Admin editing of posts.

daniel_the_smith · **#21**

@kirkmc & John

I've met plenty of people who would be offended at the word @$$. I personally don't understand the taboo on words; you can say very nasty things without using four letter words (and non-nasty things with them) and I think people forget that in rush to prevent their kids from hearing them. I also think @$$ is mild enough that it certainly doesn't warrant automatic replacement...

usagi · **#22**

Redbeard wrote:

I would like to protest the administrative editing of posts. A specific example can be found here: viewtopic.php?p=30322#p30322

Now, I believe that it is vital to moderate the posts on L19, however the manner in which this is done is very important. I do not think it is right for a moderator to edit the content of a post. They should remove the post entirely and send a notice to the poster explaining exactly why the post was removed.

Any other suggestions?

What the admin did was fine. The only issue here is if he was qualified to do what he did from the standpoint of marking off which argument in particular would be intellectually dishonest. *shrug* I appreciate what the admin did in the case you mentioned and I would not have it any other way.

No, I don't want usenet here, and I don't care if anyone does ;-)

-

daniel_the_smith · **#23**

My only (small) complaint is that Joaz had posted earlier in the thread, IIRC. While I don't actually think anything of this particular instance, it would look pretty bad if a mod edited a post of someone they were arguing with-- they should probably have a mod not involved with the thread do the edit if necessary.

xed_over · **#24**

I think kircmc has been away from America too long

daniel_the_smith wrote:

@kircmc & John

I've met plenty of people who would be offended at the word @$$.

I still am, personally, and know plenty of others who are also.
I hate this seemingly popular trend that most, if not all, of these "bad" words are becoming more and more socially acceptable.

But I think the automatic filtering of this particular word, substituting an animal instead -- its just silly. I'd actually rather see asterisks.

daniel_the_smith wrote:

you can say very nasty things without using four letter words (and non-nasty things with them)

This is very true. Of course, its easier to "enforce" the letter of the law, than it is the spirit of the law -- though I believe the spirit of the law is much more important.

Bantari · **#25**

Jordus wrote:

Trying to balance out what is offensive and what is not is quite a difficult task. One has to weigh the consequences of how offended the Original Poster will feel that their post was edited and how offended another party may feel when reading the post. As Joaz stated before removing the post in its entirety isn't always the preferred solution either if it does have contributing factors.

We also had someone point out an objection to word filters etc...What I think we all need to keep in mind here is that this forum is here for the entire Go Community and this community of ours includes children. I think it is in the best interest of the community to work to keep everything tolerable for as many people as possible.

As to the issue of forum policing getting too "heavy handed", I know the majority of posts edited needed the editing. As to the posts that people believe did not deserve editing, I personally apologize but please keep in mind that it is done with the best interests of the community in mind. We are in no way targeting you or trying to censor your opinions. We just want to keep a clean community for everyone to enjoy, Old and Young alike.

You are right, this is always a hard call to make. Being a moderator or admin is always a thankless task, you get clobbered if you do and clobbered if you don't. This is why I would never agree to hold any such roles anywhere, even if they wanted me.

I see the justification for the decision as posted by Joaz, and I understand it. Personally, I have no objections, althought I see where objections may arise and be valid. After all, it is all just a matter of opinion, and the ice we are walking on is thin. So here is what I suggest:

1) Leave the word filters as they are, add to the word-list if needed, it works great!
2) Delete entire posts with note to author as you do when posts are offensive - works great!
3) In the rare cases as the one here, when most of the posts is good and a few words slipped out, there should be a possibility to switch the status of the post from 'Submitted' to 'Saved' - with the note to the author to edit and re-submit if he wishes. Cases like that are not common, so even if that means manual DB intervention... but I am sure that an admin button for such action is easy to implement. After all - we are talking PHP here, right?

