This thread has been split off from the slur question thread, as while it's a valid discussion, it's only tangentially related to the contents of the filter. To avoid stifling the filter discussion, it's been moved here.

(The first few posts of the exchange have been left intact to provide context for the rest of the discussion; please don't restart the filter argument here.)

--Althalus

Original post by GobO_Fire after the break:



"Words you can't say on TV" was our primary criteria. Then we looked at words to see if they had a "legit" meaning along with a slur or curse meaning. That's why, for example, dick, dyke, and pussy aren't in the filter - even though nobody ever uses pussy cat except to get a giggle as though they were a 14-year-old boy.

"Bitch" passed the first test - it was used on network TV at least as far back as the late 70s, early 80s when it was used in an episode of M*A*S*H.

"Bitch" also passes the second test. Even ignoring the "female dog" definition of bitch - which, again, nobody but 14-year-old boys looking for a giggle uses - bitch has the use Door mentioned. It also can be used to mean complain (ie, "bitch and moan" about something). For those reasons, it was left out of the filter.

Just because something is not in the filter doesn't mean it's always OK to use. If you call somebody a bitch you're probably going to get your post edited.

The words "whore" and "slut" are more tame than bitch, and both can have conversational purposes beyond being used as insults.

edit: to give some context for how they could be used...

"Slut shaming" is a very valid (and mature) topic to discuss, especially if talking about something such as the Steubenville Rape case from this past summer. There are other uses of "slut" too, but I'm desperately in need of caffeine...

"Whore" is a legit word to mean streetwalker. The fact that it has a negative connotation to it doesn't change the legit definition. "Whore" is also used in vernacular to mean somebody who does something to excess. See the second definition at Urban Dictionary.

Both words are just like bitch or dick or dyke - use them in the proper context, and all is fine. Go around and insulting somebody by calling them slut or whore and you can expect to be edited.

The MPAA is also notoriously sexist, homophobic, and prudish in its outlook, and TV and movie ratings reflect that bigotry. It's not a very good standard to go by.

You could make the argument, and people did if you recall, that "****" has legitimate uses. If you were sympathetic to my argument that such uses were trumped by the hateful nature of the word's use in other contexts, making it more valuable to filter the word as a show of intent, you should be sympathetic to such arguments here.

Also, I'm sorry, but "whore" is never not a derogatory word. That's just an incorrect argument. There's no "legitimate" use in the sense that there's no use that isn't denigrating to people in the sex industry. Whether or not you think it passes your first criteria is a different story, but yeah, sorry, it's not "legitimate" just because lots of people who aren't sex workers use it. Again, you could just as easily say that "****" is a legitimate word to mean homosexual. The fact that it has a negative connotation to it doesn't change the legit definition. Except... the negative connotation is all that matters.

The fact that users are now bringing it up as something that makes them uncomfortable, which was the entire rationale behind censoring "****," is enough to at least spur discussion, which you seem to be kind of implying isn't going to take place, Fire.

I do agree here, as a general statement. It's one of the better reasons to avoid references to film ratings when discussing stuff that should or shouldn't be around the boards - what the MPAA allows James Cameron to use ("OMG! Boobs!") are verboten for other film makers, for example.

Now, that said... while the rating systems are inconsistent (if you want to be nice) or rigged (if you're a cynic), the FCC is pretty consistent about what it fines broadcasters for. And so that's where the "it's allowed on broadcast TV argument comes from.



Frankly, if I was looking to squelch discussion, I would've locked the thread and simply said no.



This is a decent argument, but it also extends to words like the f-bomb. I don't know if that was covered by your second sentence or not (probably). So while "artistic license" is something we'll keep in mind, if the final decision is that whore and/or slut should get filtered then it'll be like the f-bomb - something you have to work around in fiction.

And to be clear, it is under discussion. Shortly after this thread was started a thread was started in the mod forum to discuss. The ultimate decision is up to Bun - this is her site. All we can do is point out the pros and cons to adding it to the filter, and the best way to do that is to keep this talk open.

I have to say, I really don't understand why we have these conversations if everything is ultimately up to Bun, and if the ultimate decision happens in a secret, parallel conversation open to mods only.

It seems like keeping the conversation going is really just bread and circuses, frankly. It's not a show of good faith.

We have these conversations because more points of view provide more information, more opinions, upon which to make an informed decision.

...Decisions that are made in discussions carried out by people on only one side of the issue, where arguments can be introduced that the other side cannot oppose because the other side can't see them being introduced. Decisions that ultimately are made by one person that is qualified only in that she is fronting the bill for the forum and badgered everyone to get on board.

Again, this doesn't seem like a good faith effort to gather "more information [and] more opinions." It seems more like a way of establishing an illusion of transparency and open debate.

My issue is that arguments can be introduced among you folks that we don't have access to and therefore can't effectively argue against, especially when, you know, our arguments on this thread aren't necessarily even being responded to at all.

Even knowing that Ravenclaw is among you doesn't necessarily make me feel better about the fact that I can't see the actual conversation, because as much as I love him dearly and think he's brilliant, I don't expect him to think of every angle that I can think of, just as I wouldn't expect to be able to think of every argument he could make. So, even though I think broadly speaking the two of us are in agreement on just about everything, I'm not satisfied with him speaking for me.

Not to mention the fact that it sets up a dynamic where any and every criticism can be is being responded to with "we're talking about it." You can perhaps see how from the perspective of someone who ISN'T talking about it, that seems less like an assurance and more like a blow-off.

It's one step towards the same exact kind of opacity and unilateral decision making that made Salvation and Wizards so intolerable.

