Double-You Tee Eff

protagonist · #1 02-26-2006, 08:41 PM

Can we get those "Graal ***ness" sigs removed? They are ugly, annoying, and they violate the censor rules.

Thanks.

EDIT:
Most notably:
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/member.php?u=1950
http://forums.graalonline.com/forums/member.php?u=4619

Bl0nkt · #2 02-26-2006, 08:47 PM

I've never seen you make a post/thread without complaining about something.

I see no derogatory remarks or bashing toward anyone in the signatures. Didn't they teach you not to tattle-tale in kindergarten?

protagonist · #3 02-26-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bl0nkt

I've never seen you make a post/thread without complaining about something.

Evidently, you don't read much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bl0nkt

I see no derogatory remarks or bashing toward anyone in the signatures. Didn't they teach you not to tattle-tale in kindergarten?

Didn't they teach you to follow the rules in kindergarten?

Curt1zzle · #4 02-26-2006, 09:13 PM

It does violate rules. The word is censored in posts...by making it an image in a signature it's bypassing the word filter.

Skyld · #5 02-26-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Can we get those "Graal ***ness" sigs removed? They are ugly, annoying, and they violate the censor rules.

Thanks.

Hey, I'd like to have your signature removed because it's not what I want to see in your signature. I want to see Hansel and Grettel in your signature, not these seemingly pointless quotes!

There is no point to this thread or your request, because it is merely an unoffensive expression of opinion. If these signatures were harming people or blatantly breaking rules, then I would see reason to have them removed, but they are not breaking rules.

The censor is in place to stop derogatory use of the word, and these signatures are not derogatory use.

If you do not want to see the signatures, then your best option is to disable them. There's an option for that in your User CP.

Damix2 · #6 02-26-2006, 09:26 PM

So if I make an image of the said word and use it in posts, its fine?

excaliber7388 · #7 02-26-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Hey, I'd like to have your signature removed because it's not what I want to see in your signature. I want to see Hansel and Grettel in your signature, not these seemingly pointless quotes!

There is no point to this thread or your request, because it is merely an unoffensive expression of opinion. If these signatures were harming people or blatantly breaking rules, then I would see reason to have them removed, but they are not breaking rules.

The censor is in place to stop derogatory use of the word, and these signatures are not derogatory use.

Exactly. The word *** is censored so people don't say that’s ***, meaning stupid. This however does not mean stupid, and is not a derogatory slang use of the word. The word *** is not offencive, while the word **** is, so it's cencored. (that was the f word btw). Theres no good reson to censor '***' if it means happy or homosexual (in a positive way)

protagonist · #8 02-26-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Hey, I'd like to have your signature removed because it's not what I want to see in your signature. I want to see Hansel and Grettel in your signature, not these seemingly pointless quotes!

Clearly, you have no understanding of the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

There is no point to this thread or your request, because it is merely an unoffensive expression of opinion. If these signatures were harming people or blatantly breaking rules, then I would see reason to have them removed, but they are not breaking rules.

It is bypassing the word filter. If bypassing the world filter is allowed as long as it doesn't attack anybody, then I should be able to put dictionary definitions of whatever word I want in my signature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

The censor is in place to stop derogatory use of the word, and these signatures are not derogatory use.

You are not the person who gets to decide why the censor is in place, I'm afraid.

Sexual orientation does not need to be on these forums, and currently, the word in question which relates to sexual orientation is restricted by the word filter. Offending signatures should be removed.

excaliber7388 · #9 02-26-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Sexual orientation does not need to be on these forums, and currently, the word in question which relates to sexual orientation is restricted by the word filter. Offending signatures should be removed.

So you'd be just as mad if it said graal homosexuality

Skyld · #10 02-26-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Clearly, you have no understanding of the rules.

Clearly, you failed to interpret my post correctly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

It is bypassing the word filter. If bypassing the world filter is allowed as long as it doesn't attack anybody, then I should be able to put dictionary definitions of whatever word I want in my signature.

Whatever word you want may not be acceptable. There is nothing inacceptable about sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

You are not the person who gets to decide why the censor is in place, I'm afraid.

Nowhere have I suggested that I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Sexual orientation does not need to be on these forums, and currently, the word in question which relates to sexual orientation is restricted by the word filter. Offending signatures should be removed.