If not, when editing posts in such way, an admin note attached would be nice. Something like 'Admin: Spicy and saucy portions deleted!' Did not see the post in question, so maybe this is already happening.

kirkmc · **#26**

xed_over wrote:

I think kircmc has been away from America too long

Aside from the combination with -hole, which is certainly offensive, what about all of these, from the dictionary app on my Mac:

PHRASES
bust one's ass try very hard to do something.
bust someone's ass use physical force to injure someone in a fight.
chew ( someone's) ass reprimand severely.
get your ass in (or into) gear [in imperative ] hurry : if you get your ass in gear, you can make it out of here tonight.
get off one's ass stop being lazy.
haul (or drag or tear) ass hurry or move fast : I just turn around and haul ass right out of there.
kick ( some) ass (or kick someone's ass) see kick 1 .
kiss ass see kiss .
my ass used to convey that one does not believe something that has just been said : sold out, my ass!
not give a rat's ass not care at all about something.
not know one's ass from a hole in the ground (or from one's elbow) be totally ignorant or incompetent.
a pain in the ass see pain .
a piece of ass see piece .
put (or have) someone's ass in a sling get someone in trouble : you managed to put his ass in a sling along with your own.
up your ass used to express contempt for someone or something.
you bet your ass you can be very sure : [ with clause ] you can bet your ass I'll go for it every time.

Some of these are offensive, but most aren't.

Or what about the first definition:

ass 1 |as|
noun
1 a hoofed mammal of the horse family with a braying call, typically smaller than a horse and with longer ears. • Genus Equus, family Equidae: E. africanus of Africa, which is the ancestor of the domestic ass or donkey, and E. hemionus of Asia.
• (in general use) a donkey.
2 informal a foolish or stupid person : that ass of a young man.

In general, from a purely semantic point of view, you cannot say that this word is offensive.

What's the most ridiculous is that in John F's dialect, it is not at all offensive; the word is spelled "arse" and I'm curious to see whether the word filter will catch that.

There are many words that are normally always offensive, yet this particular one shows that whoever made the filtered word list - pardon may value judgement here - is excessively childish. This is the same kind of mind that tries to get dictionaries removed from school libraries because they contain the pipi and caca words.

Seriously, guys, a bit of common sense here.

As to the actual editing, it would certainly be more useful if words were replace with, say, f*** or s***, rather than something else.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there is a group of blue tits in a tree outside my window that's making a racket.

Edit: Hmm, did someone turn the word filter off? Or was the "ass" that was changed in John F's post changed manually? If it was done manually, I find that exceptionally pathetic...

Redbeard · **#27**

Jordus wrote:

That certainly would be the preferred method. However, if there is offensive material in the post, how long will it sit there viewable to anyone as we wait to contact the OP and have them receive the message and remove it themselves? (I am assuming we are not deleting the post since the OP is editing their own message) Some people post and don't sign back in for days. Do you have a suggestion to avoid this?

Just to clarify, when I said that the OP could edit their own post, I meant repost with the edited content. If the moderator determines that the the content of the post could be deemed offensive, they should remove the post entirely and send the OP a PM explaining why the post was removed. The OP can then rephrase the content and re-post. Unless, of course, they have been banned for multiple offenses which would be a different case.

palapiku · **#28**

I'm fine with moderation (I don't like it, but I can live with it), what I don't like is silent interfering. It feels Orwellian, gives admins extra anonymity and so hides their responsibility, and it might be not noticed by the people involved and lead to misunderstanding.

The worst, though, is the silent bans on KGS. Totally Orwellian and creepy. People just disappear.

Javaness · **#29**

Originally I thought that there were basically no rules on lifein19x19, but then I saw an admin make reference to them. Then I found out that the rules had just not been posted publically. This was a bit of a shame I think

In the same way here, I wondered why somebody had written Donkey instead of A$$ into John's post. How silly I thought. Then I find later on that a dirty words filter has been introduced to the forum without telling anyone about it. I am still perplexed as to why John's later post was genuinely moderated, but I was originally annoyed because I thought that this was two instances of silly moderation.

It is nice that an explanation has been provided, but I would like to be told when new rules are added to the forum. I would probably miss their indication, but at least that would be my own fault.

Bantari · **#30**

palapiku wrote:

I'm fine with moderation (I don't like it, but I can live with it), what I don't like is silent interfering. It feels Orwellian, gives admins extra anonymity and so hides their responsibility, and it might be not noticed by the people involved and lead to misunderstanding.

