?

Each case is different.
Every individual charged with serious crime is innocent until proven guilty.
Every case has extenuating circumstances.

On this website, when a post is alerted for profanity, the resulting staff action is weighed in the balance of intent.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

You have a jury of your peers to weigh the evidence and decide whether or not a crime was committed at all.

In the case of profanity on a website, if a "crime" has occurred, the evidence is in black and white, right on the screen. (Or black and light gray as the case may be.)

Deciding if the word should be allowed because of circumstances or intent allows mods to cut slack for people they like, and punish severely people they do not like, and it muddies the waters for something that SHOULD be a very clear cut issue. A word is allowed, or it isnt. Someone either types it, or they dont. There really shouldnt be a lot of gray in that.

One thing I find ironic is that staff often yells about "What about no profanity are you not understanding?" and then staff themselves says, "Well, its not so black and white, there are shades of gray, and each instance needs to be weighed, and intent needs to be considered.................."

What is it? Is it a simple, clear rule, or not?

You cannot have it both ways. There is no reason that THIS particular rule cannot be black and white. Things like manners and decorum, require more nuanced evaluation, because specific words are not the issue. Profanity doesnt need nuanced evaluation. A word is ok, or its not. You are making your own work load heavier by pretending it is more complex than it is.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I'll repeat myself, for the sake of absolute clarity:

if you're determined to make this change, then you need to talk to the administrators of this website, not me. If they decide you and those who agree with you are right, then staff will action these things as they determine is correct and in the interest of this website.

My position is clear, your position is clear, but what is NOT clear is how the owners will decide to answer once they do.

reply to post by masqua


Im sure the owners can read the thread if they want input. Im not going to badger anyone with my point of view outside a thread on a topic, unless for some reason what I need to say would be off topic or it is appropriate to discuss it in U2U such as when discussing with a mod some specific action they have taken. Here its perfectly on topic, and, like you said, we have each built our case.

I honestly dont care what the owners or staff decide. Its their website. I dont care what rules they make. I will follow them as well as I understand them, and if something is made a rule I really find intolerable, I know where the little X is on the top of the window.

I personally find it frustrating that there is this attitude that "its all so clear, why are you people just disobeying for no good reason" when ........................there is a good reason. Its not so clear. And, because it is the way my mind works, I look for the reason. And because I have not yet learned my lesson about pointing out logic and facts to people, I say it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


You have the last word on this.



I'm done debating the point.

reply to post by masqua


Soooo....

Can we get someone higher up in here then, have them explain that little rule to us better?

Wow, the debate still continues.

It is not about limiting your speech. The acronym for "For unlawful carnal knowledge" and other words are caught on net filters in various places such as libraries, schools, etc. and would therefore block ATS from those places. Thus, to keep ATS available in those places, those words and acronyms are prohibited.

WTF, SHTF, LMFAO, BYOB, etc. are not blocked by said filters in said places, so they are not prohibited here.

It is not about your speech, it is about making ATS available as many places as possible.

That's how I understand it. I could be wrong, but it makes enough sense that I am glad it is done this way.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Thats how I understood it too. But I found out I was wrong.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

WTF predates the Internet by many decades. It is not new and everyone knows what it means, even old farts like me.

What does it mean??? I'm a 56 year old innocent male living in the city slums.

Does WTF mean:

Water The Flowers
Worse Than Frankenstein
Way Too Frightening
Wash The Ford
Watch The Fringe
Wait Till Friday
Whip The Frosting
Work Till Five
Want To Fly

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Thats how I understood it too. But I found out I was wrong.

I may be wrong as well my friend. But,it makes sense to me to look at it this way. So, even if it isn't reality, it is reality to me.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Lol. It made sense to me too. C'est la vive.

Im glad you mentioned you had the exact same understanding though. Its hard to read the post the Mods link to on circumventing the filters and not come away with that interpretation.

Ahhhh, the age old Whiskey Tango Foxtrot discussion!!