Why the new filter?

[DamionDarkheart]

Didn't we try to club a seal first or am I remembering that wrong?

[Joey]

Seal clubbing came much later =D

[dandelions]

That was quite a lot later, and let's not talk about that.

[Wingsrising]

IIRC Chris was before her. But yeah, we got mods first, then an admin and more mods. So yes, banning was a separate issue.

But my point wasn't the specifics of what was a problem when, it was that my recollection (which I admit isn't perfect, but I don't think I'm misrembering this) was that at the time we got mods it was seen as a primarily administrative position for things like deleting spam and moving threads, and there was some concern that the forums for the most part retain their "hands-off" character. This is not to discount the administrative functions: they're vitally important to keeping the forums functional and I'm very grateful to our current mods for performing that task.

Anyway, I'm pleased about the filters poll -- thanks for listening. I'll trot off and vote now.

[oogabooga]

Though I'm beginning to wonder if we're the oppressive tyrants myself. Especially Huggles.

I am extremely amused at the idea of a tyrant named Huggles.

I thought Chris was later, though? Before him, we had all that stuff with Walker and whatever the other name was, Dark-something?

[DamionDarkheart]

I remember a Dark Link too! I thought I was making it up so I didn't say anything

[smurfie]

I have no problems with filters that correct spelling, but personally am not a fan of filters that change the text of what people say. I find them vastly more annoying than the problems they're meant to correct. The other day I posted on a forum about something being a "pussycat" and discovered it had posted as "ex-stripper-turned-singercat." I mean, that's just dumb. And frankly, I'd rather read a lot of laugh out loud's (wonder if that will post) than a lot of "laugh out louds" which I find much more disruptive of the post.

I am actually quite surprised to have found this discussion, that the situation even occurred. It is certainly a sight to see a forum that asserts to be so open-minded about issues such that anything is fair game for discussion to then decide to morph spelling corrections into "preferences" and essentially buffering of free thought. So I dislike smilies with noses, run-on sentences and excessive chat speak? Simple enough: I skim over or ignore posts that consistently abuse them. The same has seemed to apply here in terms of threads (i.e. don't like it, don't read it) so I can hardly see why sensoring, even in such this perceived small task, was necessary. It's not that people were so endeared to the term "LOL" but rather they were shocked to discover what they felt to be subvert business on the part of the mods. Likewise, if an open statement had been made "we're going to tweak the mods to filter out some highly present, annoying content" or similar, people would have been less taken aback by the situation. One step further would have been to openly ask if people had any target words or phrases they'd prefer to see gone -- which maintains the community feel but places you under no obligation to accept or restrict use only from that list.

But then again, if the goal was to filter out the forum such that only the people most like the mods still remained, it was a good move.

[AngharadTy]

At this point in the thread, because there is a new thread with a poll, I feel I must say:

If you don't like that we sprung it on you unawares, all we can do is apologize--we were wrong to not announce it publicly. That is obvious, based on the reactions of everyone here. Please drop it. It's been covered, we're sorry to have upset everyone, please. Don't beat the dead horse.

smurfie, I think it should be obvious that our design was not to get rid of people who are unlike us, and it's actually rude that you would even suggest it. I feel hurt by that.

I'm actually very upset by how everything has turned out, because it's such a huge explosion over such a minor issue, and I feel almost ill that some people disapprove of my actions but won't even confront me openly. So I will not be offering any more on the subject; I'm only posting now because the issue of us doing things behind the scenes was already brought up and discussed.

[Figment]

Smurfie et al: The implementation of this filter was certainly not intended to offend or exclude; it was hoped that it would help correct a problem that the moderators have been dealing with while, at worst, asking members to exert a small bit of effort to circumvent it. Yes, it should have been at least announced if not brought to open vote. It was a (perhaps bad, certainly hasty) decision that resulted from a three page discussion of certain problems the moderators have been having with some people. Nothing they have done warrants banning, but they also often do not read pms and do not apparently visit site suggestions or read the rules. It is my understanding that the filter in question was instated as a temporary measure when regular routes of communication failed, something Jazzy stuck up temporarily because she has been very very understandably busy -- nothing that, in the context of the situation, seemed half so sinister as people are implying.

The veiled insults being thrown at the moderators are pretty offensive. I say this as someone who has been functioning as a regular member for the past three months (though, I should note, Jazzy did reinstate me to the moderator group -- PM me if this bothers anyone). Yes, it's a volunteer job, yes, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would jump at the chance to be a moderator, but it is an often tedious task which involves, by necessity, trying to solve various problems as quietly and behind the scenes as possible. So they make mistakes. So what? I think you'd have to be reading this thread with pretty accusatory, judgmental, and ungrateful eyeglasses to find anything that requires behind-back insults.

