Please note, the following are site rules -

Personal criticism
Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’.

Swearing
We have a swear word filter activated. If you would like to have specific words removed or added to the filter, please raise the issue on the feedback board.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned!
This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker.

That would be fine IF the ruling was applied impartialy but in actual fact the rightards here, Longy and Armpit in particular, can call other posters idiots and fools all day every day. I called someone a ditz and copped a ban.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

That would be fine IF the ruling was applied impartialy but in actual fact the rightards here, Longy and Armpit in particular, can call other posters nice people and fools all day every day. I called someone a ditz and copped a ban.

Thank you, for raising an issue!

Of course, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on, but not necessarily everything.

can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change idiot to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:27pm:

can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change nice person to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things

Thank you, for raising an issue!

That said, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on & in this instance the Spell Checker is here to stay, as it does act as a deterrent, for those who may otherwise "cross the line" and as we know, everything has limits.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:27pm: can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change nice person to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things Thank you, for raising an issue! That said, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on & in this instance the Spell Checker is here to stay, as it does act as a deterrent, for those who may otherwise "cross the line" and as we know, everything has limits.

it's not a deterrent ..if I want to write id i ot, its very easy to find ways around the spellchecker. All the spellchecker does is catch out those who are unaware and make things difficult to read, and confuse newcomers .

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:45pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:27pm: can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change nice person to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things Thank you, for raising an issue! That said, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on & in this instance the Spell Checker is here to stay, as it does act as a deterrent, for those who may otherwise "cross the line" and as we know, everything has limits. it's not a deterrent ..if I want to write nice person, its very easy to find ways around the spellchecker. All the spellchecker does is catch out those who are unaware and make things difficult to read, and confuse newcomers .

As stated in the original post John -
"Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned!
This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker."

Of course, the Spell Checker can be updated, But "perceptive people" may not want to occupy their time, doing more than is necessary, just because others may want to push the limits.

Cheers & have a good day!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:52pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:45pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:27pm: can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change nice person to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things Thank you, for raising an issue! That said, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on & in this instance the Spell Checker is here to stay, as it does act as a deterrent, for those who may otherwise "cross the line" and as we know, everything has limits. it's not a deterrent ..if I want to write nice person, its very easy to find ways around the spellchecker. All the spellchecker does is catch out those who are unaware and make things difficult to read, and confuse newcomers . As stated in the original post John - "Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker." Of course, the Spell Checker can be updated, But "perceptive people" may not want to occupy their time, doing more than is necessary, just because others may want to push the limits. Cheers & have a good day!

I'm not suggesting you update the spellchecker daily, I'm suggesting that you get rid of it. Its not a deterrent and no one to my knowledge has ever been banned for working around it. There really is no point in having it.

Perhaps you can tell me when was the last time someone was banned for avoiding the spell checker? just today I've seen about a dozen different instances of it. Yesterday there was one where FD posted just below it after, and the person keep posting after FD. Why are we pretending here?

To ban strong language that is part of the Australian idiom - "bloody" "bugger that" and so forth - would be tantamount to police state censorship.
To ban language that is lewd on the other hand, of which there is clearly more than an excess, is a moral duty.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

To ban strong language that is part of the Australian idiom - "bloody" "bugger that" and so forth - would be tantamount to police state censorship. To ban language that is lewd on the other hand, of which there is clearly more than an excess, is a moral duty.

the spellchecker even changes lame words like ijut just because some people are overly sensitive. It's not lewd or even a swear word.

Get real, Funnily enough, they're all proponents of free speech.  :D :D :D

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:02pm:

Please note, the following are site rules - Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. Swearing We have a swear word filter activated. If you would like to have specific words removed or added to the filter, please raise the issue on the feedback board. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker.

Ooops. I used the f-word the other day (reported in arsie's "abuse" thread). ;D

Goodness me.  This IS an Australian site, is it not?

In most cases, NO offence is meant and, IF we are all on our Best Behaviour and treat EVERYONE with "respect", and NEVER argue or use "naughty words",  the Forum will become .......... D.E.A.D.

Obviously, when one poster is "stalking" another and using "violent" words and so forth, they should be "told" to cease and desist.

