Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=300718&Start=1&Artist=Legume&ByArtist=Yes

This also brings up the question of the differences between
Gallery comments and comments made in the forums. I had
spent a lot of time in the Photography forum ending maybe 6
months ago, where PunkClown was/is a regular poster, and
in that forum at least, a number of posters occasionally
used the 'F-word' without a hint of condemnation from
anyone.

Why is it apparently okay to use swear words in the forums
but not in the galleries? PunkClown's stated reason for
censoring Mosca in Legume's gallery was that young people
may well visit it (BTW, I learned almost all of my swear
words from young people, while I was a young person). Is
the reasoning that young people are less likely to read the
forums than they are to view the galleries? Why is that?

Thanks

Well thanks for bringing it up ASalina. For the purpose of clarification ~ I made that decision because Mosca used a certain Anglo-Saxon variation of "fornication" several times and it was not even remotely related to critical feedback on Legume's work (which, funnily enough is what the space for critical feedback/comments is intended to be used for) It was a personal decision by myself as a moderator of that particular gallery and I will stand by it. I have obviously left Legume's artwork there...Lord knows I wouldn't want to be accused of rampant censorship. The forums are only available for perusal by members, the galleries are available for browsing by anyone, there is one difference. Are you accusing me of inconsistency or just wrong thinking or none of the above? I try not to impose my opinions on acceptable behavior or language use on everyone...it is important to take language use in context too. Certain words can be utilized in a good-natured joking manner, but in another context can be used quite destructively. Have a Merry Christmas and please try not to worry about relatively minor matters like my point of view so much. :-)>

And if anyone is wondering I removed my comment as it obviously may have given the impression I was some kind of "thought police" which is not the impression I wish to give. Mosca's cooment under Legume's work was removed by me, for the reasons stated above. I obviously chose not to remove Legume's artwork, as I don't think that would have been a justifiable action, based on only one word that apparently was used by Legume in an ironic way. BTW Art, I can't really recall the "f" word used by "a number" of posters even occasionally in the Photography forum...I might have missed those threads. I do remember variations of the "f" word...like "freakin" and so forth...but there has only been ONE occasion I personally saw the actual word in that forum, used by only one poster, once. Thanks.

PC sez: > Are you accusing me of inconsistency or > just wrong thinking or none of the above? Well ya know, Legume has a way of pissing people off (bless his squishy mud-filled little heart), and it seemed like he might have gotten to you too. When one adds in the fact that Mosca has been very vocal in criticizing Rosity's policies of late, it didn't look very good at all. So I guess you gave me the impression of being inconsistant. Maybe if I had seen what Mosca had written I might have felt differently. With respect to using the F-word in the Photography forum, one only has to do a search on "fuck" there. You're right though, it wasn't used by "a number of posters", as I had misremembered. I and another regular poster there have used it though. Happy Festivus

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=284958&Start=1&Sectionid=0&Form.Search=fuck&Form.Cri

That's a great Image. Too bad the title ruins it. It's the proper use of the word "Fuck". Used as an adjective to describe sadness and anger. But the title ruins the image for me. Children use swear words because they don't have the mental capabilities or vocabulary to think of something more clever. Adults should know better. Not because it's naughty to swear. But because it takes no brain cells to do it. The image is really good though. ScottA

[used a certain Anglo-Saxon variation of "fornication"] One would think that the word F*ck is allot easier and faster to type out than: "that's just an Anglo-Saxon variation of Fornication funny Legume" :o) Merry Humbug Day!! Jack

Maybe George Carlin's "seven words you can't say on T.V." apply here. But with guys trying to project a macho image by using those words excessively, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation for sensitive people, and it lowers the level down to the lowest common denominator, so why do it? If you feel the need to do it, it's your realization that you've already lost the argument.

