There has been too much foul language here of late.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's the web... there is rarely 100% "PG13" on the web and the .org never had any real PG13 enforcement anyway...

Proper PG13 enforcement involves the use of the word censor and bans for those who circumvent it. It's censorship to "protect" minors, plain and simple. You don't leave this kind of censorship to section moderators who have no powers over their colleague's sections and might not log in for hours (days, weeks...).

The .org in it's history never used the built in word censor, it simply deployed moderators painstakingly editing out swearwords and issuing infractions... This policy was more about educating members not to swear and maintaining the "prestige" or decorum of the site rather than censorship. I expect that many will disagree, but I believe this goes well beyond a moderator's role and what a gaming forum is all about...

Regardless, it was unfair and ineffective, as it's unreasonable to expect humans to read through thousands of posts scanning for obscene words and editing them out. Not only that, but the staff then have to deal with the inevitable fallout when it turns out that, though they edited member A's post, they completely missed member B's post.

As I commented earlier, if the manual editing of bad language is based on reports, it tends to be even less reliable. It's not a good system...

Andres makes the key point: If the .org is the maturer TW fan site, it needs neither the censor nor the nannies...

I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.

If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.

From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.

[caravel]

I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.

It's great until you're in the receiving end, then it's not so great...

"Ruthless moderation" creates and nurtures the kind of member that cannot exist without babysitting - the kind of member who simply does whatever they can get away with and then whines and complains when the staff do hit them. They are usually the same types of members who play "rules lawyer" and post reporting games.

I agree that for certain offences in the past, the penalties should have been both sterner and fairer to both members and staff alike. This would have brought into check certain members who were making a career out of dancing on the line...

The temp bans achieve nothing IMHO, they're never taken seriously and it's usually the same members wearing the infamous "-"... For the younger members - it's a "badge of honour", battle scar or entry into the "leet kewl kids club".

Perhaps the offences they were banned for were far too minor and did not warrant staff involvement? Perhaps they've been given too many chances already and are in need of a longer time out?

If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.

But if you were in said club with a group of friends, in a corner, talking politics and one of you happened to let slip the f word - not loudly- and he was immediately thrown out...?

From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.

But perhaps editing and fear of censure was also keeping members off the board?

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, speaking as a mod, I hate playing language cop.

[Blxz]

The occasional "fark" and "shit", et. al (I won't go on) really shouldn't be an issue. If the content of the post is bad enough to cause offense then it really isn't the word itself but the underlying meaning where the issue stands. Being able to use the words signals a bit of maturity on the part of the community and if there are some guidelines about inappropriate usage such as a wall of swearing or anything directed at another person then the moderators should be more than capable of dealing with that. But the usage of an occasional strong word in the right situation can sometimes be a good part of mature conversation.

Furthermore, I am firmly on the side that being offended and stating as such does not give someone the right to enforce censorship over an entire community. Although this obviously does not extend to any racial, sexual or other forms of direct or indirect harassment.

[caravel]

A far worse problem is the recent trend of threads full of youtube clips...

[Andres]

A far worse problem is the recent trend of threads full of youtube clips...

Welcome in 2012.

We dance Gangnam style over here:



Perhaps we should write out a contest for best .Org Gangnam style parody

But that would be sooooo Summer 2012 and we're already November.

[caravel]

If we smile and nod, the above youtube poster might just go away of his own accord...

()

[Andres]

I for one would appreciate more ruthless moderators - a distinct lack of ruthlessness led to the recent debacle which very nearly prompted me to leave and I'm only still hear because a couple of people I respect took a fair bit of time to talk me down.

If this is the mature Org site then it shouldn't include swearing - if that results in infractions and temp-bans then so be it. You can get thrown out of actual "mature" institutions for less, I was once nearly thrown out of pub for raucous drunken singing.

From what I have seen there has been a significant uptick in swearing since the policy was relaxed, this tells me it was working because editing and fear of censure kept swearing almost completely off the board - now the policy is being relaxed and people are clearly pushing the boundaries.

There's ruthless and there's ruthless.

We've always had a tradition to be patient with "difficult" members and to give them plenty of new chances. You make a fair point when you say we should be more ruthless towards persistent troublemakers, but you shouldn't focus too much on the case where it turned out to be a complete waste of time and effort. Many of the people we showed patience to, grabbed their new chances and are now among our finest people. It our those who convince me that it wouldn't be a good idea to become the sort of forum where you get banned (permanently or for a looooong time) automatically after x infractions. I think the way we have always did it so far, is the best way: use the banhammer carefully and only after long deliberation.

Then there's ruthless for minor stuff, like a bad word, getting personal in the heat of the debate. That's where moderating turns out not to be exact science. But generally speaking, you're either very strict or not strict at all. Finding a balance is not easy. Perhaps we shifted too much to the strict side and perhaps we will now move too much towards anarchy. That's when the membership comes into play and that's why threads like these are needed. It gives us as staff a signal and acts as a learning experience/evaluation to see if we're doing something wrong or not. I can't stress enough how important feedback like this is for us and I'm truly grateful you opened this thread (allthough the outcome may not be entirely to your liking, since the vast majority of the membership doesn't seem to have an issue with the occasional bad language).

[caravel]

I think a lot of this needs to come from the established members, not via baby sitting. If you see swearing and you think it's out of place, then why not make that clear in any reply? What rule or regulation is stopping a member doing that? That's how the .org became what it is today - through the efforts of members over the years, not because moderators were tough on swearing. If the regulars in the backroom get together and say "let's try and keep the language to a minimum", then it will happen. Far more effective than the old moderation/censorship/slap on the wrist approach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Personally, I was always grateful for the infractions I received, even the ones I didn't agree with.

