The language filter and abuse thereof, and moderator actions.

[Greebo]

Folks, this software is set up to automatically filter out words that are commonly deemed as offensive. I think most of you are familiar with that.

Some of you certainly are, because some of you have taken to getting creative about bypassing the filter so that the meaning of the language is perfectly clear even if the software is too stupid to recognize it.

If you get caught (as some of you already have) playing tricks with the obscenity filter, please don't complain (as some of you already have) to me. I'm not sympathetic. The obscenity filter is set up for a reason, and in my view deliberately bypassing is a deliberate abuse of the pilots of america systems. If the filter would block it, then you get to find another word, not find a cute way to re-spell it.

Also, the argument that "that post was left alone but this post was caught" doesn't carry any weight - we've made it clear time and time again that we don't have the time or ability to read every thread. Different mods also have different hot buttons - so just cause one mod may occasionally overlook something doesn't mean another will.

Moderators who spot these offenses are empowered to take whatever action they deem necessary to deal with the clear and obvious violations of the Rules of Conduct. The only requirement that they have is to report on their actions in these cases, not to seek sanction and approval of the whole MC on those actions.

Thank you,
Chuck


This message is not an official communication from the Management Council

 

[AdamZ]

Holy #@%^ Chuck what the **** do you think we are *&^%$#@ doing here. We as members of POA are +=**&* intelligent %$# &!@* individuals who respect each others *&^%$#@ sensitivites. And finally one last comment: I will not stop wearing my cumberbund while flying through cummulus clouds or is it cumuliform clouds on approach to Cumberland Maryland they have a great cucumber festival there. But I promise that I will never wear my cumberbund while flying through cummulo nimbus clouds on approach to Cumberland I'd miss the cucumber festival before I'd do that.

Translation of above with the obscenity filter turned off:

Holy Moly Chuck what the heck do you think we are really doing here. We as members of POA are super intelligent aviating individuals who respect each others differning sensitivites.

Just checking to see if the filter works

 

[jason]

Also, the argument that "that post was left alone but this post was caught" doesn't carry any weight - we've made it clear time and time again that we don't have the time or ability to read every thread. Different mods also have different hot buttons - so just cause one mod may occasionally overlook something doesn't mean another will.

While I understand what you are saying, and disagree with very little of it. I don't understand how it makes sense to not have all mods uniformly enforcing the rules. It does seem like enforcement on this board can be selective sometimes, which is unfortunate. Even when an umpire in a baseball game is making bad calls...it's not so bad if he's making them against both teams.

Whatever is done by the mods, it should be done the same way every time...and the same way by every mod. Just saying 'some may enforce it and some may not' doesn't seem fair to the users.

Just one man's opinion...

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Holy #@%^ Chuck what the **** do you think we are *&^%$#@ doing here. We as members of POA are +=**&* intelligent %$# &!@* individuals who respect each others *&^%$#@ sensitivites. And finally one last comment: I will not stop wearing my cumberbund while flying through cummulus clouds or is it cumuliform clouds on approach to Cumberland Maryland they have a great cucumber festival there. But I promise that I will never wear my cumberbund while flying through cummulo nimbus clouds on approach to Cumberland I'd miss the cucumber festival before I'd do that.

Translation of above with the obscenity filter turned off:

Holy Moly Chuck what the heck do you think we are really doing here. We as members of POA are super intelligent aviating individuals who respect each others differning sensitivites.

Just checking to see if the filter works

Wow, Adam. That must be how you lawyers make the big bucks

 

[Greebo]

While I understand what you are saying, and disagree with very little of it. I don't understand how it makes sense to not have all mods uniformly enforcing the rules. It does seem like enforcement on this board can be selective sometimes, which is unfortunate. Even when an umpire in a baseball game is making bad calls...it's not so bad if he's making them against both teams.

Whatever is done by the mods, it should be done the same way every time...and the same way by every mod. Just saying 'some may enforce it and some may not' doesn't seem fair to the users.

Two reasons why that won't happen:
1) We're all volunteers, doing this on our own time. We're not here all the time and we don't have a lot of time when we are here.

2) Baseball has a very small set of rules that are easy to judge. The ball was either caught, or it wasn't. It fouled, or it was fair. The runner was tagged, or he wasn't. EXCEPT for the strike zone - which is a judgement call made by each ump from a perspective that is largely blocked by the catcher.

