NationStates Jolt Archive

KOL got warned, apparently for just using an epithet -- even though it wasn't directed at another poster.

Seeing your father murdered by whites isnt a good excuse for not trusting them?

We get it Rusty. Niggers are inferior to your pure white Australianess.

Sarcastic or not, there is no excuse for the use of the word "Niggers". Warned for flaming.

I thought that back when that word was being censored (and I don't know when it stopped), it was made clear one would not be punished merely for using it.

One point (or maybe it's more than one point) I'd like to see some clarification on (particularly in light of possible disciplinary action):

Are the words merely being filtered or are they now verboten to use?

Can you get flagged merely for using the word, even if the context is not otherwise a violation of the rules?

To me it is one thing to say the words have been abused and have few legitimate uses, so when they are used they will be astericked. And it is reasonable to flag people for deliberately evading the filter or using the astericked terms in a way that would otherwise violate the rules (flaming, etc).

In is an altogether different thing if we are no longer able to use the words without a violation of the rules. I wasn't overly concerned with the astericks being censorship, but banning the words altogether is unacceptable.

Word from the front, Daistallia: the reason for your infraction, as I think you surmised, was for deliberately going around the word filter. The reason it didn't link you to a post was that Adams901 gave it from your profile, not from the thread. When it's linked to a post in a thread a message is generated automatically, with space for a mod to add details if necessary.

Intangelon, The Cat Tribe et al, they're still looking at the details, but, the way I understand it, simply causing the filter to operate doesn't automatically get you an infraction. For infractions to be given, a mod has to be involved. Which would mean rule-breaking would have to be involved.

If you want more detail on the actual mechanism, afraid you'll have to wait.

Considering that it was first noticed in NSG on September 1 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13973750#post13973750), and that there weren't any infractions given until people started being clever-clever three weeks later, it seems to be working on NS as pretty much business as usual.

I am not one that uses that term loosely, but I have and probably will use it in these forums unless it is made clear it is against the rules (which would be tragic).

Perhaps KOL deserved a warning on other grounds than just the use of the epithet and Kryozerkia could have been more clear. :confused:

I'm definitely not a mod, but I'd think the warning comes from intimating quite strongly that whomever he directed the post toward was a bigot, not from using the n-word per se.

Remember, you can be warned for flaming and write something that's as erudite as it gets. You don't have to even say "darn" and have it be a flame or a bit of flamebait.

Again, I'm not a mod. I'd welcome a different interpretation, though I'm not questioning Kryozerkia's ruling. However, I wonder if this is another example of slagging on Kryozerkia because she's the new moderator in town and not simply seeking clarification.

I'm definitely not a mod, but I'd think the warning comes from intimating quite strongly that whomever he directed the post toward was a bigot, not from using the n-word per se.

Remember, you can be warned for flaming and write something that's as erudite as it gets. You don't have to even say "darn" and have it be a flame or a bit of flamebait.

Again, I'm not a mod. I'd welcome a different interpretation, though I'm not questioning Kryozerkia's ruling. However, I wonder if this is another example of slagging on Kryozerkia because she's the new moderator in town and not simply seeking clarification.

Meh. I resent the implication that I am questioning the competency of the mod rather than the specific wording of the ruling.

I thought I was clear that KOL may have deserved the warning. (Although I might question whether one should get a warning merely for pointing out another poster's bigotry, I can see how KOL's post could be an offense.)

But Kryozerkia implied, if not outright declared, it was because KOL used the n-word that he was warned. I simply want clarification that is not some new policy.

Meh. I resent the implication that I am questioning the competency of the mod rather than the specific wording of the ruling.
You...you....lawyer!

Agreed though, (no surprise)...it certainly comes across as a ruling based on the 'n' word being verboten entirely, and that seems odd in light of previous discussion on the topic.

KOL got warned, apparently for just using an epithet -- even though it wasn't directed at another poster.

It was directed at another poster.
I'm definitely not a mod, but I'd think the warning comes from intimating quite strongly that whomever he directed the post toward was a bigot, not from using the n-word per se.

Yes, that's how I read it, too. KoL implied that Ferrous Oxide would habitually use such terms. That's flaming. "Sarcasm" does not out-point "flaming".

However, I wonder if this is another example of slagging on Kryozerkia because she's the new moderator in town and not simply seeking clarification.

No. There has been a bit of that, but The Cat-Tribe's default position appears to me to be one of questioning the competence of all moderators, and a good thing it is, too.

If you know someone is definitely, always, going to say, "Why did you do that?", you make pretty sure you have a good reason for doing it.

Of course, you may not like being under constant review, but it is helpful, damn your eyes, the lot of you. :mad:

I thought that back when that word was being censored (and I don't know when it stopped), it was made clear one would not be punished merely for using it.

... but for how one used it. Agreed. Context rules, circumstances alter cases, and it's always a judgment call.

I am not one that uses that term loosely, but I have and probably will use it in these forums unless it is made clear it is against the rules (which would be tragic).

It would just be a happening on an internet forum. But it hasn't happened.

It was directed at another poster.

Yes, that's how I read it, too. KoL implied that Ferrous Oxide would habitually use such terms. That's flaming. "Sarcasm" does not out-point "flaming".

No. There has been a bit of that, but The Cat-Tribe's default position appears to me to be one of questioning the competence of all moderators, and a good thing it is, too.

If you know someone is definitely, always, going to say, "Why did you do that?", you make pretty sure you have a good reason for doing it.

Of course, you may not like being under constant review, but it is helpful, damn your eyes, the lot of you. :mad:

... but for how one used it. Agreed. Context rules, circumstances alter cases, and it's always a judgment call.

It would just be a happening on an internet forum. But it hasn't happened.

Thank you for the clarification. I hoped I was overreacting, and I was. :$:D

EDIT: I should add that I hope it is understood that I have great respect for NS's Moderators. Moderating is not an easy job and humans are fallible creatures, but the Mods here do an excellent job. :hail:

It is precisely because most Mod rulings are unquestionably fair that I raise a question when I am confused. ;)