Writing isn't speaking - there's no excuse for the sort of profane ejaculation you get in conversation on a forum. I am of the opinion that if you swear you should get one warning, then an infraction, then once the infractions build up you get a temp ban.

If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.

If this is really a mature forum then there's no need to tolerate swearing.

[Kival]

If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.

And why are this completly disproportionate reactions a good thing?

[Arjos]

Working place vs videogames/recreational forum, said mimicking a two-pan scale XD

I'm not encouraging swearing, but the way I see it, forbidding it, is just as wrong...
If someone wants to use it as an interjection, that's just fine: you find it cheap/lazy? Point it out, during the discussion :)
Find it offensive towards you? Get over yourself lol

Then of course, if those are specific and malicious attacks on a group/person, mods should get right on it...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And why are this completly disproportionate reactions a good thing?

For my workplace, it's perfectly proportionate.

The point is - it has become an impulse to check your phone every fives minutes, even when you know it's off, but an adult should be able to curtail such impulses.

If Andre sticks a "no swearing, no nudity" sign on the Org door there's no reason members should not abide by that, none at all.

As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.

Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.

When was the last time that happened?

Edit:

I should like to make two further points.

1. I don't have to pay attention to Arjos' points if he is going to be rude and laugh at me, which is connected to the issue at hand.

2. Moving this to the Watchtower has probably reduced the number of members participating in this discussion, particularly the Backroomers to whom it originally pertained. This concerns me in so far as I think it demonstrates people don't usually pay attention to the Watch Tower.

[caravel]

Writing isn't speaking - there's no excuse for the sort of profane ejaculation you get in conversation on a forum.

I agree, there are no excuses for it.

I am of the opinion that if you swear you should get one warning, then an infraction, then once the infractions build up you get a temp ban.

Then you need to define what is and what is not swearing - internationally... you also need a team of moderators vetting every post, to edit out the swearwords and issue the infractions...

If I use my mobile phone on the office floor I get pulled up on a disciplinary - do it a second time and I'd be fired. Resisting the natural urge to pull it out and check my emails during a quiet half-hour is a darn site harder than not swearing here - but I manage.

This is not your workplace.

If this is really a mature forum then there's no need to tolerate swearing.

On a "mature forum", the members are supposedly mature enough not to swear, that's the point being made here.

As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.

Obviously there is going to be a spike in language related incidents and certain people are going to fall foul of that. The staff have always used discretion here, not black and white my way or the highway approach. My opinion is that if someone slips in a mild expletive into a post which otherwise has good content (no personal attacks or slurs), the staff should let it go - but for posts which are simply a string of bad language the post is not even worth the edit - delete it and hand out an infraction.

It's far better if members regulate their own language rather than the nappy/diaper change approach... if you like this board, like to participate here, why would you want to turn it into a cesspool? If you see some new member using foul language, why not politely remind them to moderate it? Why does a mod need to do this on a board with many mature long term members, senior members and especially in the backroom where you have a lot of regular people who have been around for years.

Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.

When was the last time that happened?

Who? Just because one person lacks self control, it does not mean that every member needs blanket treatment. Would the previous rules have prevented this, stopped him swearing? It would have meant a nanny running around after said member editing his posts. No one should be expecting this from the staff in 2012.

[Andres]

As far as I'm concerned the only argument against a blanket ban is mod-workload, but from waht I have seen the relaxation of the ban has lead to an uptick in swearing with the result that some, like Strike, have stepped over the now-blurry line and been temp-banned.

Let's just take a moment to consider that - a long-serving and generally well-liked Senior Member is currently serving a temp-ban for language.

Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that crossing the language line is the reason why he got temp banned (I'm not saying it is what got hm banned, disciplinary actions are always between staff and member, private).

I'm not going to impose draconic language rules and punish everybody else by forbidding even the most minor bad language (like "ass" or "piss"), because one member made a mistake. I'm also not going to punish that member for his mistake, by imposing those same draconian language rules on him as well and keeping a close eye on him in particular, with my finger on the infraction button, ready to push it at the first hint of something that resembles the f-bomb.

I simply won't do that. Mistake made, short ban triggered, after 3 days, you're welcome back and let's forget about it. Accumulate 10 temp bans in a few months time and you're an exception compared to the other members, ok, we'll talk openly, freely and blunt; in private of course. Did 50 members got temp ban after temp ban after the new rules were introduced, then clearly Andres is an idiot and needs to clean up his act or step down.

As an aside, the fact that the member in question is a "long standing senior member" is irrelevant, certainly when it comes to something silly and minor as 3-day ban for a few bad posts. The senior member title is a honorific you get for your contributions to the .Org community. It's a "thank you for all the good things you did around here". It's nice to hand out and nice to receive, but it's nothing more than that. It doesn't make you special. In fact, if you start walking next to your shoes, feeling special and thinking you are entitled to preferential treatment because you got the SM title, then you should hand it in again for missing the point about what this place is about.

And for your information: plenty of long standing (senior) members have served temp bans here before the language rules were loosened, so it's not like loosening the language rules has led to something that has never happened before In fact, with the stricter rules, there were probably more temp bans of long standing senior members than we see now with the more lenient rules.

[Arjos]

I don't have to pay attention to Arjos' points if he is going to be rude and laugh at me, which is connected to the issue at hand.

Just found funny the comparison between an office and this forum...
As for the rest, imo it isn't healthy, nor has any ground to take offence from a random swearing, aimed at no one in particular...