# Clarification about PG 13 forums



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2007)

I think maybe there needs to be clarification of the language allowed on keeping the Forums PG 13, lately language seems to be a big factor, which is fine to a degree, however, I think it's too harsh considering the hypocrisy of a sticky topic right below it on the General forums.

Can the admins decide what's acceptable since I think it's a disservice to tell people to keep the language down yet you have swearing in the FA help forums, and "advertising free s..." 

:/


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Jan 28, 2007)

Yeah...Personally I don't see language as a problem unless someone is using "fuck" every other word. Yes, then it is a problem, but for the most part that's not even common enough to deserve anything but a "hey, chill."

Hardly anyone even curses here outside of the occassional "this shit" or "damn it." I'd say it needs more of a guideline than a rule, such as 'You can curse, but don't do it every other word.'


----------



## izartist (Jan 28, 2007)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> Yeah...Personally I don't see language as a problem unless someone is using "fuck" every other word. Yes, then it is a problem, but for the most part that's not even common enough to deserve anything but a "hey, chill."
> 
> Hardly anyone even curses here outside of the occassional "this shit" or "damn it." I'd say it needs more of a guideline than a rule, such as 'You can curse, but don't do it every other word.'



I ditto that, I myself haven't noticed any heavy cursing, nor do I curse that much myself.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jan 28, 2007)

Just for clarification are you referring to expletives and/or sexually suggestive language? Both I could see as a problem for keeping the forums pg-13, however there are some topics being discussed that are clearly adult oriented. Rants and Raves has had several topics of this nature. 

My problem with this is yet again rather then stating a clear policy, there is just a thread that says "Keep the Forums PG-13 - NT." Then it's left for every one to dramatize it or just guess as to what constitutes PG-13 on this forum. Things of this nature should be handle with at least a modicum of professionalism. Put together a policy and post it locked and sticky at the top of what is acceptable as PG-13, and what's not, with that particular forum's topic guide lines. THEN create a thread or a policy forum that the subject can be discussed in and possibly influence the policy in the future revisions. This creates a clear policy that will save time and heart ache in the long run and still be friendly to the user's influence and ideas.

There's a FAQ in 'Harassment and Site Violations', rules in the 'Rants and Raves' why not extend this to the other forum sections with the PG-13 guidelines, in a clear well laid out manner!? It would certainly take less time and drama then the current solution of just throwing it up in the air. 

..and ArrowTibbs your sig is about to give me seizures


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 28, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Just for clarification are you referring to expletives and/or sexually suggestive language? Both I could see as a problem for keeping the forums pg-13, however there are some topics being discussed that are clearly adult oriented. Rants and Raves has had several topics of this nature.



I would also like clarification on this. I've seen a more than couple posts that were, despite being devoid of foul language, definitely toeing the line of what constitutes "PG-13" in my mind (not to mention touching the lines of common decency with regards to public behavior)...


----------



## izartist (Jan 28, 2007)

I have also noticed that there have been a few adult oriented posts, one big thing I've noticed is people posting links to mature art, especially when they are making requests.

I agree that there should be specific guidelines as to what's between pg13 and NT.


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 28, 2007)

izartist said:
			
		

> I agree that there should be specific guidelines as to what's between pg13 and NT.



...it had never occurred to me that someone would think that "NT" is a rating. 

"NT" means "no text". The thread was supposed to be titled "Keep the forums PG13 - no other text" (ie, no need to read the thread).
The limit on the forums is PG13. The admins chose poor wording there. :/


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2007)

Dark Mew, I'm referring perhaps to both. I've seen admins give warnings for people using foul language at the same time there are sticky topics with cursing and I remember the Harassment/Help Forums was "where you go when shit don't work"

If you're going to go after people for using foul language then keep it out of the sticky topics and your own admin announcements. If you just want people to keep the language down, then state this. Like Arrow said, I'm not too upset over people cursing so long as they're not cussing out another user, or being excessive.

As far as the topics being adult in nature, provided people don't become too graphic, I think that's fine. The cuddles thread creeps me out because several people think it's fine to RP sex on the forums, or give away details sexually that should be just kept to themselves. Perhaps in topics just made to talk about sexuality or violence, perhaps tagging the subject line would be good for all users. I think the good guideline is everything in moderation, occasional stuff is fine but if you're using the forums as your sexual playground, maybe a time out is in order x.x;;;

As far as links go, I think it was agreed users were to post NWS to their links if they were adult or risque in nature. No images were allowed as attachments or inserted into posts if they were of risque content.