Artemis you say "it seemed like he might have gotten to you too. When one adds in the fact that Mosca has been very vocal in criticizing Rosity's policies of late, it didn't look very good at all."
You are probably right, but it wasn't Legume that actually got to me...it was Mosca, and no it "didn't look good at all" - and here I am referring to Mosca's comment, not my reaction to it. My reference to "thinking about" removing Legume's work was an overspill of my irritation with Mosca I suspect and was incorrect. I really do get disappointed when people use the galleries to push their own political agenda, with no constructive or productive end that I can see. The galleries, indeed this site should be to celebrate art, at least I thought that was why we were here? These factors combined with Mosca's very unimaginative and destructive use of a word already bludgeoned to irrelevance by overuse may have led to me appearing inconsistent, but I'm not really...as I said context is everything. I am not a moderator of the photo forum either so I wouldn't have presumed to censure anyone there...did you really use it that regularly? lol, I'll have to do that search...
Merry Christmas everyone, or Bah Humbug if you prefer...just stay happy and well
Cheers!
:-)>

The galleries, indeed this site should be to celebrate art, at least I thought that was why we were here? what about the poser gallery? i think that is here for business reasons, mostly.

Yeah, well I don't get the time to go there (the Poser gallery) much Poppi...but just out of curiosity, what are the people using poser posting their images there for?...are you saying poser isn't about art then? ;-)>

are you saying poser isn't about art then? yeah, i think that is what i'm saying. i don't see much experimentation. i just see alot of showing off of market items. and, yes, i do realize that the market supports this site. but, sigh, i do love to see folks pushing their limits. poser gsllery has become too complacent, of late. just post a pic of new toys, and let your buds know you uploaded. viola...instant grat. yeah, i think that is what i'm saying. and, no, i'm not saying it. poser can be art. it is the only affordable program that can "pose" figures. but, it isn't being used artistically, if all folks do is make tits and temples with it. to you, i pose THIS question: is karaoke art? i equate poser with the 3d version of karaoke.

"Children use swear words because they don't have the mental capabilities or vocabulary to think of something more clever. Adults should know better."

Lol, I tell "adults" something similar when they choose to use foul language in my kids presence.

And anyone who says "Well Duh!" in our house is quickly reminded that his/her IQ just sunk 10 points. :)

Truly! there is some ART in the Poser galleries. However, if you want to see repetitive and formulaic images created with a few basic templates and even fewer ideas "bludgeoned to irrelevance by overuse"?, have a look one of these days. As for the F word!, it gets more of an outing in the 2D galleries than than all the rest put together, I agree that one can get away with it as long as it is wrapped correctly and topped with a bow.

*i equate poser with the 3d version of karaoke.*LOL Poppi, I think you hit the nail on the head. And that's coming from a long-time Poser user.

As for what's art and what isn't... well, that's pretty much in the eye of the beholder. I mean, wasn't there some big flap a couple years ago about a guy who created a portrait of the Virgin Mary out of elephant shit and actually got it displayed in a major art gallery?

"Why is it apparently okay to use swear words in the forums but not in the galleries?" Fuck if I know.

PC, In case you are wondering, in the Galleries: "Search for 'fuck' Images 1-18 of 149 that match your search listed below." You seem to have 149 more "cleanings" to do. If certain words/phrases are to be censored, that should probably be built into Bondware, to prevent the occasional missed word/phrase and/or an apparent disenfranchisement with certain members.

Ok... NOW you've got me curious. I'm going to run a search on "fuck" in the forums. Perspiring [and bored] minds wanna know. ;]

Rats. You don't get a nifty "x out of xxx posts that met your search criteria" blurb, just a REALLY long screen of threads. But there's a fuck of a lot of em, I'll tell you that. ;] I didn't run tutorials and freebies. If we have tutorials on it here, I wasn't sure I wanted to know...

lol@IB You mean to tell me you do not need a tutorial to learn how to f*ck properly? ;0) I know someone who would be happy to tell you how to accomplish it for yourself (aka, RK). ;0)

Nahhhhh... I bought the Kama Chameleon, er... Kama Sutra and looked it up. ;] But the porn tapes were cheaper and just as educational. ;]