While you're at it, you should just call that the moderators remove everything that makes a person who they are, such as skin, gender, eye colour, shoe size! Like I said, there is nothing inacceptable about sexual orientation, so why screen it from the forums?

protagonist · #11 02-26-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

So you'd be just as mad if it said graal homosexuality

I'm not mad, I'm more annoyed.

The point is not, however, what I feel like. It is about the rules. In this particular arena, the rules are being broken. If it said Graal Homosexuality, I couldn't really go after it on these grounds.

excaliber7388 · #12 02-26-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

I'm not mad, I'm more annoyed.

The point is not, however, what I feel like. It is about the rules. In this particular arena, the rules are being broken. If it said Graal Homosexuality, I couldn't really go after it on these grounds.

So you'd find a differnet way to go after it? What about graal starightness?

protagonist · #13 02-26-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Clearly, you failed to interpret my post correctly.

Copout. Maybe you didn't state your post clearly!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Whatever word you want may not be acceptable. There is nothing inacceptable about sexual orientation.

That's not what is up for debate. It is the legality of bypassing the word filter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Nowhere have I suggested that I am.

You just tried to define its purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

While you're at it, you should just call that the moderators remove everything that makes a person who they are, such as skin, gender, eye colour, shoe size! Like I said, there is nothing inacceptable about sexual orientation, so why screen it from the forums?

Argue it with the moderators. It bypasses the filter, and that is all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

So you'd find a differnet way to go after it? What about graal starightness?

Yes, I would probably find another way to go after it.

Graal Straightness doesn't really bother me as much because I am a homophobe, so I probably wouldn't go after it. However, I would assume someone else might.

Skyld · #14 02-26-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Copout. Maybe you didn't state your post clearly!

The idea was that you interpret the meaning behind it - that you do not always get what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

That's not what is up for debate. It is the legality of bypassing the word filter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

You just tried to define its purpose.

Can you think of another sensible explanation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Argue it with the moderators. It bypasses the filter, and that is all that matters.

I am not the one arguing with moderators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Yes, I would probably find another way to go after it.

Returning to my original point, you do not always get what you want.

I will ignore your last statements.

excaliber7388 · #15 02-26-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Graal Straightness doesn't really bother me as much because I am a homophobe, so I probably wouldn't go after it. However, I would assume someone else might.

Well, thats like admitting you're racist. Somone needs some homosexual friends, you fear the steryotype, but it's not like that.

protagonist · #16 02-26-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

The idea was that you interpret the meaning behind it - that you do not always get what you want.

But if what I want correlates with what the rules state, then I do get what I want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Can you think of another sensible explanation?

That's above my paygrade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

I am not the one arguing with moderators.

Perhaps you should. What you are saying is that only homosexuals should be allowed to use the word in ways that they specify. That smells like crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Returning to my original point, you do not always get what you want.

^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

I will ignore your last statements.

Copout.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Well, thats like admitting you're racist. Somone needs some homosexual friends, you fear the steryotype, but it's not like that.

If I had racist tendencies, I would have no problem saying, "I am a racist". I'm not going to deny feelings and beliefs I have because someone else decides that it isn't what I should believe/feel, or because being the opposite is fashionable.

Skyld · #17 02-26-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Perhaps you should. What you are saying is that only homosexuals should be allowed to use the word in ways that they specify. That smells like crap.

Please quote where I said this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

Copout.

I chose to ignore it due to the fact that your "opinion" offended me, no other reason.

Darlene159 · #18 02-26-2006, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Hey, I'd like to have your signature removed because it's not what I want to see in your signature. I want to see Hansel and Grettel in your signature, not these seemingly pointless quotes!

There is no point to this thread or your request, because it is merely an unoffensive expression of opinion. If these signatures were harming people or blatantly breaking rules, then I would see reason to have them removed, but they are not breaking rules.

The censor is in place to stop derogatory use of the word, and these signatures are not derogatory use.

If you do not want to see the signatures, then your best option is to disable them. There's an option for that in your User CP.

He is right. If a word is filtered out, then it cannot be used in a sig.
VT..you could have forum PM'ed a complaint, instead of making a thread, there was no need...

Skyld · #19 02-26-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

He is right. If a word is filtered out, then it cannot be used in a sig.

Then I ask that you remove it from the filter!

excaliber7388 · #20 02-26-2006, 10:02 PM

Should *** even be a censored word? Straight isn't. Happy isn't. homosexual isn't.