We're dealing with strike zones - personal judgement calls about personal statements for which hard and fast rules don't work. We're not following a formula to create a chemical process, we're dealing with a living, organic situation - we're gardening, and two different plants can be pruned or wired the same way and you get two different results. No two good gardeners do things exactly the same, but they still get good results.

We're just trying to be good gardners and figure out which plants can be saved and sometimes, doing a little weeding.

 

[jesse]

Wait a second....

The other night I actually spent some time reverse engineering Flashchat trying to determine at what stage the language filtering was performed with the hopes of bypassing it. I think there may be a viable solution. I feel if I go as far as to write a new client specifically designed for swearing on Flashchat that I should be allowed to use it.

Ugh..sometimes I think I have too much spare time...

On other note. I would think one could bypass the forum's swearing filter pretty easily by embedding images in place of the swear word. It's possible that you could even go as far as to write a php script that would read the cookie stored by the POA forums and deteremine the username of the user and hide it for moderators or members of the management council. I'm not exactly sure if that would work...But I'm sure I could get creative and come up with something.

 

[wbarnhill]

Two reasons why that won't happen:
1) We're all volunteers, doing this on our own time. We're not here all the time and we don't have a lot of time when we are here.

2) Baseball has a very small set of rules that are easy to judge. The ball was either caught, or it wasn't. It fouled, or it was fair. The runner was tagged, or he wasn't. EXCEPT for the strike zone - which is a judgement call made by each ump from a perspective that is largely blocked by the catcher.

We're dealing with strike zones - personal judgement calls about personal statements for which hard and fast rules don't work. We're not following a formula to create a chemical process, we're dealing with a living, organic situation - we're gardening, and two different plants can be pruned or wired the same way and you get two different results. No two good gardeners do things exactly the same, but they still get good results.

We're just trying to be good gardners and figure out which plants can be saved and sometimes, doing a little weeding.

Sorry, but I don't think it's as hard as you're trying to say it is.

From the Rules of Conduct: "Deliberately circumventing the censor filter is prohibited."

Ok, so if someone DOES bypass it, now you're saying "Well, mods won't always react the same way". Why not? How can you possibly expect users to abide by the rules if they are not uniformly enforced? And a language rule seems pretty straightforward to me, not anywhere near a "strike zone". If it's filtered, then it's clear cut that it is not suitable for the boards.

 

[Ken Ibold]

And finally one last comment: I will not stop wearing my cumberbund while flying through cummulus clouds or is it cumuliform clouds on approach to Cumberland Maryland they have a great cucumber festival there. But I promise that I will never wear my cumberbund while flying through cummulo nimbus clouds on approach to Cumberland I'd miss the cucumber festival before I'd do that.

Gosh, don't you mean cummerbund?

 

[Greebo]

Sorry, but I don't think it's as hard as you're trying to say it is.

Ever herd cats? If its so easy, why is our legal system so convoluted?

I promise you that for ANY rule you come up with and try to enforce, we can come up with a dozen ways to pick at the rule, the interpretations, or just toe at the line close enough to aggrivate others into crossing it themselves while claiming innocence all the while.

After 20 years of internet community building, I've just about seen it all. Do please wow me with a solution I haven't tried before. My jaded, cynical self could use the "EASY" button right now.

From the Rules of Conduct: "Deliberately circumventing the censor filter is prohibited."

Ok, so if someone DOES bypass it, now you're saying "Well, mods won't always react the same way". Why not? How can you possibly expect users to abide by the rules if they are not uniformly enforced? And a language rule seems pretty straightforward to me, not anywhere near a "strike zone". If it's filtered, then it's clear cut that it is not suitable for the boards.

Mods won't always react the same way for a variety of reasons, namely being that we're human, we get tired, sometimes we see something and think, "Meh, techncial violation, too much of a pita to deal with for minimal benefit." (Not in so many words but if I posted what we really think sometimes then I'd have to bypass the lang filter.)

You can theorize all you want - but the facts are the forum community and the rules are applications of chaos theory, not algebra. You always have unpredictable results, and you can't write enough rules to cover all the possible situations, so you write rules that serve as guidelines and leave the determination up to judgement calls.