Banning doesn't seem to work as those who have been given a LONG holiday return and continue on ..........  Plus I presume that "banning" is usually done because "somebody" got their knickers in a twist.  Pathetic.

Instead of TRYING to moderate the average Aussies and treat us all as idjits .... why not just WARN MEMBERS via a PM to pull their heads in or "else"?

OR you could just let it go on as a FULL BUN FIGHT ... best one wins.  ;D ;D

Actually, no harm is done and ANYONE who complains about something somebody said to just an ID on a Public Forum, probably should look at themselves.

I regard "racist" or "islamophobe" as an insult but I wouldn't expect it to be banned and I wouldn't go running to some Mod about it.
Australians settle minor disputes among themselves.

So you don’t mind “harridan” Naffy?

What about “beldam?”

I'd have to look them up and I suspect I wouldn't bother.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

I'd have to look them up and I suspect I wouldn't bother.

I think 'naffy' is Neferti ....I could be wrong

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:

So you don’t mind “harridan” Naffy? What about “beldam?”

I IGNORE anything you say, Monk.  You're the one who gets upset when somebody refers to you as a POOF.  ;D

You got upset at harridan not that long ago.

You responded to my question about harridan. Not very consistent, are you?

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:02pm:

Please note, the following are site rules - Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’.

Would that not be more accurately worded to say, ALL posters who participate in any kind of flame.... etc?

Clearly it does not matter who started it, however, what your point actually seems to say is that a poster chosing to respond (in their own defense as I have seen it claimed...) will be banned...

Also, no where do you mention how this will take place, which I have to say is somewhat misleading.

Are you suggesting that now, suddenly, mods are going to be proactive? Or still sit idly by and wait for a formal complaint to be put in place.

Personal abuse/criticism is remarkably clear and easy to identify - so the different standards argument is nothing short of a lame cop out to avoid being proactive.

Granted some may have a higher tolerance for accepting abusive comments - however that is not what the rule states, alludes to or even hints at...

Quite clearly the rule says: "Do not post personal criticism of other members."

Therefore, ALL mods must have some concept of what constitutes abuse - it is irrelevant what the target of said abuse is tolerant or intolerant of...

I put it to you that the bun fights we see fairly constantly are occurring exactly because that rule is not consistent with how the boards are moderated. Further, it is not consistent with the "dob in an abuser" process put in place by the board owner - ergo, you needed to make this post to remind members...

I would respectfully suggest that you, the other mods and board owner either need to rethink the wording of your rules, so that they more accurately reflect the board you are creating, OR, rethink the process as to whether you need to actually become a tad proactive or continue effectively sitting on your hands and acting arbitrarily...

"respectfully request"  ....  ;D ;D ;D

Sucking up gets nobody, no where.

Neferti wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 3:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 2:57pm: So you don’t mind “harridan” Naffy? What about “beldam?” I IGNORE anything you say, Monk.  You're the one who gets upset when somebody refers to you as a POOF.  ;D

I must admit the one area I remain two minds is the calling of someone as gay.

On numerous occasions Bobby and Monk are called out as being homosexual.
I don't know if they are or just because they are older men who live alone.

Question is - is calling someone gay abuse or not?
Many would find it offensive and many would find it offensive "gay" is an insult or abuse.

There are many who are proud of being gay.

In short I'm still not sure calling out people as gay is insulting or no.

It all underscores the perception argument.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Neferti wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 3:04pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 2:57pm: So you don’t mind “harridan” Naffy? What about “beldam?” I IGNORE anything you say, Monk.  You're the one who gets upset when somebody refers to you as a POOF.  ;D I must admit the one area I remain two minds is the calling of someone as gay. On numerous occasions Bobby and Monk are called out as being homosexual. I don't know if they are or just because they are older men who live alone. Question is - is calling someone gay abuse or not? Many would find it offensive and many would find it offensive "gay" is an insult or abuse. There are many who are proud of being gay. In short I'm still not sure calling out people as gay is insulting or no. It all underscores the perception argument.

When young I knew at least three Girls who’s Christian name was Gay and in common usage gay meant happy and carefree. The term was in common use.

I have typically found homosexual people to be marginally less gay than heterosexuals, they seem to always have something whinge about. Mostly nice people but just a fact.

In my view calling someone gay is not a bad thing, though mostly incorrect.

