 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) 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 (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
