Banning reverse trolls

[colton]

Definition of circumventing, please. Just curious.

Circumventing the filter is when you intentionally change a word that would normally be filtered so that it will make it through the filter. Like what LogGrad just did there.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yeah I was under the impression that if a word is not filtered then it cannot be an infraction

Why on earth were you under that impression? It's completely false.
What is true, is that the post will not be issued an infraction for filter avoidance. But for heaven's sake, there are tons of reasons why a post could be infracted for an "appropriate content" violation even if the filter isn't circumvented.



So if you use the s-word in a compound word that doesn't happen to be in the filter... yes, that very well could end up in an infraction. It's YOUR responsibility to make acceptable posts, not OUR responsibility to automatically transform your posts into something that's acceptable.

Please note I referenced specifically a single word, and no claim was made that the content of the entire post would be exempted from the rule. I pointed out that my understanding was that if you used a word that was viewed as profane (there is another discussion all around) that a word would not warrant an infraction just because it was not caught by the filter. Obviously intent to bypass the filter is another discussion. If you read back you will see the context that I was supporting KEK's assertion that a single word that makes it through the filter should not have been enough to warrant an infraction.

Context, it's a great thing.

 

[freakazoid]

Circumventing the filter is when you intentionally change a word that would normally be filtered so that it will make it through the filter. Like what LogGrad just did there.

Really?

I hope he didn't get an infraction. That would be totally unfair.

 

[Bronco70]

LogGrad - For what it's worth, regarding anatomical terminology, I agree with you completely.

But also, colton is right that a word is not automatically okay just because it isn't in the filter.

If all posters could be relied on to post like mature adults, this probably wouldn't be an issue.

 

[LogGrad98]

Thanks for the response Bronco. I agree wholeheartedly with your third sentence too.

The funny thing is, that even within the context of the filter is is painfully obvious what is being said. If I type "I hate you, you *******, go **** yourself" everyone knows what the words were in the sentence are, just because they are "*'s" does not mean it is unknown. So if someone gets mad and happens to type a word that is not filtered for whatever reason, but is not actively trying to bypass a known filtered word, that is worse? That is my point.

PAINFULLY OBVIOUSLY the content of the entire post is the most damning, and that was KEK's point to begin with, that he felt a particular post by viny was not ban-worthy just because of ONE WORD. It was clarified by Jason that it was due to a different post, but I was commenting on KEK's original assertion.

So another interesting point. Letter of the law vs intent. So I bypassed the filter by pointing out the piece of anatomy that is filtered that I was using to make my point (and I am eagerly awaiting my infraction - first one on Jazz Fanz). It is a rather benign term, especially in the context of the sentence as written. But here is the rub: Trout (just to name one person, it is done by many) can continually call someone a dick, or point out that he loves his dick and thinks it is beautiful, or equally as crude and potentially offensive content, but if I bypass the filter and use the actual anatomical word for "dick" (*****) in a discussion that actually warrants the use of scientific terms for anatomy (say the circumcision thread) I would get the infraction, but Trout would not? I am willing to bet that "dick" is viewed as more crass and offensive than the word used in biology class to identify the same appendage. Just like in this little tirade of mine here, I used that word (dick) over and over and it is fine, but if I had once, just once, bypassed the filter to use the correct anatomical term, it is infraction-worthy. Strange.

I know the anatomy issue has been discussed, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse with that, but that is one good example of a filtered word potentially being more benign than non-filtered word based on content of the post.

That was the point I was trying to make. How can one single word, just because it happens to not be in the filter, if you didn't purposefully intend to bypass the filter, warrant an infraction?

Colton obviously thinks that is patently false and that I am an idiot for thinking that way. Curious what other people think.

 

[colton]

...(and I am eagerly awaiting my infraction - first one on Jazz Fanz).

Actually, the moderators voted against giving you an infraction for that.

But here is the rub: Trout (just to name one person, it is done by many) can continually call someone a dick, or point out that he loves his dick and thinks it is beautiful, or equally as crude and potentially offensive content...

Why do you assume he wouldn't get an infraction for that? I probably would vote for one, on the basis of the Appropriate Content rule I quoted for you earlier.

...but if I bypass the filter and use the actual anatomical word for "dick" (*****) in a discussion that actually warrants the use of scientific terms for anatomy (say the circumcision thread) I would get the infraction, but Trout would not? I am willing to bet that "dick" is viewed as more crass and offensive than the word used in biology class to identify the same appendage. Just like in this little tirade of mine here, I used that word (dick) over and over and it is fine, but if I had once, just once, bypassed the filter to use the correct anatomical term, it is infraction-worthy. Strange.