I would have thought that the results of CyberStretch's search would show that I am not for censorship, what, they're still there!...gosh how could I have missed those!? chuckle I am no-one's "cleaner" I am quite aware of some of the incidences of "the word". Although I haven't been quite as bored as some of you to actually do a "f*ck-search" on the galleries (note to self to keep that phrase for future use...) Some artists such as kracker seem to use it in all the comments with his work...and the angst his particularly expressive style portrays goes hand in hand with his use of the word...to censor that would diminish his particularly powerful artwork ~ context ...are we listening yet people?
The delicious irony of all this is that those who have the mixed blessing of knowing me well ITRW would laugh at this whole thread...I swear so much sometimes you could be excused of thinking I had Tourette's Syndrome.
What we do in the company of friends and what we do in the company of relative strangers is often tempered by discretion however...depending I suppose on who you are. That's just me...

And thnxs for more "bludgeoning" IB! ;-)>

PC,

You obviously missed the point. You deleted a message by Mosca with "a certain Anglo-Saxon variation of 'fornication'", yet you allow others to remain; presumably due to the "context" in which the word was used.

I do not think that qualifies you for being the Poster Child for Non-Censorship, but rather see the inconsistency of enforcing your duties as a mod/admin. Sorry, but when you single out a subset of the membership and choose to arbitrarily censor comments/posts made from someone you openly state you have a problem with, it makes you - and by extension R'osity - look bad. Seems like a vendetta against Mosca from my POV.

In case you have not been reading the fora consistently enough, consistency of enforcing the TOS is a primary complaint of the "dissenters". You could avoid a lot of trouble by being as consistent as possible and, thus, remove the flame from many flamethrowers**...are we listening yet mods/admins?**

As a mod/admin, you should know that searching the galleries for a simple, single word is not all that time-consuming; even with the substandard "search engine" R'osity has implemented. Mods/Admins should think about doing it more often to remain consistent in the enforcement of the TOS du jour. In fact, you could even script it, have reports generated, and e-mailed for follow-up; and/or you could flag galleries/posts needing attention. But, I guess equal treatment under the TOS is not the main objective.

Your personal life, IMHO, is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that, in the capacity of a mod/admin - and therefore a R'osity representative - you have shown that you do not hold all members to the same standards. Pretty much what a lot of people have come to expect based upon past and present actions.

Ah: "use of a word already bludgeoned to irrelevance by overuse"? No probs. We aim to please, you aim too, please. ;] Congrats on your brush on the catch 22 of modhood: the site owners want to claim consistent and impartial across the board application of TOS, but when it comes down to it, it's always a judgement call by someone like you in the trenches. And judgement calls are good, bad, or indifferent, but they're seldom impartial. grin And no matter if it's good, bad or indifferent, someone's going to take a cheap shot or two at you. All you can do is say "fuck it". ;] You either made the best judgement call you could, in which case that's all you need to say... or you made a bad one, in which case you own it and move on or you try and justify it and make it worse, kiddo. As long as the ongoing perception is that there's a dicotomy, as Cyber pointed out, members are going to keep smiling, using the "F" word appropriately, and pointing out where the discrepancies are.

"...are we listening yet mods/admins?" Yes, I'm listening, at least you've been gettting a response from me, although nothing I say will make you any happier with things. sigh No I didn't miss the point CyberStretch...I DO think you did ~ Mosca's comment was removed because he used his language in violation of the TOS despite his protestations in other threads that he has tried to remain civil, you see perhaps there are inconsistancies on both sides...oh but that couldn't be could it? I saw it and removed it no personal vendetta, I don't know Mosca or any of you, and you don't know me. Now some people can bleat and wail and moan all they like...in fact I expect they still will...but that's it for me with this particular discussion . If you think I was wrong, fair enough...sorry you feel that way. There are a hell of a lot more real injustices in the world that maybe you should think about addressing first if you are so passionate about inconsistencies. Now I'm going back to my personal life, relevant to you or not, thanks. :-)>

Actually there is one other thing: Cyber you say: "you should know that searching the galleries for a simple, single word is not all that time-consuming" are you for real? ~ and dealing with what you find? I mean this is assuming I would want to do that...I tell you, relevant to you or not ...I really, really do have a REAL life. :-)>

....keep your shirt on !.... Dont be a martyr to juggling a "REAL life" and being a mod. One of the great things about being one of the "bored" set, is that we are at our lesiure, therefore not susceptable to knee-jerk fits of petulance when our actions are questioned. Mirror! mirror! on the wall, who has the realest life of all?