Well a number of folks are currently out of reach due to this thing called life ( I have no clue what that is) but i suspect that come the week, more responses form the mod team will pour in and after looking over the discussion we had on this topic in the link provided I fail to see any new arguments. If there is a new argument that wasn't covered feel free to point it out to me

I don't think that addresses Keeper's main concern, namely that regardless of what mods are discussing in the hidden Mod Valley, other people don't see that.

If an issue comes up, mods can just say: "We're discussing it with the team," but that doesn't give the community any real information. Are they discussing how they want to handle censorship? How to handle slurs? How to handle people bringing attention to the issue? What words to add to the naughty list?

For all the community knows, mods are just discussing the fact that this is an issue within the community. Or gossiping about Keeper's mum.

Or gossiping about Keeper's wild love life.

I mean, for all I know, you're NOT gossiping about my wild love life, and that would be heartbreaking, frankly.

But yes, Yxoque is doing an excellent job of just speaking for me here and making exactly the arguments that I would make. If only Yxoque was a mod!!!

(One of these days I will stop allowing my sense of ironic humor to undermine my own arguments. One day. Not today, but one day.)

You're right that a private discussion allows the introduction of arguments that normal posters can't see and therefore can't address. But for some of those arguments, there's no alternative--something like how frequently a potential filter word is being misused and moderated out isn't something that can be raised in public, for example, because normal users aren't privy to the information on which the argument is based.

And yes, the final say does belong to the person paying the bills because she's the one paying the bills. But really, is there anyone else more qualified? It's not like we have many experts on the effects of language filters on forum communities just lying around, and we certainly aren't about to pay to hire one. Even if miss_bun delegated the final decision, she'd still be delegating to someone with approximately the same credentials as herself, and her choice of exactly who to delegate to would have a huge impact on final outcome.

I understand the frustration you're feeling. It's never fun to be outside the curtain trying to figure out whether or not your voice is being heard--I've been in that position all too many times with WotC, even when I supposedly had the inside scoop as a VCL. But as long as there's a division between staff and posters--and there has to be such a division--there's no way to avoid it.

If you want details about the behind-the-curtain conversation, I'd be happy to provide what I can, but frankly this is by far the more extensive conversation; I pretty much haven't been online at all over the weekend, and what little time I have been able to scrounge has been devoted working out other matters (related to the mod policy thread). We've almost gotten to the point where everyone's chimed in with their initial opinion. Almost.

Why can't it? Even if we can't see precisely how many times someone or something has been modded and why, at least some of us have sufficient intellectual capabilities to do such amazingly arcane feats as "infer."
Almost certainly.
Yes, there really is. It might be counter-intuitive, but, generally, the way to solve the problem of people wanting to see a conversation is to show them the conversation. Shocking, I know, but it work

You still seem to be concluding that this must be delegated to someone. Why exactly is anything resembling a democratic process not being considered?

I'm also not sure why "we have information you don't" translates to "we need to discuss this information in secret." Is the information on how many censored words are being used really that sensitive and compromising? I doubt it very much. Does it take that much effort to rehash it? I suspect you have to do that anyway in order to communicate your arguments effectively, so I can't imagine it's significantly more work.

If you are already telling me "I am happy to share this information" then you have already nullified any need to have the discussion itself in private. The only reason for having the conversation in private is to enhance the air of mystery and unassailable moderator power, which is, frankly, extremely obnoxious.

Well, beyond that I truly do feel I have a responsibility to ensure that you guys are doing your jobs, because ultimately I was the person who decided to endorse this as a viable alternative to the Wizards boards for my people. Even if I've officially handed over the reigns of power to Yxoque, I want to make sure you guys are doing right by my community.

And beyond that, I think you folks have a responsibility to be transparent in how you're engaging with us and with each other. It's not about it not being fun. It's about whether or not you're living up to the promise of a more transparent moderation system than what we had at Wizards.

Ok, so, let's unpack that a little.

Why?

I mean, you've been a big advocate for uniform accounts, and now you're advocating for a hidden mod lair. Why? What evidence do you have that these things are necessary? You're saying "there has to be a division" but all of that is vague weasely language. How much of a division? What forms must it take? Has to be in order to accomplish what ends?



I don't know how I feel about being on the same side as Cyclone Joker and Planeshaper on this issue, I really don't...

Among other things, the "hidden mod lair" is used to record a copy of posts that were edited (so we have what it looked like before the edit took place); it's used to store a copy of "deleted" posts and threads, again so there is a copy of it. It's used to track infractions earned, when they were earned, why they were earned, and who gave it out. Those are all things that can't be done in public.

miss bun has already ran a forum before which people really liked and zammm was a wizo before

so I really don't see how anyone could think that they are bad at this job and/or want to mess with everyone

Welcome to the Snark Side. We have cookies.
Cool. Why does it have to go beyond that? Why can't you talk about stuff that directly affects everyone here to such a degree in the metaboard? It seems to be exactly what the place is here for.

I am no longer feeling conflicted about being on the same side as Cyclone Joker. [munches on cooking sarcastically]

I'd also like to hear what the rationale behind this is, actually.

Explain why it is a bad practice. Every forum I have been on has had it's own hidden mod/admin forum for them to discuss stuff. Precedent has been set by others and we follow it. If you have a proposal that is better than this system and reasons why it is a problem, present them.

This is a four year old's response, you understand that right? You are effectively covering your ears and then saying "I can't hear you so I don't have to do what you say because I don't want to!"

I mean, really, how dare you behave as though I've offered no rationale, no argument, no alternate proposal?

This is a really disgusting display, and it's just convincing me more and more that already at least some of the mods here are far to enamored of their own unearned aura of power.

I don't get why a hidden mod forum is so bad

its boring as ****

seriously I've been in one before **** nothing happens