 

[SCCutler]

Act like adults, respect your peers, remember that some of us have children who read over our shoulders while we encourage them in the aviation hobby.

Simple.

 

[wbarnhill]

After 20 years of internet community building, I've just about seen it all. Do please wow me with a solution I haven't tried before. My jaded, cynical self could use the "EASY" button right now.

Easy button? Kill the rule. If it's not going to be enforced, then it's useless.

Either apply the rules of conduct uniformly or simply get rid of them. That's about as easy as it gets. Where's the problem?

 

[wbarnhill]

You can theorize all you want - but the facts are the forum community and the rules are applications of chaos theory, not algebra. You always have unpredictable results, and you can't write enough rules to cover all the possible situations, so you write rules that serve as guidelines and leave the determination up to judgement calls.

"Deliberately circumventing the censor filter is prohibited" seems to pretty much cover circumventing the censor filter, which is what we're discussing right? Sounds like it's covered, unless there is some way of circumventing the censor filter that is not deliberate?

I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm just trying to figure out what the problem is. The rule is in place, the mods are charged with enforcing the rules, so isn't it clean cut?


And just to clarify:

Also, the argument that "that post was left alone but this post was caught" doesn't carry any weight - we've made it clear time and time again that we don't have the time or ability to read every thread.

BUT is that not what the Bad Post option is for? So if the post is brought to your attention, should the rules not be applied?

 

[gismo]

Easy button? Kill the rule. If it's not going to be enforced, then it's useless.

Either apply the rules of conduct uniformly or simply get rid of them. That's about as easy as it gets. Where's the problem?

I don't think Chuck said it wouldn't be enforced (actually I think he's saying that enforcement will occur, just not 100% of the time). And the problem with getting rid of all the ROC is that the moderators's job would become even more subjective and arbitrary. I see no reason to change any of this. And the level of "filtering" is fine as well. It could be made more robust, but the lack of a challenge to circumvent it as is means that only those who feel compelled to thwart the filter's intent will try.

BTW Chuck, just so we're all clear on the ROC, is it OK to use comic strip swearing EG $#%%&*! or )(#!! ?

 

[wbarnhill]

I don't think Chuck said it wouldn't be enforced (actually I think he's saying that enforcement will occur, just not 100% of the time). And the problem with getting rid of all the ROC is that the moderators's job would become even more subjective and arbitrary. I see no reason to change any of this. And the level of "filtering" is fine as well. It could be made more robust, but the lack of a challenge to circumvent it as is means that only those who feel compelled to thwart the filter's intent will try.

BTW Chuck, just so we're all clear on the ROC, is it OK to use comic strip swearing EG $#%%&*! or )(#!! ?

I still don't understand the reasoning that Chuck gives for WHY the posts won't be moderated 100% of the time. Some of his statements say it's because not all posts will be seen, some say it's because some mods won't react to it. But it's been said that the bad post option is a good way to raise a flag about a post. If the rules aren't enforced at that point, what is the reasoning for the pass?

 

[jesse]

I still don't understand the reasoning that Chuck gives for WHY the posts won't be moderated 100% of the time. Some of his statements say it's because not all posts will be seen, some say it's because some mods won't react to it. But it's been said that the bad post option is a good way to raise a flag about a post. If the rules aren't enforced at that point, what is the reasoning for the pass?

This isn't a democracy. This isn't a government. This isn't a business. This is a private group which can be managed in any way shape or form that the owner would like.

I think you are just trying to be difficult. He doesn't have to give you a reason.

 

[Greebo]

I've already answered your questions, William. Bugging me with PMs about it in addition to speed-posting in this thread doesn't change my answers.

However, WRT one post which you brought up in your PM - two different bad post reports have come in about it - and we just haven't gotten to it yet.

SO give it a @)!#$(&* rest already, wouldya? Did you MISS the part that this isn't an official announcement? This is me expressing my own personal views on this, partly just to vent some steam, and you're not helping the pressure drop.

Lance, hopefully the above paragraph clarifies the position on @#$@#% swearing.