One of the only things I have against homosexuals is that they have hijacked this word and a gripe I have against the hetro community is that they allowed this word to be hijacked.

I suspect it was originally used as a joke because gay people tend to be anything but gay.

When the term gay was first used to indicate homosexuality it referred to all of them, later Lesbians were separated from the term, i.e. In the early iteration lesbians were also considered as gay and in fact it is possible that the term gay's was reference to the girls name and more specific to lesbians.

I see that even Longy's signature word has been banned.

Well, we now all know “ditz” is a word deserving of hellfire or banning but what about “beldam harridan?” Dickens has all these lovely if archaic words I love using.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:52pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:45pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 1:27pm: can you remove the swear filter? who's bright idea was it to change nice person to 'nice person' anyway? It's not even swearing .... you people are overly sensitive and should get out from your fantasy world where everyone only ever says nice things Thank you, for raising an issue! That said, people do have differing "perceptions", so somethings may be acted on & in this instance the Spell Checker is here to stay, as it does act as a deterrent, for those who may otherwise "cross the line" and as we know, everything has limits. it's not a deterrent ..if I want to write nice person, its very easy to find ways around the spellchecker. All the spellchecker does is catch out those who are unaware and make things difficult to read, and confuse newcomers . As stated in the original post John - "Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker." Of course, the Spell Checker can be updated, But "perceptive people" may not want to occupy their time, doing more than is necessary, just because others may want to push the limits. Cheers & have a good day!

Something like this, do you mean?


Quote:

It's a total sh"thole if you want my view. The first thing I do is leave and head south on the I-5.

What about all the “more ons?” Plenty of ways to get around the spellchecker that are used and used without sanctions.

As to the words “gay” or “poof” (as used by the harridan Naffy a little earlier here) I consider that when applied to me they are intended to insult me.

The swear filter is in need of some adjustment. It's kind of silly how a word that means "poo" is in the filter but "bullshit" is not.

And why are so many less objectionable insult words translated to "nice person"?

As for personal abuse, seems some posters here are protected species.

Name them then.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

As to the words “gay” or “poof” (as used by the harridan Naffy a little earlier here) I consider that when applied to me they are intended to insult me.

I have never insinuated that you were a homosexual but if you continue to label me a harridan, I might.  ;)

All the blokes here call each other "poofs", I presume it is supposed to be an insult when they are losing an argument.  ;D

Oh, and "nice people" used to be filtered as "fluffy bunny" elsewhere.  ;D

Aussie wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 10:59am:

Something like this, do you mean? Quote: It's a total sh"thole if you want my view. The first thing I do is leave and head south on the I-5.

What is wrong with calling California a "shithole"? Hey, that doesn't seem to be filtered like "poo" is.  ;D

Who set up this filter thing anyway?

Neferti wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 10:59am: Something like this, do you mean? Quote: It's a total sh"thole if you want my view. The first thing I do is leave and head south on the I-5. What is wrong with calling California a "shithole"? Hey, that doesn't seem to be filtered like "poo" is.  ;D Who set up this filter thing anyway?

I did, of course.

Aussie wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 10:59am: Something like this, do you mean? Quote: It's a total sh"thole if you want my view. The first thing I do is leave and head south on the I-5. What is wrong with calling California a "shithole"? Hey, that doesn't seem to be filtered like "poo" is.  ;D Who set up this filter thing anyway? I did, of course.

OFF with the Gnomes, are you, arsie?  ;D

Neferti wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 4:11pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 3:09pm: Neferti wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 3:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 10:59am: Something like this, do you mean? Quote: It's a total sh"thole if you want my view. The first thing I do is leave and head south on the I-5. What is wrong with calling California a "shithole"? Hey, that doesn't seem to be filtered like "poo" is.  ;D Who set up this filter thing anyway? I did, of course. OFF with the Gnomes, are you, arsie?  ;D

No, really....I set that filter up.  FD and I share access to the 'owner only' panels.  Weren't you told?

http://josephinepennicott.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/185499_403677113019800_1201425758_n.jpg

Is “tosser” worse than “ditz” or is the author a protected species here?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1452570862/30

Rules should be applied  fairly to all. I do not think that they are fairly applied at all at present.

