| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys wrote:
> -snip-
> > It needs fixing. I suggest that codeing'll do it, either as the person posts,
> > or as people display. It's been done before in other areas and I think it'll
> > work here.
>
> Hey Dave,
> Thanks for the thoughtful responce. The effort has been to fully enforce
> incidents of cursing, regardless. I've suggested a few times in enlisting more
> people as 'Mods' for whom their sole purpose is seeking out ToU violations and
> bringing them to Admin's attention.
>
> The thing about a word filter is that it won't necessarily catch all incidents
> of a curse word, in which case we are back to square one again: how do the
> Admins deal with posts that break the ToU? Direct post editting by Admins,
> without user consent, is the easiest solution.
>
> -Len
If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
Dave K
|
|
| |
Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect.
Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave
the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip
would be taken care of most of the time. I think that'd be good enough.
-JSM
David Koudys wrote:
>
> If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
> would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
>
> The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
>
> Dave K
|
|
| |
The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone
mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out
of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss.
A filter won't deal with the core issue here - which is how to deal with people
who are doing the cussing.
-Lenny
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason S. Mantor wrote:
> Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect.
> Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave
> the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip
> would be taken care of most of the time. I think that'd be good enough.
>
> -JSM
>
> David Koudys wrote:
>
> >
> > If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
> > would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
> >
> > The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
> >
> > Dave K
|
|
| |
OK, maybe we really do need two different discussions to happen, but the
two are inextricably intertwined. Filters would catch the slips and
that'd be a Good Thing(TM). Admins then have to deal with the bad eggs
who intentionally try to beat the filters. I think there are two ways
to deal with that :
1. Make better filters
2. Find a way to convince people to play nice.
#2 can either be draconian or "soft touch" but, human nature being what
it is, I think #1 is the most effective way to meet the intended goal : (
If a filter had caught Willy's transgression then there likely wouldn't
have been any further discusion. It'd be done and over with.
Just think of it as validating user input. Not only can't some joker
buy negative quantities of widgets, we won't let them drop f-bombs in
the comments field.
I'll even volunteer to help code said filters : )
Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone
> mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out
> of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss.
|
|
|