[Kamil]

Nothing they have done warrants banning, but they also often do not read pms and do not apparently visit site suggestions It is my understanding that the filter in question was instated as a temporary measure when regular routes of communication failed

Exactly. I have, at this moment, three unread PMs (dating back to Jan 10th) sitting in my outbox - one of which is to a person who was part of the reason the filter was implemented, asking them to please refrain from quite so much chatspeak while on this forum.

You can see how much good asking them, nicely, I might add, has done. >.>

I still think the level of umbrage is quite excessive, given the fact that nothing was changed with the dreaded l<b></b>ol filter that caused all of this - no one had words put into their mouth or taken out of their mouth - the phrase stands for 'laugh out loud' and that's exactly what it now says - laugh out loud. And yet, from the outcry, one would think we'd filtered it to recommending mass murder and the drinking of lamb's blood each full moon.

Buh?

I too don't appreciate the inference that we were trying to get rid of all who aren't just like us - we were trying to make sure this forum remains different from the Neoboards, where l<b></b>ol'ing and posts entirely composed of all caps and chatspeak abounds - and I still don't think that's a bad thing.

And to those who are <strike>whining on</strike> complaining behind the mod's backs, about our attitudes and whatnot, in chats or wherever - grow a pair and do it to our faces. Please.

[Wingsrising]

I'm not sure I understand the bits about complaining behind the moderator's back, and I certainly hope nothing I've said is being interpreted as an insult veiled or otherwise. I was just unhappy about the way this action was undertaken, as well as not being a fan of filers in general, and feel like I have a right to say so.

[Huggles]

I would surmise that it's not directed at anyone who's posted their feelings here, regardless of what they are, but in some of the MSN chats. I personally don't know what's going on with that, because I haven't heard anything said there that hasn't been mentioned here. Obviously, I don't know what's being said when I'm not around, which is most of the time. Personally, I don't care in the slightest what anyone may or may not say about me outside of these boards. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not here, it doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

[Wingsrising]

Right, the chats. I always forget about those because I don't like chatting, but that makes sense.

As an aside, I think Huggles would be a pretty good name for a dictator. Huggles, our supreme leader. Has a certain ring to it.

[smurfie]

I've not set out to "beat a dead horse" as so aptly stated. I don't visit here on a daily basis, and this thread was started yesterday. It's not like I bumped a week old topic, nor are the only ones worthy of providing input on matters those online on a daily basis. I honestly felt the majority of my post included a vantage/thought not yet and some rephrasing of prior comments - and so I wished to add that as tactfully as I could. I had voted my thoughts and hadn't intended to post further on the topic.

However, yes, I did make a tongue-in-cheek comment to make a point. There tends to be an invisible majority on most issues raised here and when an individual does not agree with that line of thought, it seems that a type of verbal flogging often occurs. I've learned that I must either temper my true thoughts or brace myself for the worst and act as though I care not what others may think of my opinion, let alone my direct nature in dealing with most things.

In what I hope can be an encouragement, I'm sorry you've had issues with talk behind people's back. Although you obviously can't control people's manners, you can do the best with what you have, be willing to adapt as circumstances influence, and communicate that vision as best possible. As a mod/admin on other sites previously, I do understand the scrutiny. The challenge is finding the thin line between having a thick skin and still being sensitive to respond to needs in the community. Mistakes will always abound - it's what we (all) do with them that counts.

*returns to the shadows*

[Figment]

You certainly have the right (and the respect; I am sorry that you feel there is an "invisible majority" that pervades the boards) to speak on the topic, smurfie, but if I am not mistaken, you commented after Jazzy had made the new thread and poll about the issue -- which, I hope, is considered an appropriate way to respond to the mistake of adding filters without consulting the community. Of course everyone is welcome to continue giving their opinion about this for as long as they want, but considering that Jazzy has opened up the public response that should have been provided in the first place and, in doing so, has admitted the initial mistake, posting here instead of there did seem a tiny bit like "beating a dead horse" to me, especially given that you ended on a negative note that was very far from the "it's what we do with [mistakes] that counts" sentiment of this latest post -- a sentiment I agree with and appreciate, by the way.

Regardless of the way I addressed my last post, it was meant as a clarification and a contextualization for the community as a whole, and was certainly not intended to criticize you directly. In light of the apparent misconceptions floating about the off-board areas of the community, I felt it important to provide at least a sense of the situation that the decision arose from to prevent judgments and arguments arising from misconception.