Ways around the new swear filter already happening:

“the village  id iot”

Do not post complaints about moderation on the feedback board. This will result in your suspension from the feedback board and/or the member run board in question.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

Do not post complaints about moderation on the feedback board. This will result in your suspension from the feedback board and/or the member run board in question.

Sure, take it up with the OP though, he after all, invited the "feedback" by making the OP in the feedback board...

Now I realise that there is a fine line between complaint and actual feedback - given our mods appear to be somewhat arbitrary in their decision making (that's feedback by the by) I wonder would you mind clarifying your comment.

Do you really mean, discussing moderation standards, suggesting ideas about guidelines, rules and/or moderation can not be discussed in feedback? Mostly, this thread seems to be (apart from a few posts) actually feedback, so, your moderator response seems somewhat confusing.

Just giving you feedback there.  Cheers
  ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Neferti wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 3:04pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 2:57pm: So you don’t mind “harridan” Naffy? What about “beldam?” I IGNORE anything you say, Monk.  You're the one who gets upset when somebody refers to you as a POOF.  ;D I must admit the one area I remain two minds is the calling of someone as gay. On numerous occasions Bobby and Monk are called out as being homosexual. I don't know if they are or just because they are older men who live alone. Question is - is calling someone gay abuse or not? Many would find it offensive and many would find it offensive "gay" is an insult or abuse. There are many who are proud of being gay. In short I'm still not sure calling out people as gay is insulting or no. It all underscores the perception argument.

Really?

It is not that difficult to work out. The word Gay or gay is, of itself, not an offensive word to use, however, the context it is used in is consistently very obvious.

Do you really not understand context?

Example: If gay is used as a referrence to homosexuality and simultaneously as a put down then clearly that would be an abuse - honestly, a grade three student would pick that difference yet you claim you cannot...

Not only is that an attempt to criticise or put down another poster, worse, it is simultaneously being derrogatory to a significant section of our community.

Being proud of being Gay is only ever undermined when narrow minded bigots are allowed (even facilitated) in their use of the word deliberately as a put down. Given some of your other posts regarding other social/religious/political groupings Andrei, I am surprised you claim to be confused by the various uses of this particular word as a descriptor.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

Ways around the new swear filter already happening: “the village  id iot”

As already stated, in the original post -
Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned!
This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker.

Please note, this applies to all members & it is to be applied, in order to cut out/reduce to amount of abuse on this site!

I look forward, to the site members co-operation, in reducing abuse on this site, which includes NOT finding ways around the Spell Checker!

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 9:52am: Ways around the new swear filter already happening: “the village  id iot” As already stated, in the original post - Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker. Please note, this applies to all members & it is to be applied, in order to cut out/reduce to amount of abuse on this site! I look forward, to the site members co-operation, in reducing abuse on this site, which includes NOT finding ways around the Spell Checker!

Sound advice.  Reading this are you Mr Hicks?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

Do not post complaints about moderation on the feedback board. This will result in your suspension from the feedback board and/or the member run board in question.

i was discussing the subject PN introduced.

I also think everyone should be able to post in Feedback. Time any bans here are removed.

Nice little bit of grenade throwing there by the way PN and Andrei...

(golf clap).

There are no complaints about moderation, more a curiosity at the inconsistency and unreliability of it. Not a complaint, just an observation.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

Do not post complaints about moderation on the feedback board. This will result in your suspension from the feedback board and/or the member run board in question.

they should change the name of the 'feedback' board to 'technical issues' since it is obvious no one is interested in feedback.

That's feedback by the way and not a complaint :D :D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 6:37am:

The Australian Green being set of useful nice people.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker.

??

Edit: Oh, I note the sneaky edit after the fact...

No credibility, integrity or honesty shown there. Tell me, do you give poster's the same opportunity? Nah, just ban them eh...

Clearly honesty and integrity are not requirements to be a mod...

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 7:09am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:37am: The Australian Green being set of useful nice people. perceptions_now wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:58pm: Should anyone post abuse &/or swear, then you may find those posts deleted &/or you may be banned! This also includes posting in such a manner, as to avoid the site Spell Checker. ?? Edit: Oh, I note the sneaky edit after the fact... No credibility, integrity or honesty shown there. Tell me, do you give poster's the same opportunity? Nah, just ban them eh...

Can you clarify that?