 

[Brian Austin]

I still don't understand the reasoning that Chuck gives for WHY the posts won't be moderated 100% of the time. Some of his statements say it's because not all posts will be seen, some say it's because some mods won't react to it. But it's been said that the bad post option is a good way to raise a flag about a post. If the rules aren't enforced at that point, what is the reasoning for the pass?

Obviously, I'm speaking as a former MC member here...

What everyone seems to forget is that, with community involvement, every post is moderated. You ALL have the ability to use the Bad Post button. And oddly enough, each of us has a different opinion on what is and is not a RoC violation.

Once the Bad Post is submitted, the MC doesn't have a CHOICE but to review it the way it's set up. It's e-mailed to everyone and placed in a separate forum for moderators/MC members. The idea behind group involvement is that they all take some of the subjectiveness out of the decision process.

No system is perfect and no one will agree with everything. Nature of the beast.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Jesse, sounded like you wanted a better job ...code up some software that takes care of the nuisance words (and a few trillion computer generated trick substitutes) causing problems that can be downloaded onto an individual's computer for each screen view, editing and tailoring it to their specific vocabularic desires, and you'll make a million.

 

[wbarnhill]

I've already answered your questions, William. Bugging me with PMs about it in addition to speed-posting in this thread doesn't change my answers.

However, WRT one post which you brought up in your PM - two different bad post reports have come in about it - and we just haven't gotten to it yet.

SO give it a @)!#$(&* rest already, wouldya? Did you MISS the part that this isn't an official announcement? This is me expressing my own personal views on this, partly just to vent some steam, and you're not helping the pressure drop.

Lance, hopefully the above paragraph clarifies the position on @#$@#% swearing.

I'm just responding to posts and asking questions. As Jesse said, if you don't want to respond, you don't have to, just as you've shown here. The PM was sent as a way to simply show you what I was getting at, without violating another rule that was clarified in the past few months.

 

[ScottM]

SO give it a @)!#$(&* rest already, wouldya?

HMMMmmm, is this an attempt to bypass the swearing filter? Seems like a clear RoC violation to me. Since you are on the MC you should censor yourself for it

 

[poadeleted20]

If the word is recognizable, and either we trip over it ourselves or someone hits the "bad post" button, we'll act on it. "@#$%^&" isn't recognizable, especially when the context doesn't clearly identify the word; substitution of $ for an "S" or ! for an "I" is recognizable, especially in certain contexts. The only question is whether we find it or not, and none of us has the time to read every single post on the site, so some may slip past if nobody objects and no moderators spot it. However, if it does come to our attention, expect a prompt deletion and a cautionary note to document that we reminded you about the rule, and that any recurrence will be dealt with by a disciplinary action for what is now willful and knowing violation of the RoC.

Caveat poster.

 

[Brian Austin]

And the award for the Longest Run-on Sentence of the Day goes to...

The only question is whether we find it or not, and none of us has the time to read every single post on the site, so some may slip past if nobody objects and no moderators spot it, but if we do see it, expect a deletion and a warning to document that you know about the rule and that any recurrence will be dealt with by a disciplinary action for what is not willful and knowing violation of the RoC.

 

[poadeleted20]

And the award for the Longest Run-on Sentence of the Day goes to...

Edited after I saw what it looked like. Gotta start using that "Preview Post" button more.

 

[wsuffa]

I still don't understand the reasoning that Chuck gives for WHY the posts won't be moderated 100% of the time. Some of his statements say it's because not all posts will be seen, some say it's because some mods won't react to it. But it's been said that the bad post option is a good way to raise a flag about a post. If the rules aren't enforced at that point, what is the reasoning for the pass?

Sometimes it's easier and less disruptive if a single word in a single post is buried or ignored, especially if the rest of the post has valuable content.

We do get a number of "bad post" reports where the reporter just doesn't like the person or the topic, but there really is nothing wrong with the post. Sometimes it's a judgement call. Each of us view things a bit differently, just like each of us on the MC has a little bit different view on where the line is drawn on personal attacks and trolling, for example.

Speaking from my personal point of view, we shouldn't have to say "don't run in the hall with scissors". If everybody is reasonable, there should be very few problems with either the rules or the way they are enforced.

 

[poadeleted20]

BUT is that not what the Bad Post option is for? So if the post is brought to your attention, should the rules not be applied?