Attached Link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAB-CGI

I didn't think Yahoo had an auto-censor. I thought it prided itself on using an infinite number of monkeys.

"although nothing I say will make you any happier with things." Well, PC, you are wrong. I am pointing out an inconsistent enforcement of the TOS, because that is the way it appears when all the other comments/posts with the same verbiage are left to remain. Personally, I nor anyone else could force anyone to be fair and impartial. However, public perception in a public arena carries a lot of weight. "Mosca's comment was removed because he used his language in violation of the TOS despite his protestations in other threads that he has tried to remain civil, you see perhaps there are inconsistancies on both sides...oh but that couldn't be could it?" Well, if the comment was left (and IIRC you removed your comment stating you deleted Mosca's - further removing the evidence) then perhaps I would have seen the context and agreed with you. However, when you censor someone, then remove all evidence of ever doing it, what are people to expect? If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing. "Now some people can bleat and wail and moan all they like...in fact I expect they still will...but that's it for me with this particular discussion." Ahh, so when people challenge the mods/admins in a civil manner trying to get information, the best thing to do is bow out? Personally, I could care less about how you do things or the motivations. If you cannot see that this is trying to be a "learning thread" on public perception/relations, perhaps working with the public is not your calling. "There are a hell of a lot more real injustices in the world that maybe you should think about addressing first if you are so passionate about inconsistencies." The usual cop out: denigrate or try to invalidate the current discussion by introducing subject matter that is not handled on the site. Show me the R'osity "World Hunger" or the "Battered Women and Children", etc, forum and I would be glad to discuss anything you wish within the context of the forum. I guess trying to stay on topic somehow negates the discussion because "there are other things in the world you should worry about". This kind of proves that the mods/admins "hear" the members, but they do not "listen".

Just tossing this in by way of an example, not suggesting that either of these was what was actually posted: Comment 1: Fuck's sake man, this fucking sucks. You must be a fucking retard to post this shit. Comment 2: Not bad, but the elbow is fucked up. Try some postwork. Comment 1 clearly violates the TOS, but comment 2, whilst not exactly being the model of politeness, doesn't.

A little background: I've known PunkClown since I started hanging out in the Photography forum sometime last year. From that experience I can tell you that he is not only a good photographer, but is generally a jovial and good natured person with a sense of humor. I was actually quite surprized to discover, recently, that he was a moderator. I was even more surprized when I saw his comment in Legume's gallery, because it seemed to run against my perception of his character. We all get angry sometimes and lose our sense of humor, and that I reasoned, seemed to be what was happening with PunkClown. It would be one thing to quietly and dispassionately remove a TOSable gallery comment, but to also post a comment stating that you had done so, and were debating taking the image down as well sounded very much like a threat; the kind of threat that has a "chilling effect" on speech/art. I mean, if you're debating whether to pull an image or not, fine, but what's the point in telling everyone before you've made a decision? I got the impression from PunkClown's comment that he was getting a bit too personally involved. I started this thread for two equally weighted reasons. One was that I really would like a clarification on what's concidered appropriate behavior here. I come from a part of the net where people are much more "harsh" with each other, and am used to taking some lumps (maybe I should become a mod :-), but I also believe that when in Rome one should do as the Romans do; I just needed a clarification on what, exactly, the Romans do. My other reason for starting this thread was indeed to "tweek" PunkClown; to be just a bit sarcastic in order to get PunkClown to consider/debate his actions in an actual forum rather than in a gallery where one is only allowed a single comment. Perhaps that was imprudent of me. So for myself in the future, perhaps I should IM a mod with complaints and questions privately, and as well, mods would be wiser to IM offenders privately with their intent and reasons. Perhaps in this specific case it would've been wiser to give Mosca a chance to remove and re-write his own comment using tamer language. Ah well, I guess you can't be human without occasionally being imprudent. And that goes for both PunkClown and I. And P.S. I still think PunkClown is a good guy.