----------



## lolcox (Jan 29, 2007)

If they're going to ban over language, be even about it.

Don't just get one person. Get 'em all.

Personally, the crying over language is laughable at best.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jan 29, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Dark Mew, I'm referring perhaps to both. I've seen admins give warnings for people using foul language at the same time there are sticky topics with cursing and I remember the Harassment/Help Forums was "where you go when shit don't work"
> 
> If you're going to go after people for using foul language then keep it out of the sticky topics and your own admin announcements. If you just want people to keep the language down, then state this. Like Arrow said, I'm not too upset over people cursing so long as they're not cussing out another user, or being excessive.



As I stated I can see both being a problem. I've seen people toss around expletives here and there. For the most part people just use them lightly, however I know of a couple instances that people have been attacking with them. As well as a few posts of people as you said RP in a provocative manner. Problem with it is the fact there is no guidelines on the forum that they can be referred to. Just saying keep it PG-13 is so ambiguous that people will just ignore the warning or just argue it's use. You can't refer to a guide line or policy that doesn't exist let alone be expected to enforce it. 

btw the wording on your second paragraph was awkward, I wasn't sure if you were quoting or stating. 



> As far as the topics being adult in nature, provided people don't become too graphic, I think that's fine. The cuddles thread creeps me out because several people think it's fine to RP sex on the forums, or give away details sexually that should be just kept to themselves. Perhaps in topics just made to talk about sexuality or violence, perhaps tagging the subject line would be good for all users. I think the good guideline is everything in moderation, occasional stuff is fine but if you're using the forums as your sexual playground, maybe a time out is in order x.x;;;
> 
> As far as links go, I think it was agreed users were to post NWS to their links if they were adult or risque in nature. No images were allowed as attachments or inserted into posts if they were of risque content.



Problem is with both of those is they go completely against it being PG-13, if the idea of such restrictions is because there are 13 year olds on the forums. First off only the main web site filters out adult content for users under 18 (if they are logged in as such), yet photo bucket is often used to link to images. So saying 'not work safe' isn't for keeping it pg-13 it's for adults that might be accessing it at work. NWS doesn't have anything to do or say about not viewing it if you're under 18. So this leaves FA possibly liable if kids are accessing adult work through the forums that allow 13 or older but doesn't restrict with any policy what they are allowed to look at. 

I'm not even going to get into the RP/sex talk *creepy* crap floating about. My point is yes moderation is a good guide line for an individual but an even better one for a forum is and actual typed out guide line/policy rather then guess work. Popping over and monitoring people just in case they cross some factitious line is just a waste of time. You need to put the line in the sand before you can say not to cross it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 29, 2007)

The NWS thing was perfectly acceptable in my opinion because a lot of people needed help with artwork. Sometimes it's nudity and sometimes it's porn. I think before we were to appropriately tag the subjects too. Most links came from FA so they were blocked if the right filters were on.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jan 30, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> The NWS thing was perfectly acceptable in my opinion because a lot of people needed help with artwork. Sometimes it's nudity and sometimes it's porn. I think before we were to appropriately tag the subjects too. Most links came from FA so they were blocked if the right filters were on.



Well it's fine if it's ok with you. (*edit*- when I re-read it that sounded like a bitchy statement, but it's not meant as one. Just FYI.) It still doesn't negate the fact it's against the idea of it being a pg-13 forum and a possible future problem. Speaking of the same subject, if a person under 18 is on the forum but not FA (provided the linked image is on FA) does it not allow non-logged in member to access it dirrectly? I thought it did but I never tested it, and I don't recall an exact post on the subject. 

Still think they need to have a clear policy written out before they decide to enforce it, but it doesn't look like they feel a need for written policies. At least at this time.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 30, 2007)

Well I remember if it is in that thread that the reason for it were that people were posting NWS images and that caused a bit of a hassle, so the middle ground was to link it and mention it was an adult picture. That's why I said I'm fine with it. There are people asking for critiques or have references they need. So I think it's more fair to allow that with a tag than have no links at all.


----------



## lolcox (Feb 6, 2007)

Looks like the topic's being ignored, or at least not contributed to by an admin.

What kind of shit (hey, you let someone's advertising topic use this word, so it must be fine and PG-13) is this?
What gets me is, the word 'wank', when I used it in a topic, was immediately censored down, but someone can post topics using the word 'shit'.

It's a pretty uneven standard, and now I'm actually going to have to demand an answer to a question like this.
I get banned over my language in a topic, but there is no hard-set guideline available for public view available on the forums.
Balls on the tables, boys, 'cause it's Hammertime.