The worst, though, is the silent bans on KGS. Totally Orwellian and creepy. People just disappear.

I fully agree.
When a post gets deleted, it would be sweet to have an admin note instead - something like 'Post by So-n-So deleted for saucy content'. This way we would know who does offensive posts and it might be a bigger deterrent for those people to clean up their stuff.

As for KGS, would be nice to display the status on the user info screen, for same reasons.

daniel_the_smith · **#31**

xed_over wrote:

I think kircmc has been away from America too long

daniel_the_smith wrote:

@kircmc & John

I've met plenty of people who would be offended at the word @$$.

I still am, personally, and know plenty of others who are also.
I hate this seemingly popular trend that most, if not all, of these "bad" words are becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Once I saw someone observe that "bad words" are culturally defined; coming out of the Victorian era all the "bad words" were sexual or scatological in nature, but modern society has changed and the worst words are now for the most part those that single out groups for exclusion-- racial slurs. Donkey is definitely in the first group; I think now that sex and poop are not such scandolous topics those words are losing/have lost their ability to offend people (more so in some places than others, of course). I don't know how broadly this applies but it seems there's some truth to it.

kokomi · **#32**

I'd like someone edit my grammar mistakes, like my English teacher does. Of course, Admins are not here to do this :lol:

Javaness · **#33**

I did sometimes do that on GoDiscussions for thread titles. Very occasionally for post bodies as well.

John Fairbairn · **#34**

There is quite an offensive strain in some of the posts by non-admins. It is the line that something offensive was said and that it's a good thing that somebody cleaned it up. The whole point of my protest is that it was not even mildly offensive in its intent, by someone who is speaking British English. I am not seeking to shock or offend anyone. I am simply writing in my own voice and idiom as a British person (a northern one at that) and will continue to do so.

I am not fighting to say rude or offensive things. What I am objecting to is an operator (the filter writer) and/or admin *imposing* American and/or pc values on me.

FWIW if the admin had come on to me and asked whether I was aware that a certain phrase about a donkey is offensive to some people in America, I would be frankly disbelieving (and a quick check of my own dictionaries and sites such as wikitionary has revealed no stronger rating than "slang" - and I see there is a DVD of that title). However, the phrase in question was no more than salt-and-pepper seasoning and I would, for public consumption, have been willing to remove or rewrite, and I would probably even avoid the phrase here in future, although I freely confess that I would, privately, still forcibly remind the admin that British English is as entitled to air space as American English. (Talking of air space, the very same phrase was used on BBC TV later that same day, well before the kiddies watershed time.)

The other item, which I think it best not to air now given the nature of the way things have moved on, contained no swear words, no names. However, I will say that it was a rhetorical question summarising the same thought just previously used without question, and the word to which the admin apparently took exception was "you". I think he gave the game away when he said it was a "mild" ad hominem. He clearly wasn't sure. I'm sure it wasn't. Now in that case if the admin had come to me and said that he thought it was offensive, again I would have been disbelieving, but this time it is not a matter of British/American English, but of interpretation* and I would have taken a different tack. I would be more receptive to persuasion in this case. However, I would still have tried to point out to him why it wasn't offensive, or at least not meant to be. He would either accept that or try to convince me otherwise. Either way, I would have almost certainly removed the phrase, because it was only a rhetorical flourish. But if he had not actually convinced me that it was offensive (as he hasn't), I would have made the point I've already made in public that the adminning is becoming heavy handed.

As far as I know I have never been adminned before, and I write plenty here. And I am not ashamed to put my own name to it. Those who have implied here that what the admins did was to "clean up my act" are the ones casting offensive aspersions.

*I think I'll modify this. It maybe is a British/American thing. There are different styles of public discourse in and between the two countries. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech and the Gettysburg address have clearly different styles, and both are different from Churchill. But the Obama-style of aping King's speech, especially the threefold repetitions, has a creepy, hollow ring over here. On the other hand, perhaps rhetoric, especially in my clumsy hands, does not go down well in America. In any case, how a speech or article goes down is always a bit of a mystery in any country. I was amazed to learn that the marvellous Gettysburg address at the time was considered a very poor speech.