"I just needed a clarification on what, exactly, the Romans do." Eat chicken legs, vomit and bugger each other. Or was that the Ancient Greeks?

Thanks Asalina, you did get me thinking about what I said and I as much as admitted I was incorrect in the comment about removing Legume's image. This is all I have been trying to achieve, to let people see I am human, admit it and move on to more constructive isssues. It is not humanly possible to be consistent with every thread or comment or image...it just can't be done by one person. I do try and deal with any problems or complaints IM'd to me. CyberStretch it seems you would like to negate my personal life out of the equation "Your personal life, IMHO, is irrelevant", but it comes along for the ride with me, as everyones experiences and perceptions go along with them in all their worldly interactions ..."perhaps working with the public is not your calling." perhaps that explains why I have been working as a nurse for the last 22 years very much with the public? It definitely could explain somewhat my perceptions of relative problems in the world. I am not trying to denigrate your issues, I am merely pointing out there ARE greater injustices & tradgedies in the world. Read 'em and weep. I have listened, considered all comments and believe me I have learnt from this particular thread. I thank Asalina for "tweeking" me a bit, it never hurts to consider your actions in the reflective light of others perceptions of them. :-)>

PC sez in #35:

Thanks Asalina, you did get me thinking about what I said
and I as much as admitted I was incorrect in the comment
about removing Legume's image.

Yes you did, and I appreciate that.

I know you're a good moderator, PC. After all, how can
one be censorious and be a Frank Zappa fan at
the same time? The two just don't mix! :-)

Happy New Year

The way I see it folks is that we have to work with a very incomplete map of the rules and regulations in Rosity, no dot with an arrow marked YOU ARE HERE, one follows the map as best one can only to be randomly mugged along the way by disparate upholders of ill-defined local laws for each province we pass through. Depending on time of day, general mood of the moment, personal outlook of individual officials or lack of clarification from central government, one may be given a warning to take a care next time or are censured and banished summarily for ones sins. I can attest that PunkClown is as genuine and well meaning a guy as any I know here. However!, that don't mean he is immune from being "tweaked" when he enters the fray. Zappa!... Rosity is a bit like the folks in the piano trying to evade the pigs, and I think I need one of those Moist Boxes.

"It is not humanly possible to be consistent with every thread or comment or image...it just can't be done by one person." It depends on how you operate. If you base your decisions off your beilef system(s), it will generally be consistent; usually only taking into consideration growth with experience. However, censoring one member's comment while there are 149 others that also should probably be looked into is what I see the problem being. If you consider "fuck" to be an objectionable word, then it should not be allowed anywhere regardless of context. If it is good enough for Comment 2, then it is good enough for Comment 1; since both are personal opinions. Of course, if Comment 1 was removed due to reasons other than the use of "fuck" (like the blatant TOS violation), then that should be the reason stated and not "used a certain Anglo-Saxon variation of 'fornication'"; which would imply that it was the word, and not the context or content that was the problem. PC, I am sorry, but your personal life is of no interest to me; as I am sure my personal life is of no interest to you. Perhaps Mosca's personal life contributed to his making the comment? Would that make it any different? Considering the enforcement of the TOS, etc, in the past, I would have to say that most times members are not given enough chance to plead their case before the punishment(s) is/(are) meted out. So, Mosca's personal life has no merit nor was it an excuse for his comment, nor should anyone elses be considered as such. What does matter, is what is done here, regardless of what "outside influences" are at work. Would you allow your personal life to interfere with the care/treatment you give as a nurse? I surely hope not. Take the same approach here. Here you are not a person, but a mod, a R'osity Representative; just as I am not a person, but a R'osity member.

