05 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
…and the purpose of the chatbox is to force IMC down people's throats.

Fixed your typo.

kiasyn said:
There are actually interesting discussions that go on there sometimes…

In your opinion.

kiasyn said:
For those of you worried about the 4 or 5 lines it takes up, a 24" screen is currently only $239 on newegg.

This is my response to that. (note: the linked image contains language which may be offensive to you - click at your own risk)

kiasyn said:
By default the censor is enabled for guest viewers, for everyone else it is an opt-in feature.

So how about an opt-out/in option for the IMC box as a whole then?
05 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
[link=post]46618[/link]
05 Jun, 2010, Exodus wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Wow. Collapsable div, anyone?
Quote
By clicking here, you certify that you are at least 13 years of age and are mature
enough to view graphic text-based violence, suggestive, objectionable and almost certainly
offensive material. You also acknowledge that if you aren't, your overbearing bitch of
a mother won't find out and raise hell. If she does, you acknowledge that the MudBytes staff,
nor the users are in any way responsible for website, IMC or forum content;
even if they are responsible for it. You agree that if you get yelled at, it's your own fucking fault.
You also acknowledge that if this ever happens, your account will be deleted without warning.
Plus, we'll cripple and sterilize you.
05 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
[link=post]46618[/link]

While I agree that this is a good solution for right now, it's not one that's really idiot proof. A lot of people are really unable to follow even the simplest instructions and/or could not find their own asses with GPS-activated maps. A show/hide feature is really cool and a good way to show off your leet coding skillz. ;)
05 Jun, 2010, Lobotomy wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
[link=post]46618[/link]

I'm not installing some third party software into my browser just to fix an idiotic issue with a single website.
06 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm afraid the new system contains some disharmonies.

06 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
I for one am very glad and reassured that our children don't have to see talk of assumptions, classes, and the occasional assuaging of worry.
06 Jun, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Huh. Imagine that. Feature was rushed into active use without being tested first.

Hmm… Some of the MegaBot's features bear similarities… Must be more KiaCode..
06 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
woo 69!
06 Jun, 2010, Davion wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Huh. Imagine that. Feature was rushed into active use without being tested first.

Hmm… Some of the MegaBot's features bear similarities… Must be more KiaCode..


The censor feature is a part of stock QSF. No reason to think it wouldn't work.
06 Jun, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Kayle said:
Huh. Imagine that. Feature was rushed into active use without being tested first.

Hmm… Some of the MegaBot's features bear similarities… Must be more KiaCode..


The censor feature is a part of stock QSF. No reason to think it wouldn't work.


Except it doesn't work which is why it isn't active by default.
06 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
I hate to say it, but this is an attempt to treat the symptoms, not the illness.

If you guys really don't want swearing and vulgarity on ichat, you need to start policing it in a regular and consistent manner. I think most people here are reasonable enough, and if you remind them to stop being obnoxious when you see them do it, they probably will tone it down. Now, it may take a little while. I'm only human (drat!), so I do forget, and I do get overly worked up every so often. But if it's excessive, and I don't settle down when asked, that's when the ban hammer is appropriate.

The main thing is, it's gotta be consistent. Everyone needs to follow the same rules, and at least while people are adjusting, there'll need to be someone of authority to remind folks to behave on at random times of every day. I don't think people curse because they go out of their way to do so (unless they're being smart-***'s), but they talk how they talk, and if nobody objects, it becomes habit. ichat has been the wild-west for a while now, so it's a habit that needs to be broken, and that means constant reminders until people adapt.

I don't have a problem with that. As you guys pointed out, there is an "ifree" channel.

My point is, treat the cause, not the symptoms. Ideally, after a few verbal requests/warnings in channel, you should be able to block someone from the channel. If they try to circumvent, ban their mud or their IP as needed. I see no reason the router shouldn't be able to filter user@mud from a specific channel, or from IMC in general, by just not accepting packets with that origin. Banning an entire MUD should be a last resort if the guys tries to make alts to get around their ban.
06 Jun, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quix said:
If you guys really don't want swearing and vulgarity on ichat, you need to start policing it in a regular and consistent manner. I think most people here are reasonable enough, and if you remind them to stop being obnoxious when you see them do it, they probably will tone it down. Now, it may take a little while. I'm only human (drat!), so I do forget, and I do get overly worked up every so often. But if it's excessive, and I don't settle down when asked, that's when the ban hammer is appropriate.

The main thing is, it's gotta be consistent. Everyone needs to follow the same rules,


+1

I even supported the cleanup of ichat and did what I could to help, before Kiasyn flipped
out and threatened to take away Talon and Megabot if vulgarity was forbidden on it.

And firm-but-polite reasoning with offenders is how I keep the PG-13 channels on i3 clear of crud.
Believe it or not, when you reason with people, rather than act like a thin-skinned powertripper,
it gets good results. In my experience anyway.

Quix said:
and at least while people are adjusting, there'll need to be someone of authority to remind folks to behave on at random times of every day.


This I don't agree with so much. I'm the only official enforcer on i3 and I spend many many many
hours away from the channels. "Community guidance", as I'd term it, is a valuable adjunct to
fostering the right behavior, and from my reads of backscroll when I have the time, works pretty well.