----------



## R5K (Feb 6, 2007)

lolcox said:
			
		

> Looks like the topic's being ignored, or at least not contributed to by an admin.


Same behavior like corporate entities: If there is no elaborated and corporation based decision there will be no statement. Maybe someone wants to write something, but is not allowed, since his posts would be seen as an official statement while they are not.



			
				lolcox said:
			
		

> What kind of shit (hey, you let someone's advertising topic use this word, so it must be fine and PG-13) is this?
> What gets me is, the word 'wank', when I used it in a topic, was immediately censored down, but someone can post topics using the word 'shit'.


May or may not depend on the cultural background of the one who decides (although I wouldn't mind both words... but then again where I'm from nearly nothing gets censored, unlike in the US).



			
				lolcox said:
			
		

> It's a pretty uneven standard, and now I'm actually going to have to demand an answer to a question like this.
> I get banned over my language in a topic, but there is no hard-set guideline available for public view available on the forums.


If there is no decision and thus no statement, and the topic is important to a significant number of users: Do it yourself. Let the community decide what rules of language should apply.

In classic theory, if the people gets upset because of arbitrary decisions of the sovereign, it usually gathers to create a constitution. Even if the constitution is not accepted as a reason for decision, its just existence forces the sovereign to adopt or create rules to legitimate his future orders. 

A people only able to address the negative will only suffer from both arbitrary decisions and, maybe, aggressive defense actions of the sovereign; of course an ideal dictator would be able to compensate this by the wisdom of his rule, but ideal dictators do not and did never exist. A people able to criticize objectively and be constructive is at least morally already its own sovereign. [/ShittyAnalogy]


----------



## Xax (Feb 6, 2007)

I am seriously unable to make any sort of coherent post on the entire _subject_ of obscenity/profanity, because whenever I try to formulate one it just gets SWEPT AWAY by a tide of insults. Seriously.

Suffice to say: [size=large]ANYONE WHO GETS OFFENDED BY WORDS, CONCEPTS, OR ACTIONS IS A TOTAL AND UTTER MORON.[/size] [size=x-large]ANYONE. EVER. ABOUT ANYTHING.[/size] [size=xx-large]*THE END.*[/size]

Feel free to ask me to elaborate if you don't mind a post with every other word being on the 'profanity list'.


----------



## yak (Feb 6, 2007)

Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry said:
			
		

> Perfection is not when there is nothing left to add - but when there is nothing left to take away.



Frankly i don't see why is this such a attention-deserving topic.

Let me try to present an analogy. You're in a room with a dozen people divided in small groups, and every group is having a conversation on some topic.  Kind'a like these forums, no?
Now ask yourselves - would you really care if an occasional curse word slips by either in your group, or the one next to you? I don't think so. 
But would you mind if the people started mouthing off with flowery epithets that would make your ears bleed right next to you? I know i would. 

I believe there is a common level of 'decency' that, of course, varies from person to person, but tends to stay on certain 'acceptable' level. Surpassing it would cause your language to be looked down at. And the more you allow yourself, the more you'll draw negative attention.

---

Long description short - one can't define what *is* PG-13 and what is not. And we are not going to try. 
If people slip in an occasional f-bomb,  we would not wave the censorship banner. That would be beyond silly.
But when some decide to abuse other people's eye sight with blatant cursing, something will be done about it.

I do not think that any of us enjoy reading curse-ridden posts, but also don't think you all would like to be nagged about your language every time you slip something by accident.

Grey areas and questionable situations will happen, and will be left at the admin's digression - but will always be resolved in favor of a more civilized way.

---

This has been my personal opinion, not the decision of the administration.  
I find that the last thing FA needs is censorship. There are better ways to spend one's free time then proving that the vision of a civilized internet BBS utopia is, in the end, just a vision and nothing more.


----------



## Xax (Feb 6, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> But would you mind if the people started mouthing off with flowery epithets that would make your ears bleed right next to you? I know i would.



_My_ whole point here is that no, I wouldn't, and in fact any effort made to contain 'offensive language' (note the scarequotes) would in fact make me significantly more angry than having to deal with the idiots who like to swear instead of making a rational point.

ALSO SOMETIMES I LIKE TO DO BOTH.


----------



## yak (Feb 6, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> _My_ whole point here is that no, I wouldn't, and in fact any effort made to contain 'offensive language' (note the scarequotes) would in fact make me significantly more angry than having to deal with the idiots who like to swear instead of making a rational point.
> 
> ALSO SOMETIMES I LIKE TO DO BOTH.