CyberStretch...Here (and everywhere) no matter what you would like to believe, I am a person. Here I am also a mod, just as you are a person and also a R'osity member...to suggest otherwise is to diminish our humanity ~ what are we, robots? To try and clarify once again: I deleted Mosca's comment because it was a violation of the TOS, "it was not even remotely related to critical feedback" and it also happened to contain "destructive, abusive, defamatory communications" (from the TOS) and yes the word "fuck" was involved, but that has become a distraction from the main point I think...I just didn't express the reason for removing Mosca's clearly at the time, or in my first reply to ASalina, that (along with other wrong-thinking that I have discussed already) is entirely my responsiblity and I have apologised for all my misdemenours, I would have hoped. As I have said, I have learnt from this exchange! Can we now move on to more constructive discussion?
:-|> ??
And to Artemis & Brendan, thankyou for your kind words. To you and to all of the people here at R'osity, I hope you have a Happy, Safe and creative New Year.

If anyone has learned anything, then I guess this could be called a constructive discussion. We will have to agree to disagree about how much the personal life should intervene. It is a matter of differing perspectives that I can see we are not eye-to-eye on.

CyberStretch, I agree with you: personal life should not intervene or affect decision-making while performing one's duties, as a moderator, or whatever you do. But it should also be aknowledged that we are all human.
I would like to explain one more time what I stated in post #41: "I deleted Mosca's comment because it was a violation of the TOS" ~ so please understand that my personal life had nothing to do with that particular decision.
I should have said that from the start, but I was also addressing the points Asalina had rightly brought up for me to consider about the widespread use (and censuring) of different language. My comment on what I do in private company as opposed to the company of strangers in regards to language use was simply an example of how some people (including myself) try to regulate their language use in different company.
Also my statement that I had "a real life" relates to the fact that I would not have time in the day to examine every incidence of language use. I would have to monitor every forum post and image post 24/24 to do this, it is just not (as I have said) humanly possible - and (as I also said), that is assuming I would want to do this. Anthony Appleyard mentioned the problems involved in automation of these sort of functions, but as I don't want to see across the board language censorship anyway, for me the point is moot. My comment in #41 relating to the "I am a person thing" simply was a statement on my concept of identity...how can you be one person in "personal life" and someone or something different on a site such as R'osity? (unless you deliberately try to portray yourself as someone else by creating a clone)
To summarise:

1. I deleted Mosca's comment because it was a violation of the TOS.
2. I don't want to examine or police every incidence of language use, only those that are destructive in that they violate the TOS, and that includes incidences of this behavior that don't use "naughty" words. As always if anyone notices this happening, they should IM a mod or admin who happens to be logged on at the time.
   Once again, have a very Happy New Year.
   :-)>

"I would have to monitor every forum post and image post 24/24 to do this, it is just not (as I have said) humanly possible - and (as I also said), that is assuming I would want to do this." This could easily be scripted and reports generated or posts flagged. That way, you take the time it takes to look for potential TOS violating posts and place them on the DB and not the person. All you would have to do is view the flagged posts or the report at your leisure. By not coding the system to take action and make the decisions, instead allowing for human (mod/admin) intervention, you avoid Anthony Appleyard's Yahoo! problem. The images could be limited to "new" images uploaded after the initial review process or flagging the images internally showing that they have been checked and any unflagged images need to be reviewed. Then, anyone who has access could review more images and it would not land on one person to do so. These may be modifications R'osity might want to implement if this type of behavior is unaccceptable. It should allow more instances of TOS violations to be found and taken care of, minimizing or eliminating the appearance of censorship and increasing the amount of consistency in enforcing the TOS; in effect, killing three birds with one stone.

That is an interesting and constructive idea Cyberstretch, but what images/posts would be "flagged"? ~ what are we using as a "template" to alert us of potential TOS violations? I'm no programmer so I am not sure if it is possible to code a parser that can pick out comments that are negative or invole trolling for example...

