I would like to bring up an old thread which I originally came up with quite a while ago now.

I still stand by the first post I made - word for word.

While the thread got messy around the middle of page two, I think that this is still a very legitimate topic to be discussed.

With more and more members now then every before (especially since the orginal idea was discussed), there is a need for this now, especially when there are no moderators around - where ofenders are more likley to strike.


http://www.funkypool.com/viewTopic.do?topicid=9718&page=1

While I agree with that in theory, it's quite hard to actually put into practice.

As was brought up in the other threads, people use so many variations on purpose to avoid the censors, that it just becomes pointless.

And as Clooney brought up, there are many words which you may not feel ought to be censored that actually are! And you are likely to type these by accident (I misspelled "ggs" -- quite badly I admit, and it censored a word I never knew was even a word! )

But there are many techniques to avoid censoring and it's nigh on impossible to find all of them!


In a perfect society, this would be a great idea to have

but as i point out...(pretty poorly) in my first post, for it to work in the 'perfect world', you would need to censor some of the varyations - so censor some of the spaced out words...keep the person guessing.

I see someone in the other one point out 'its only words' kind of thing - which is true; but for a family site, thats why we have censors in the first place.

I expect that absolutley anyone who chats would rack up a strike here and there. I am sure that maybe even the mods may accidently rack up a strike...but to recieve three strikes, thats not accidental.

im sure you were not going to type that word in again twice rat...lol

ANd for a site that has a zero tolerance policy on swearing, then an automated three strike policy is more than enough in my opinion.

Plus with mods already having their powers, and members being able to send complaints - its about cracking down on those who want to spoil the dun in my opinion.

And as more people send complaints in, then the admins can see any words they have missed (as im sure they do already) - but they could also add in some 'popular' words to the list to get around the 'real' word...

All about keeping the family side of things - thats why I am in strong favor for this idea.

Edited at 08:27 Thu 9/07/09 (BST)

You have answered the question right there;
When moderators and admin are on we can keep and eye on things, however when we are not around members can still send complaints about other's behaviour.

Some people are of the the belief that people get away with swearing when mods/admin are not around. This is not the case. When complaints are received they are looked at seriously by admin and if the same member keeps coming up then they will be banned.

Afl, I can't recall anywhere on the site that says there is a zero tolerance on swearing. If that was the case people would get banned on the first occassion.

It's absolutely pointless to even try to make the filter perfect. It can and will always be circumvented anwyays, and it's no more acceptable to use bad language just because it doesn't get filtered. Mods and admins deal with complaints based on common sense and guidelines, not what the filter says is ok or not.

On idea that could been nice tho, was for the words that DO get filtered to produce an automatic complaint that's added to the users history for reference. This volume would likely be too large to handle manually as normal complaints are, but it could be useful as reference information later.

hmm...my bad on the 0 tolerance Ace

but still, things like this virtually says that you can not swear, then surely three chances is more than plenty.

I see arguments in the chat room all the time that happen when no mods are online. All the person wants to do is swear their heads off.

Sure, the Send Complaint is there - but a three strike rule will get them out of the chat room faster.

I agree the send complaint option does not assist at the time. However the systems works. I say if it's not broke, don't fix it.

but this is a way to improve it

No it won't, since you would still need someone to get them out of there - a.k.a an online moderator or admin.

If what you are trying to say is that you want automated bootings, then let me save you some time: Forget it. Will not happen, sorry.

Bootings (and even more so bans) are far too much a matter of discretion and interpretation for this to be automated. You'd also need a very solid certainty about such a system never booting incorrectly - which is also not realistic either.

Janmb you have been on a role in the last two days!

but blantantly breaking site rules three times in say 15 minutes is not enough to get booted?

If a moderator sees it - then yes.

lol - but all this nonsense happens when there are no moderators around.

Yeah, mistakes may be made by the computer - but if someone wants to break site rules three times in say 15 minutes thinking that there will be no punishment, then there is no harm in having a half hour cool off period.

Swearing three times does not always constitute a complaint - but to break a simple rule three times with one thinking they will get away with it...well something needs to be done about that.

Stick Cricket multiplayer game classes "suck" as a swear word. As the chat went so fast and I did not realise that it was not getting through, I kept saying how much I sucked at the game then was booted by the computer for swearing 4 times in 30 minutes.

OK, "suck" is not a swear word here, but its the same principle. I learnt from it - even though the chat was going 100 miles and hour with 200 people in the chat room and announcements for every single game that started; but I learnt...and thats what this would be about.

Then you send complaint.

There is a far too wide-spread misconception that just because nothing happens right away nothing happens at all.

If someone sends a valid complaint about bad language (or other violations) they DO eventually get the same consequence as if a mod had been online at the time.

it would be much easier to deal with them with the computer.

I cant say much as I am not behind the scenes; but it may help save time for admins for little swearing complaints - and something is done there and then.

Weather someone sends a complaint or not, people should not be able to break the rules because of a lack of a moderator.

These people would then be delt with straight away, and repeat offenders could then be reviewed by the admin team.

it works well on other sites, so I cant see why it would not work here.

and when I think about it, its fail proof - you would only get booted for swearing three times in a pre-determined amount of time which would result in stars...there for no accidental bootings.

Its bad enough when someone is being a complete neusence in the chat room swearing like no tomorrow when a group of people are trying to have a decent conversation - people want these people delt with straight away, not in 24 hours time.

please dont doubt me here - admins and moderators do a fantastic first rate job - its just when there is no one there that these things happen so often.

sure, I can leave the chat room...but sometimes 5 or so people are having a good chat in the room and one person decides to spoil the party...its not fair on those who just wanna have a decent chat

I completely understand where you are coming from - it was a frustration from a moderator point of view as well to know people would act like the rear part of a donkey as soon as you turn your back on them. But regardless of the frustration and how decent the motives may be, it's important to stay realistic and maintain a high level of integrity - meaning no one should ever be reacted against unfairly.

The filter is already pretty lousy as it is. It filters things that constantly surprises new users (would lead to a lot of bad bootings), and on the other side, less importantly, fails to filter a lot of the swearing that ought to be filtered.

I have written software for a living for well over a decade now - trust me on this: It's not possible to write a filter that will stop people from writing their way around it - much like what already happens now. If writing a filtered word not only meant it got scrambled, but in addition would lead to a boot, people would be even more careful and skilled at writing their way around it.

This is a dead-end street flumpy - sorry.

A far more realistic solution to your problem would be to have more mods, as well as maybe review and enhance a few of the moderator tools - according to previous suggestions I've had among the staff (and which obviously can't be discussed here)

pffff...be a man!

Well said, hang on didn't I say that at the start

Also as janmb said later on AFL, Don't you think that if the problem was so common, that admin would put more moderators on from different time zones?

If you so offended by the swearing put the person on ignore and you wont see anything they're writing.

So if a mods not there it "didn't happen"

So a tree really doesn't make a noise if it falls when noone is there to hear it :P

(hope that makes sense its too early and am too tired )