Consider yourself a deviant then, Xax. 
The day the 'offensive' language becomes a routine part of any conversation, the very same day i will leave the society in a self-imposed exile. 
Trust me, i know fairly well the cases where this sort of 'opposition' turns out to be a grand example of an oxymoron behavior on the moderator's part. That will hopefully be avoided. 

But _I, personally_ do not want to neither read nor encourage by inactivity the blatant and offensive attempts at being funny/cool/gangsta/etc. 
If one can't be bothered to word their mind in generally acceptable terms - then they are not worth the effort of being listened to. I have little tolerance for rudeness and language-wise ignorance. Learn some proper English first, it isn't that hard.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 6, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> I do not think that any of us enjoy reading curse-ridden posts



I found Verix's "fuck you, microsoft" post to be highly enjoyable.

The point shouldn't be about the words themselves, but how they're used. If someone is cursing out another user, that's flames and possibly harassment. If they're just cursing in general, I really don't know what's wrong with it, unless it's "excessive" ... and as of yet, admins haven't ruled what is and isn't excessive.


----------



## Xax (Feb 6, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Consider yourself a deviant then, Xax.
> The day the 'offensive' language becomes a routine part of any conversation, the very same day i will leave the society in a self-imposed exile.
> Trust me, i know fairly well the cases where this sort of 'opposition' turns out to be a grand example of an oxymoron behavior on the moderator's part. That will hopefully be avoided.



The issue I'm propositioning here is that the act of censoring language commonly deemed offensive is in itself offensive, which would make any kind of controls on offensive language inherently oxymoronic. I mean, uh, clearly you got that seeing from your response, I'm just reiterating so I can continue on the same thread.

Insofar as I have been able to tell offensive content is highly subjective and furthermore, it's a /part of the content/. By which I mean that if people are prohibited from being offensive, that doesn't really make them less prone to being offensive, it just limits other people's contact to their offensive language. This has several problems: firstly, it means you're quite capable of having a conversation with someone without being able to tell that they're highly biased in one way or another (and frankly, I'd rather know these things than have them potentially hidden by rules); secondly, given the previous FA admins rule enforcement it's _really really likely_ these rules will be enforced by different admins in different ways on different users, with the end effect likely being a chilling effect on the free speech of the users; thirdly, I think people don't have the moral authority to simply _wipe out_ the opinions of people they disagree with (yes yes, you're not removing them, just forcing them to not say them on your property. The difference between the two is negligible when considering FA as a stand-alone system), even when it's crude or offensive. _Especially_ when it's crude or offensive: Opposing that statement about moral authority, I think people have an _obligation_ to view opinions they disagree with, because if people go about removing themselves from any discussion in which they are confronted by things they don't like, how in the world are they going to understand the opposing side?



			
				yak said:
			
		

> But _I, personally_ do not want to neither read nor encourage by inactivity the blatant and offensive attempts at being funny/cool/gangsta/etc.
> If one can't be bothered to word their mind in generally acceptable terms - then they are not worth the effort of being listened to. I have little tolerance for rudeness and language-wise ignorance. Learn some proper English first, it isn't that hard.



I'd say that if someone isn't willing to look past inept or argumentative language to see a good idea underneath, they don't deserve to understand. Why do you _think_ I prefer to debate and argue loudly and offensively instead of being calm and quiet? The latter might let more people listen to me, but the former means only people capable of dealing with concepts they don't agree with (an _incredibly_ valuable trait) will learn. It's a quality vs. quantity issue. People who are not capable of looking past their own biases are simply not worth my time-- although I break that rule so very often, because my curiosity often forces me to look past my _own_ biases.

But maybe I should stop essaying all over the place. ...naaah


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

No offense yak, and don't take this the wrong way. While I find you a very good admin, I think we're looking for more moderators to do this work and not have it rest on your shoulders.


----------



## yak (Feb 6, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> I found Verix's "fuck you, microsoft" post to be highly enjoyable.
> 
> The point shouldn't be about the words themselves, but how they're used. If someone is cursing out another user, that's flames and possibly harassment. If they're just cursing in general, I really don't know what's wrong with it, unless it's "excessive" ... and as of yet, admins haven't ruled what is and isn't excessive.



Just for the amusement of it all, let me ask you one question then.
If what you are saying is a common agreement between you all, as it looks from the responses, then please, help me to understand why the bloody hell this topic was brought up to begin with? 