"but what images/posts would be 'flagged'?" Images would be the toughest, since I presume there is no scanning/pattern matching software that would be accurate/affordable/available enough to use. Therefore, to begin with, you could flag all existing images as being "ok" (or whatever variation) and any new images as needing to be reviewed. Posts could be flagged based off keywords, such as vulgarities, and specific terms used in the TOS that might imply a violation or at least merit some further investigation. For example: "fuck you" (case insensitive) could be one potential for the keyword list; since "fuck you" hardly ever describes anything constructive. However, "fuck", by itself, may be flagged with a lower priority since some uses of the word may be acceptable; trying to focus more on finding TOS violations vs acceptable uses of common words/phrases. Databases/scripts can also use pattern matching, so you could add "f?ck" and "fuck%" (or whatever the specific database/script uses) to limit the number of entries in the keyword list and avoid having to put in "fuck", "fucks", "fucker", fucking", etc. It could be coded to check the posts prior to posting, after posting, or when the post is archived, etc; the decision would have to be made which would be more fruitful and less resource-intensive or disruptive to the service. Generally, I would have the script run during a lull in activity; which could also be scripted (ie, IF MembersOnline <= 500 THEN run, ELSE wait). I would suggest categorizing and prioritizing the reports based upon what R'osity staff feels are more serious offenses. Ie, trolling may be more serious than advertising in a forum, so you would want to tend to the trolls first (higher priority); or have someone working on trolls and another working on advertising. Being mods/admins, I am sure that there are other such keywords or catch phrases that could be used that you have come across during your tenure. Allowing mods/admins to add to the list of keywords, it would be possible to expand the search generating closer hits. You could even add in a keyword/phrase for members to post that would trigger mod action if found. Or add a checkbox to the forum threads in which members could alert mods/admins by flagging the posts vs having to IM them. Although "member flagging" has the potential for absue and misuse, it could be a TOS violation with ramifications if used improperly; like yelling "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane. If the checkbox idea is implemented, you could prioritize by the number of participating members who have "flagged" the thread, meaning that more members are concerned and request mod/admin intervention. I would suggest having the "flag" visible only in the mod/admin views; that way, confidentiality would probably produce more honest feedback and less retaliation. You could further enhance this by having a dropdown of common violations vs the checkbox so the members would be able to classify the "flag" and make it easier on mods to determine what to action first. No system would be failsafe nor foolproof nor would they be likely to work out of the box. However, adding the functionality to expand would help a great deal. By having the database, and perhaps members, do some of the more menial and mundane tasks, it would free up human resources to be alerted to or go after more potential TOS violations. How is this performed at the present? Is there a series of steps mods/admins take that could potentially be "reduced" to code? Again, I would caution not to automate the disciplinary actions due to potential mishaps with the script (like the Freebie removal script not so long ago).

Whew! Sounds way too complicated for me, but I'm sure a programmer would understand what would be involved! I'm not sure if the system isn't working just as effectively as an "automated" process would now however; usually if there is a troll, the person who has been trolled IM's a mod or admin, who then asseses each case on an individual basis (often in consultation with other mods/admins to get as wide a view as possible) If anything is reported as "offensive" in the galleries or forums, that too is treated in the same way. As you said, no system is foolproof or failsafe, but I'm honestly not sure the present system is so flawed as to need such an extensive overhaul. The whole premise of the "149 more cleanings I had to do" which somehow expanded to "checking every thread or post" (so as not to appear inconsistent) was initially based on ASalina's questioning me on censuring one particuilar word, and thus may be a bit distracting. I did try to clarify that I wasn't interested in across the board censorship of "vulgaraties"/swear words, only if used in a destructive context, and this brings us to the point that there are many members who are extremely erudite in their use of language and could "troll" without swearing or indeed triggering off any flags an automated process would pick up. It is a very complex and involved process it seems to me. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis of the whole idea CyberStretch, I do appeciate the time and consideration you have put into this thread. I apologise to all if I appeared overly defensive (or petulant) at times but I felt as if my points about "context" and being a "person" etc. were not being heard, or at least being very misunderstood. Language systems are so complex and open to misinterpretation, that this is bound to happen whenever a group of individuals attempt communication. Perhaps if we were just robots transferring binary information regarding external variables with no involvement of emotional overtones or personal viewpoints & attitudes then the paths of communication would be free of misinterpretation (but surely very boring!)- as it is, we are human beings dealing with other human beings, with all the joys and pitfalls that comes with that!
Have a Very Happy and Healthy New Year all, no doubt we will continue to communicate in 2003!
:-D>