Just because you think it's a violation doesn't mean we, the MC, will agree. All we guarantee is that we will look into it and take what we believe to be appropriate action, which may, in some cases, be no action.

 

[Greebo]

Just because you think it's a violation doesn't mean we, the MC, will agree. All we guarantee is that we will look into it and take what we believe to be appropriate action, which may, in some cases, be no action.

Exactly.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Pilots of America shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor such content in order to respond to or comment upon communications by Participants and in order to determine compliance with the foregoing Rules of Conduct. Pilots of America shall have the right and sole discretion to edit, to refuse to port or to remove any content whatsoever which it finds to be in violation of the provisions hereof or which it finds in its sole discretion to be otherwise objectionable for any reason.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

And the award for the Longest Run-on Sentence of the Day goes to...

It's a nice, well written, complex declaratory sentence.

 

[W.O'Boogie]

Wait a second....

The other night I actually spent some time reverse engineering Flashchat trying to determine at what stage the language filtering was performed with the hopes of bypassing it. I think there may be a viable solution. I feel if I go as far as to write a new client specifically designed for swearing on Flashchat that I should be allowed to use it.

Ugh..sometimes I think I have too much spare time...

On other note. I would think one could bypass the forum's swearing filter pretty easily by embedding images in place of the swear word. It's possible that you could even go as far as to write a php script that would read the cookie stored by the POA forums and deteremine the username of the user and hide it for moderators or members of the management council. I'm not exactly sure if that would work...But I'm sure I could get creative and come up with something.

Seems like an awful lot of work and it won't discourage the creative ones. I have been guilty on occasion, but not too often. There are a few words that tend to spoof the software though. Not that we'd used them much.

 

[Aztec Driver]

Why does this topic always spark so much debate and hair-splitting? Why is it that seemingly intelligent people can't just treat others and this board with some respect?

Oh yeah, this isn't Perfect, this is Walgreens.

 

[Frank Browne]

I just saw this thread and just so the MC knows, I went back to edit one of my posts from earlier this morning but it was locked. I intended to edit my post, I promise. If I offended anyone I'm sorry. I thought it was fairly innocuous for adult eyes, but would happily edit if I could.

 

[flyifrvfr]

This isn't a democracy. This isn't a government. This isn't a business. This is a private group which can be managed in any way shape or form that the owner would like.

I think you are just trying to be difficult. He doesn't have to give you a reason.

I hear a gulping sound.

 

[Greebo]

I hear a gulping sound.

Could you please clarify what is intended by that statement?

 

[poadeleted20]

I thought it was fairly innocuous for adult eyes

We have quite a few non-adult eyes here, so we require the language be kept at least PG-rated, and preferably G-rated.

 

[AirBaker]

Wow, Adam. That must be how you lawyers make the big bucks

Don't they usually go from short to super verbose?

 

[James_Dean]

Could you please clarify what is intended by that statement?

Victor being Victor?


James Dean

 

[flyifrvfr]

Victor being Victor?


James Dean

Victor will only be Victor if he is provoked. Jangle decided he would answer a post in another thread which was not directed too him in an offensive manner. I answered him in like fashion. If he wants respect, he needs to show respect. The mods deleted a post directed towards him and I apologize to the mods for the need to delete that post.

 

[flyifrvfr]

Could you please clarify what is intended by that statement?

No way!

 

[poadeleted20]

One more time -- replacing letters in words with *'s or other symbols to defeat the obscentity filter while leaving the word recognizable is a RoC violation, and will result in disciplinary action. The fact that you made the replacement indicates clearly that you know the word is unacceptable, making this a deliberate violation.

 

[Greebo]

Victor will only be Victor if he is provoked. Jangle decided he would answer a post in another thread which was not directed too him in an offensive manner. I answered him in like fashion. If he wants respect, he needs to show respect. The mods deleted a post directed towards him and I apologize to the mods for the need to delete that post.

I read that thread. Did it occur to you that he possibly simply didn't know what you were talking about? While the language implied by wtf is ... borderline... the question was just a question and contained no overt insult.

Seconly, where did you get the idea that you could earmark a public post to only certain people? If you want to send posts that only ceratin people can respond to, use private messaging. Public posts get public responses, so the idea that someone else other than your intended recipient answered you is somehow justification for violating the RoC is incorrect.