I mean, you do agree that this should remain at admin's digression - but it was exactly the same before this topic was created.
You can't define what's 'excessive', i believe. I mean, try and define the sentence "you had enough for today" with regards to alcoholic beverages. Each and every human being will have their own definition of "enough", and by trying to impose any margins on them you'll only make yourself look kind'a silly.


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 6, 2007)

The point is in what you quoted from me, Yak - the admins *have not defined* what is excessive and what is not, to the point where one user has been banned for language use when others are just as guilty or moreso.


----------



## Damaratus (Feb 6, 2007)

Wow folks, this topic is taking some rather interesting twists.  The problem that lies in all of this is trying to put down some kind of actual logical method to enforce the concept of PG-13.  There are multiple factors that go into this particular concept which obfuscates things further.



			
				Hanazawa said:
			
		

> I found Verix's "fuck you, microsoft" post to be highly enjoyable.
> 
> The point shouldn't be about the words themselves, but how they're used. If someone is cursing out another user, that's flames and possibly harassment. If they're just cursing in general, I really don't know what's wrong with it, unless it's "excessive" ... and as of yet, admins haven't ruled what is and isn't excessive



When it comes to the use of profanities, this basically sums things up.  There is no easy way to rule on what is considered excessive, what is excessive in terms of cursing on one thread may not be the same on another.  The topics and the concepts behind them can lead to very different circumstances.  Verix's thread (which I have not read) may have easily been riddled with profanity, but it appears to also be enjoyable to those who read it.  There wasn't a big stink about it so one couldn't easily claim excessiveness or at least offense.

From my point of view, profanity is common enough place (even with the younger crowd) that it is okay to use it on occasion if what you are posting merits such usage.  A small "for fuck's sake" or the like is not going to put you in the torpedo tube for suspension.  The use of profanity on threads where it has no place, and is more being used in terms of flaming someone else or breaking up a thread are situations where a PG-13 warning would come into effect.

I guess to sum it up, it's not the fact that the words are profane, it's the reason behind why they're being used that can get you into trouble.

The next item is thread subject matter.  Right now, it's best not to try and start up threads that involve sex talk.  The forums aren't really designed to have people just idling about talking about masturbation and how much they'd like to yiff someone.  There are other, better forums that one can go to find such things, and probably a decent number of people on the forums and the main site that can point a person in the right direction if they so chose.  Threads that are designed for this kind of topic are normally removed right off the bat, and the user informed as to why.  

A good reason for dealing with threads of this type is because of the fact that there are people on the forums between 13 and 17.  Threads dealing with sexual concepts have the potential to lead to propositions and place both the underage users and the older users at a level of risk based on who is talking to who and what is said.  No sense in toeing that kind of legal line or endangering a minor.

Finally we deal with links to mature imagery.  Right now it's best that such things aren't posted on the forums.  I do agree that most aspiring artists, even the younger ones are not unfamiliar with the nude human form for the sake of learning how to draw.  Unfortunately, that doesn't change how the law looks at things, and exposing those who are underage to adult imagery can lead to legal problems.  The forums really aren't meant to be a go around for those of younger ages who are seeking adult material, and though I doubt those people who do post mature works on the forum mean for it to be used as a handout to minors, there is the potential that it will end up as such. (Links to adult works on Fur Affinity, or to other places which require registration and adult verification obviously don't run this risk since the blocks are already in place.)

On a final note, since it was brought up.  This is still very much my general overview of the PG-13 concept, there are a great number of other concepts that are currently in use in terms of what is PG-13.  Essentially we're just trying to make sure that we stay legally safe as well as insure that there isn't any particular abuse on the forums.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Feb 6, 2007)

I see a few solutions:

1: Get the FCC to review every post in every thread, because if anyone knows what PG-13 is, it's them. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to do it. </sarcasm>

2: Find a way to mark threads as mature.

3. Go as we've been going.

4. Let everything in, and keep the little 'uns out.

5: Stop using profanity and talking about sex altogether.

6: Censorship.

/Fuck if I'm going to do those last two


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

So is this the official opinion or just yours. This is why we're having the problem here.


----------



## yak (Feb 6, 2007)

Xax, i'm afraid you misunderstood my point.
Look at your own response to what you took for seeds of future censorship. We don't need people doing that 

I understand i might have been somewhat confusing in my wording, so i'll try to simplify this even further.