Jordus · **#35**

Redbeard wrote:

Jordus wrote:

That certainly would be the preferred method. However, if there is offensive material in the post, how long will it sit there viewable to anyone as we wait to contact the OP and have them receive the message and remove it themselves? (I am assuming we are not deleting the post since the OP is editing their own message) Some people post and don't sign back in for days. Do you have a suggestion to avoid this?

Just to clarify, when I said that the OP could edit their own post, I meant repost with the edited content. If the moderator determines that the the content of the post could be deemed offensive, they should remove the post entirely and send the OP a PM explaining why the post was removed. The OP can then rephrase the content and re-post. Unless, of course, they have been banned for multiple offenses which would be a different case.

As far as I can tell, when an admin deletes the post all content is lost and there is currently no way to *hold* the post.... So I am not sure how to work this kind of thing out but I am looking into it.

And as far as the word filtering goes would it be less offensive to use asterisks instead of a word replacement like donkey?

Jordus · **#36**

Helel wrote:

Interesting that the admin/moderators are of two different kinds.

The libertarian anarchists:
Topazg
Araban (hypocrite ;-)

)

The fascistic control freaks:
Joaz
Jordus
Kirby (Who obviously has admin powers but sneaks around without showing it.)

Fwiffo, we are waiting for you!

I think I would be in the neutral zone... I have never edited another members post, only my own.... Or maybe I can be in a league of my own... like this guy :batman:

lol

Bantari · **#37**

John Fairbairn wrote:

I freely confess that I would, privately, still forcibly remind the admin that British English is as entitled to air space as American English.

If this is indeed a case of British vs. American, then it might be a problem for the PC folk.

But is it so?
Are the innocent-sounding americanisms which are offensive in England removed as well? If not, then this might be only because of a lack of proper British admin. If there is one, then he should be doing his job.

We have to live with the fact that there are many flavors of 'english' language, and some take offense at stuff others don't. For a multi-national forum catering to wide audiences, we need to settle not with the cross-section of all what's offensive in various places but with the sum total being rejected. If we are serious about moderating, I see no way around that.

usagi · **#38**

Kirby wrote:

Chew Terr wrote:

Kirby wrote:

The reason I do not use a red or green color for my name, is because I want to be able to help out with technical issues, but I don't like flaunting a distinction between myself as an admin and normal users. If you'd like for me to change the color of my name, I'd be happy to do so.

I think you should, just so that, if a new user has a technical question or issue, they know they can message you about it if necessary (or that they can trust you if you offer to help).

Alright, then.

Can my name be pink or yellow please?

Or alternating? thanks

-

Jordus · **#39**

daal wrote:

karaklis wrote:

I'd like to express a big thanks to the mods who put their efforts in keeping this forum friendly. I think the way it is run currently is excellent.

Jordus wrote:

EDIT I think Karaklis said it best with "F***** Friendly"

No he didn't. Or did "f*****" get edited out? It's hard to keep up with all the dirty words. If you're like me, you might find a pre-made word filter useful. I found one on the internet with almost 500 no-nos. There were quite a few words I had never before seen, such as: ******* , which apparently has something to do with ******; any reference to which would shame a good man, unless he was British. I couldn't find "f*****," in the list but I, who would have been an orphan had my parents died, find the word extremely disturbing. Thank you for removing it.

lol daal... that was my bad... I misread it :oops:

....

daal · **#40**

John Fairbairn wrote:

It maybe is a British/American thing. There are different styles of public discourse in and between the two countries. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech and the Gettysburg address have clearly different styles, and both are different from Churchill. But the Obama-style of aping King's speech, especially the threefold repetitions, has a creepy, hollow ring over here. On the other hand, perhaps rhetoric, especially in my clumsy hands, does not go down well in America. In any case, how a speech or article goes down is always a bit of a mystery in any country. I was amazed to learn that the marvellous Gettysburg address at the time was considered a very poor speech.

Tossing bait around, are we? By the way, even Lincoln considered his speech a failure, which might serve to remind us that some of the dumber things people say might not be as dumb as they appear.

Admin editing of posts.

Who is online