Quix said:
My point is, treat the cause, not the symptoms. Ideally, after a few verbal requests/warnings in channel, you should be able to block someone from the channel. If they try to circumvent, ban their mud or their IP as needed. I see no reason the router shouldn't be able to filter user@mud from a specific channel, or from IMC in general, by just not accepting packets with that origin. Banning an entire MUD should be a last resort if the guys tries to make alts to get around their ban.


That wasn't working yesterday but it looks like it works today:

06 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
before Kiasyn flipped out and threatened to take away Talon and Megabot if vulgarity was forbidden on it.

As I recall, it was not just a threat, but something he actually did.

Back in the day, a different tune was being sung by the admins about what is and isn't appropriate. But the person who sings the tune gets to decide who isn't in the right key, so, eh…
07 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
Quix has nailed crux of it. Severity of punishment is not a deterrent to real life crime, and it isn't going to be here either. Consistency is key, and a prompt response is the only way to be seen as being consistently consistent. Crat's also right in that administrative response isn't a necessity when the community is willing to enforce its rules through social pressure. We're going to be far better off having a set of etiquette guidelines than we are draconian rules because if the community as a whole snubs someone, there's no way to interpret it as an admin on a mission. I would submit to you (my dear reader!) that the accepted standards of behavior among we the participants is not far off from the "official" rules currently in effect. The outrage stems from the perception that an active member of this community has been victimized by a Samsoneqsue application of sleight of rules.

People respond far less viscerally when you give them an opportunity to voice their opinions about things before forcing change upon them. (This is good common sense that is backed up with cold, hard research. Yay!) This string of dramallama (Why would anyone remove that tag? It was rather accurate. Shame on you!) will come up every time there is a change in enforcement policy with no proper vetting beforehand. It would be nice to hear some more admin reflections on this whole hullabaloo.
07 Jun, 2010, shasarak wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
To the Victorians, a woman who didn't wear gloves in public was improper, and an open collar was considered indecent.

I'd rather people (in general, everywhere) grow up and accept that everyone is different, and get over it. Put another way, you are only offended if you CHOOSE to take offense.

Fuck you, you asshole.

Presumably you'll only be offended by that if you choose to be.

But you see what I did there? I used offensive language for a specific reason, namely that I was actively setting out to be offensive. A desire for tolerance and maturity is all very well, but it shouldn't excuse people who deliberately go out of their way to cause offence. And the use of "offensive language" is, more often than not, an indication of precisely that.

Changing the subject….

quixadhal said:
If you guys really don't want swearing and vulgarity on ichat…

I don't think anyone was actually suggesting censoring ichat. The question was whether the uncensored and potentially alarming-to-newbies ichat text should appear on the front page of Mudbytes, or whether it risks showing Mudbytes in an unfavourable light. Personally I'd agree with the idea of making the feature an opt-in for logged-in users, with a mild disclaimer ("This will display material which is not hosted on Mudbytes, and over which we have no control. Past experience suggests it may well contain offensive language.")
07 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
But you see what I did there? I used offensive language for a specific reason, namely that I was actively setting out to be offensive. A desire for tolerance and maturity is all very well, but it shouldn't excuse people who deliberately go out of their way to cause offence. And the use of "offensive language" is, more often than not, an indication of precisely that.


I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think his real point is that he doesn't have any tolerance for people who gets offended by mere words, and neither should the rest of us. He's already said he thinks any type of discussion of the matter is tantamount to political correctness. I don't really share these views. I mostly think this is someone projecting their own level of tolerance onto other people as a baseline for what's acceptable. The point of moderation is presumably to keep stuff usable for as many parties as possible.
07 Jun, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Quote
But you see what I did there? I used offensive language for a specific reason, namely that I was actively setting out to be offensive. A desire for tolerance and maturity is all very well, but it shouldn't excuse people who deliberately go out of their way to cause offence. And the use of "offensive language" is, more often than not, an indication of precisely that.


I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think his real point is that he doesn't have any tolerance for people who gets offended by mere words, and neither should the rest of us. He's already said he thinks any type of discussion of the matter is tantamount to political correctness. I don't really share these views. I mostly think this is someone projecting their own level of tolerance onto other people as a baseline for what's acceptable. The point of moderation is presumably to keep stuff usable for as many parties as possible.


There's one slight difference. Shasarak targeted his offensiveness directly at me. Thus, *I* am the only one who has any right to be offended. That's my choice. If anyone else is offended, they should stick their fingers in their ears and sing Ting-a-ling-a-loo, because it wasn't aimed at them.

If you're going to say moderation is supposed to keep discussion useful, all the tangents and nitpicking that cause threads to meander into worthlessness would be MUCH higher on my list to moderate than a few cuss words.
07 Jun, 2010, Runter wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
There's one slight difference. Shasarak targeted his offensiveness directly at me. Thus, *I* am the only one who has any right to be offended. That's my choice. If anyone else is offended, they should stick their fingers in their ears and sing Ting-a-ling-a-loo, because it wasn't aimed at them.


So sayest Quixadhal? If someone says something inappropriate to anyone it seems like it's still my choice if I want to chime in about it.
07 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
It also forgets the rather simple fact that a community is a community, and what affects one can eventually affect many others.

Quote
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
60.0/98