1. We're not looking for extra, IMO mostly unnecessary work on moderating the forums. There's plenty of work to do around here on a daily basis already 
2. We cannot define what's essentially undefinable. "Excessive" is not a synonym to "more then X" for a reason.
3. Censorship should never happen, as this is the true gateway to hell.  But the abuse of profanity, if such a case occurs in the future, has to stopped.

So i essentially wanted to say what Damaratus has said


			
				Damaratus said:
			
		

> ... We're just trying to make sure that we stay legally safe as well as insure that there isn't any particular abuse on the forums.


(Thanks, Dam.) I just ventured a bit into the details and found myself lost in explanations.


----------



## kitetsu (Feb 6, 2007)

Solution:

- Allow cursing.

- Know your foe.

- Shoot evil cursers.

- Do not show child porn to avoid contact with NetCops.

The End.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Feb 6, 2007)

I have a couple suggestions then...

--If you really wanna keep the forums PG13 without limiting discussion too much, make an adult forum. It'd be a hassle to tag all the users who are over 18 into a group, but in the long run less of a headache. Trust me on this. It would also allow people who want to put up nude art for redlining or such to do so without worrying about catching a warning for it.

--Dittoing Arshes here...Get a team of people to JUST watch the forums. And for that matter, a team to JUST watch the IRC. 

I know I suggested this a long time ago and it got shot down, but I still stand by this being a better idea than trying to have three or four people doing ten completely different things between three locations. Communication was the major concern, right? Then make a forum that documents warnings just on the forums, and just on IRC. 

Then if you guys decide to keep the forums separate, or the IRC separate, it's easier to figure out what goes where. I'm a little behind, are they separate or do they all follow the same amount of warnings and stuff?


----------



## imnohbody (Feb 6, 2007)

Or, alternately... stop trying to pigeonhole admins into super-specific positions that primarily serve to give rules lawyers ammo for nitpicking BS into acceptability, and give consideration to maybe, just maybe, using that pinkish-gray mass between your (generic "you") ears. 

These threads are like masturbation. Every time it happens, God kills a kitten.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 6, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> Or, alternately... stop trying to pigeonhole admins into super-specific positions that primarily serve to give rules lawyers ammo for nitpicking BS into acceptability, and give consideration to maybe, just maybe, using that pinkish-gray mass between your (generic "you") ears.
> 
> These threads are like masturbation. Every time it happens, God kills a kitten.



I think that's a given however, there were bans handed out unevenly in consideration of using our grey matter...


----------



## Alchera (Feb 6, 2007)

kitetsu said:
			
		

> Solution:
> 
> - Allow cursing.
> 
> ...



Add to that list that Admins who are only supposed to code shouldn't be policing the forums either. I'm not naming names, but I was warned and threatened with losing forum privies to "keep it PG-13" just over sarcasm and using the words "ass" and "damn."Â Â  Things like this we can't have.


----------



## Surgat (Feb 6, 2007)

About curse words and excessive curse word use:

-Have a list of words officially classed as "curse words." 
-Have an official maximum number of curse words usable in a post. 
-If there are graded acceptabilities of curse words (some are classed worse than others), then give the different divisions their own acceptable limit.
-Different topics can have different limits on amounts of curse words, if it's necessary.  

Moderators would only have to check posts they think are pushing the limit. What the limits are set at can be largely arbitrary, just as long as they're official and everyone knows what they are; they probably should be in a sticky. It beats censorship, and people getting warnings over words like "damn," right?


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 7, 2007)

Alchera said:
			
		

> Admins who are only supposed to code shouldn't be policing the forums either.



I dunno, has anyone ever said at any point: "X is here *only* to code and must never do anything else"?

It kind of ties admins and moderators hands if people say that and they must have been given admin and moderator status on the forums for a reason. And they haven't done a bad jobÂ of it, that's for sure.

I suppose the real question is, do they *want* to police the forum? :?


----------



## Hanazawa (Feb 7, 2007)

I think it's more a matter of... the mod list looks inflated because there's a lot of people on it, but people like the coders should be able to spend more time CODING rather than moderating the forums. So if you have moderator-only modmins you end up with more efficiency.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 7, 2007)

I have to agree with Hana here, when you start seeing coders moderate the site more than the Forum mods it's kinda like...whaaaaaaaaaa.


----------



## dave hyena (Feb 8, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Hana here, when you start seeing coders moderate the site more than the Forum mods it's kinda like...whaaaaaaaaaa.



Vitae and Scooter are still listed as Admins on the forums, but they're not admins anymore right? :?

Thaily is still on the TOS proof reader list, despite not having logged in since november 06 and having left FA for ever.


----------