To reiterate, bypassing the filter is just ONE way that people get infractions. It is certainly not the only way.

How can one single word, just because it happens to not be in the filter, if you didn't purposefully intend to bypass the filter, warrant an infraction?

I know you are looking for opinions from other people, but to quote myself earlier: "It's YOUR responsibility to make acceptable posts, not OUR responsibility to automatically transform your posts into something that's acceptable." So if there's a "bad word" that you use, that for whatever reason is not in the filter (like the one you posted earlier that I removed), then you may well receive an infraction for it.

You apparently think we should not give infractions for posts that contain unfiltered bad words. Why is that? I don't understand your rationale. The automatic filter is not 100% perfect, obviously.

 

[YB85]

Thanks for the response Bronco. I agree wholeheartedly with your third sentence too.

The funny thing is, that even within the context of the filter is is painfully obvious what is being said. If I type "I hate you, you *******, go **** yourself" everyone knows what the words were in the sentence are, just because they are "*'s" does not mean it is unknown. So if someone gets mad and happens to type a word that is not filtered for whatever reason, but is not actively trying to bypass a known filtered word, that is worse? That is my point.

PAINFULLY OBVIOUSLY the content of the entire post is the most damning, and that was KEK's point to begin with, that he felt a particular post by viny was not ban-worthy just because of ONE WORD. It was clarified by Jason that it was due to a different post, but I was commenting on KEK's original assertion.

So another interesting point. Letter of the law vs intent. So I bypassed the filter by pointing out the piece of anatomy that is filtered that I was using to make my point (and I am eagerly awaiting my infraction - first one on Jazz Fanz). It is a rather benign term, especially in the context of the sentence as written. But here is the rub: Trout (just to name one person, it is done by many) can continually call someone a dick, or point out that he loves his dick and thinks it is beautiful, or equally as crude and potentially offensive content, but if I bypass the filter and use the actual anatomical word for "dick" (*****) in a discussion that actually warrants the use of scientific terms for anatomy (say the circumcision thread) I would get the infraction, but Trout would not? I am willing to bet that "dick" is viewed as more crass and offensive than the word used in biology class to identify the same appendage. Just like in this little tirade of mine here, I used that word (dick) over and over and it is fine, but if I had once, just once, bypassed the filter to use the correct anatomical term, it is infraction-worthy. Strange.

I know the anatomy issue has been discussed, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse with that, but that is one good example of a filtered word potentially being more benign than non-filtered word based on content of the post.

That was the point I was trying to make. How can one single word, just because it happens to not be in the filter, if you didn't purposefully intend to bypass the filter, warrant an infraction?

Colton obviously thinks that is patently false and that I am an idiot for thinking that way. Curious what other people think.

Take it from me, who fought this same battle on the old board, you're going to lose. I received a warning because I posted a link to an article that had the correct term for the female reproductive organ. One moderator told me the warning was because the link went to the article with the word that was filtered and one told me that it was because the story was overly sexual, which it really wasn't.

 

[colton]

I received a warning because I posted a link to an article that had the correct term for the female reproductive organ. One moderator told me the warning was because the link went to the article with the word that was filtered and one told me that it was because the story was overly sexual, which it really wasn't.

I don't remember the details about that, as to whether the story was sexual or not, but we do typically employ the rule that any sites linked to from here should not contain content that would not be allowed to be posted here. Again that's under the Appropriate Content rule, where it says that posting offensive links is not allowed.

 

[YB85]

I don't remember the details about that, as to whether the story was sexual or not, but we do typically employ the rule that any sites linked to from here should not contain content that would not be allowed to be posted here. Again that's under the Appropriate Content rule, where it says that posting offensive links is not allowed.

It was a CNN blog story about Rob "Edward the Vampire" Pattinson talking about a photoshoot he did with nude models. One moderator thought the link to a story that included the word "******" was warning-worthy. You told me it was because the story was overly sexual. I still think it was the weakest of all warnings/infractions I have received through the years.

 

[YB85]

The troll picture posted by Moe in this thread, and others, is more sexual in nature than that article was, in my opinion.

 

[colton]

It was a CNN blog story about Rob "Edward the Vampire" Pattinson talking about a photoshoot he did with nude models. One moderator thought the link to a story that included the word "******" was warning-worthy. You told me it was because the story was overly sexual. I still think it was the weakest of all warnings/infractions I have received through the years.

Ah, I remember that now. We'll just have to "agree to disagree". I definitely thought the story crossed a line.

 

[YB85]

Ah, I remember that now. We'll just have to "agree to disagree". I definitely thought the story crossed a line.

I just re-read the article. We will agree to disagree because it's still less sexual than Moe's picture. I am done crying harder.