Text 2882, 109 rader
Skriven 2004-12-06 16:55:00 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
     Kommentar till en text av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
* In a message originally to Philip Lozier, mark lewis said:

I decided to respond to this one from my BBS message editor...

 > PL> Actually, that is what got this all escallated, the suggestion
 > PL> that a SysOp needs to "moderate" each and every message that
 > PL> will leave their system.  I still think its purely assinine
 > PL> and that the person needs their head examined.

 > the real telling part of all this is that the software used by systems in 
 > fidonet doesn't allow this capability without serious technical 
 > understanding of the protocols used and some way of actually manipulating 
 > the raw PKTs /if/ the errant message makes it that far...
 >

The closest thing -I- could ever do on my end is set my message editor up to 
either "autocorrect" (change) offensive words to anything I wanted it to be, 
or have them filtered completely, in an attempt to keep messages containing 
foul language out of areas... that IMO however is consorship, and I don;t 
believe in censorship. I quickly configured a couple of words in both the 
filter, and the autocorrect though.

Just for the sake of argument though, we could have sentences looking like 
this all over the echo:

"the guy who suggested that a SysOp needs to censor his users to make a mods 
job easier is an *******!  What a *****!"

or:

"Who gives a kakapoodlydoo what that zoomzoomalaboom thinks a BBS SysOp 
should do?"

In the first case, the user wouldn't even realize his words were getting 
changed... the *ing out isn't done until the save process... that would be 
true censorship... would make messages look government documents 
obtained through the freedom of information act, and the user wouldn't even 
know it until after the fact.

The second case -could- be a lot of fun if set up right, selecting enough of 
the right words to be replaced with comical alternatives.  Although it was 
meant for "on the fly" spellchecking as words are being typed, it can be 
applied this way... ain't that just some kakapoodlydoo?  The user can see 
that it's being done, as its being done, so they get the idea.  It's still 
censorship though, which I frown on, but it could make it clear to the user 
that they aren't suppsed to be using certain words, and stop them... of 
course they may never call the BBS again, and they may just be a valuable  
user to other parts of the BBS, or other message areas where somebody 
didn'y piss them off... Some, when given too much crap, would rather express 
themselves and take their chances... freedom of expression, yet with some 
freedoms also comes responsibility and liability.  

Hmmmm.. thinking on the autocorrect, to 
embarass a user out of an attitude, just substitute every offensive word with 
*IMACOCKYMOUTH*

Then all the *IMACOCKYMOUTH* *IMACOCKYMOUTH* people with virgin ears won't 
get their *IMACOKYMOUTH* *IMACOCKYMOUTH* in an uproar!

The users would see it happening, and do one of two things... just change one 
letter in each word so the point comes across by not being "autocorrected", 
or get pissed and leave the BBS forever.

All of this was done (above) automaticly with the editor configuration except 
the first "*IMACOCKYMOUTH*"... not all editors have the capability of doing 
this, but some of them do.  In any event, I'm not using the filters... I'm 
reseting them right after I'm done with this bunch of messages... I will not 
censor my users... I only have one that -occasionaly- posts in Fido anyway, 
and upon entering the FidoNet area a screen first comes up with the rules, 
and the last sentence does state that a mod can have a user cut from the echo 
if they break the rules, so any Fido user here, or potential one, can;t say 
they weren't aware of what -could- happen *IF* a  request came.

As far as I'm concerned, I am in full compliance with my responsibility for 
users, and I couldn't give a kakapoodlydoo if there happens to be a ***** out 
there who thinks otherwise who doesn't need to worry about -any- users at 
all... zoomzoomalaboom him, the horse he rolled in on, and may his 
*IMACOCKYMOUTH* fall off, the stupid *******, when he's sucking my 
*IMACOCKYMOUTH* as I'm enjoying a milky wet kakapoodlydoo! 

 > activity over and above that already needed for their systems...

 > what they are suggesting is tantamount to the usenet way of proactive 
 > moderation while at the same time relieving the moderator of his duties as 
 > moderator...

 > what was that you said about the mule going blind and loading the wagon? 
 > seems that they would rather _be_ the mule and pull the wagon 
 > themselves...

Ayup... the mule hasn't gone blind yet, so I don't need to pull that wagon 
yet...

I said something about a horse up top too ;>  Horse, mule, *IMACOCKYMOUTH*, 
they're all related somewhat... !!!HEY!!! I didn't use that in the context of 
a swear word! I hear it on TV all the time too! What the zoomzoomalaboom? 
*IMACOCKYMOUTH* FILTERS!!! ARGGGGGGH!

Yea... let's censor people just so some mod doesn't have to do their job.  
That's the right thing to do :(

NOT TODAY!

Phil

... "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it?"

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: The Quondam Continuum * NY Capital Region (1:267/169)