I second the Happy an Healthy and throw in a little Wealthy! Best wishes to all.

I would suggest starting off with "Member Flagging", as that would be easiest to implement, and still caution that it would be the easiest to abuse/misuse. All in all, the entire system could be developed rather easily for someone who knows what they are doing.

All that would be needed for Member Flagging:

1. One additional field in the DB for the forum posts and gallery comments [ie, tos_flag]
2. A Dropdown with TOS violations (which I think is the better idea). Example:

Select TOS Flag Advertisement Copyright Infringement Criminal Activity Flame War Personal Attack Trolling Unacceptable Image Warez Request

These could be easily added to as new TOS items come up.

1. A DB query adding up the number of flags per post; to get a member-ranking of "offensiveness".
2. An internal decision on how to rank/prioritize and respond to the flags.
3. An addition to the mod/admin view with these "Flag Filters" so that posts/comments requiring mod/admin intervention could be prominently placed for action.
4. An addition to the TOS describing the ramifications of abusing/misusing the flagging system.

I would note that if a member just Flags a post/comment, that **NOTHING shows up in the public view; unless a comment is added or other post/comment specific information is provided. That way, you achieve anonymity fostering more honest reporting and less potential for public retaliation.

This would:
**- Relieve stress on the IM system,

• Allow all mods/admins to see the flagged posts vs only one mod/admin getting an IM,
• Free Up mod/admin time,
• Allow members to participate,
• Partially absolve mods/admins from adverse reprecussions since it would be the members doing the reporting, and
• Potentially reduce flamewars if members could flag the post and mods/admins took corrective action quicker

So, for a considerably little amount of work, R'osity has quite a lot to gain.

Consistency has to be maintained across the entire site; which is why it broadened to encompass all of the fora and galleries. R'osity is looked at as a whole, regardless that it is made up of individuals. Therefore, if any inconsistencies are observed, it is not only a reflection upon one mod/admin, but R'osity as a whole.

The mere fact that threads like these are continually appearing suggests that R'osity has to "find a better way" (ie, the current system is "broken"); therefore, from an outsiders POV, the system is flawed enough to, at least, partially redesign to achieve the goals easier.

Technology is a wonderful thing, but many fail to utilize it to its full potential. Make the servers do the work they were intended to do (menial, mundane, and repetitive tasks) and free up human resources to tackle the problems that require intervention.

Automation does not resolve every crisis, but if used properly it can reduce the overall occurances of crises.

kbennett, "Comment 1: Fuck's sake man, this fucking sucks. You must be a fucking retard to post this shit. Comment 2: Not bad, but the elbow is fucked up. Try some postwork. Comment 1 clearly violates the TOS, but comment 2, whilst not exactly being the model of politeness, doesn't." It isn't the word fuck or fucking in comment one that makes it a violation of the TOS. Change it to... God's sake man, this surely sucks. You must be a retard to post this stuff. ...and it is still a personal insult which is against rosity's TOS. And, although I think rosity gets a little overzealous in its enforcement of the personal insult thing, that's their rule. If the word fuck/fucking/fucked is allowed, it's allowed. If it's not, it should be allowed anywhere no matter what context.

oops. Last sentence should read: If it's not, it shouldn't be allowed anywhere, no matter what context.

That'd surely be fucked. ;]

Yeah, you're right. It wasn't the best example I ever came up with.