I know *** can be misused, buy so can many other words. Like 'happy' meaning sexually aroused, to much more immature people, obviously.

protagonist · #21 02-26-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

He is right. If a word is filtered out, then it cannot be used in a sig.
VT..you could have forum PM'ed a complaint, instead of making a thread, there was no need...

Well, it was kind of to spark a bit of a debate over it. I think that it is interesting to debate over the mechanics of the community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Then I ask that you remove it from the filter!

I support this action. Using the word for things it does not mean is not really so bad. Remember: *** meant happy at one point, and now it means homosexual. Now it's gravitating toward stupid/idiotic/whatever. Words' meanings change, and eventually *** people will probably refer to themselves as homosexuals, since that term has a specific scientific meaning to it and is not just arbitrary slang.

Darlene159 · #22 02-26-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

Then I ask that you remove it from the filter!

No, not when so many use it in a not so nice fashion.
When something is against the rules, it is against the rules...period.
Not just when we choose to enforce it.
This particular word is more often used to attack people, then it is not, so it is not a good idea to remove it from the filter.

protagonist · #23 02-26-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

No, not when so many use it in a not so nice fashion.
When something is against the rules, it is against the rules...period.
Not just when we choose to enforce it.
This particular word is more often used to attack people, then it is not, so it is not a good idea to remove it from the filter.

But so are the words idiot, numbskull, stupid, retard, retarded, *******, jackass, *****, etc. Should these words also be filtered?

Skyld · #24 02-26-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

No, not when so many use it in a not so nice fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

This particular word is more often used to attack people, then it is not, so it is not a good idea to remove it from the filter.

They can be punished individually. Their stupid use of it should not put the rest of the community at disadvantage.

Darlene159 · #25 02-26-2006, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by protagonist

But so are the words idiot, numbskull, stupid, retard, retarded, *******, jackass, *****, etc. Should these words also be filtered?

Those words are not used to attack someone in a racist way.
Those are just petty words used by grade schoolers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

They can be punished individually. Their stupid use of it should not put the rest of the community at disadvantage.

The word doesn't need to be used at all...it isn't like the world is going to end if people cannot use that word

excaliber7388 · #26 02-26-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyld

They can be punished individually. Their stupid use of it should not put the rest of the community at disadvantage.

Exactly if a person says I'm feeling *** today (meaning happy) that shouldn't be a problem. But when a person says 'thats ***' then I could understand deleting/modifying it. Just make it part of the rules or something. I know it's a lot to go through, but it's not a big deal. Who cares if a person says 'thats ***' is that really worse than 'thats retarded'? Not really, so why not just un censor it, it's no big deal really, unless it's used in a homophobic situation (which is already against the rules anyway) it shouldn't be a problem

protagonist · #27 02-26-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Those words are not used to attack someone in a racist way.

But given that homosexuality has not been proven to be anything more than a choice, can it be equated to racism? Race is uncontrollable because you can not change your skin color or where you were born, but there is no proof that homosexuality isn't controllable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Those are just petty words used by grade schoolers.

I agree, but doesn't their use indicate a decline in the quality of a thread anyway?

Anyway, this thread can pretty much stop here, as it served its aesthetic purpose and isn't going to progress any. Hopefully the sig modifications will be complete soon.

Skyld · #28 02-26-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Those words are not used to attack someone in a racist way.
Those are just petty words used by grade schoolers.

Quote:

Definitions of retard on the Web:
check: slow the growth or development of; "The brain damage will retard the child's language development"

But could cause offense, none the less.

excaliber7388 · #29 02-26-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

But given that homosexuality has not been proven to be anything more than a choice, can it be equated to racism? Race is uncontrollable because you can not change your skin color or where you were born, but there is no proof that homosexuality isn't controllable.

GIVE IT UP it's not a choice, just like being straight isn't a choice, it just happens. How can you be so thick-headed?

Darlene159 · #30 02-26-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by excaliber7388

Exactly if a person says I'm feeling *** today (meaning happy) that shouldn't be a problem. But when a person says 'thats ***' then I could understand deleting/modifying it. Just make it part of the rules or something. I know it's a lot to go through, but it's not a big deal. Who cares if a person says 'thats ***' is that really worse than 'thats retarded'? Not really, so why not just un censor it, it's no big deal really, unless it's used in a homophobic situation (which is already against the rules anyway) it shouldn't be a problem

Most people use said word, more often then not, as an attack against someone...how many times do you hear/see people use said word meaning happy?
I never do....ever.
The word is almost always used negatively, so shall remain filtered.

Anyway, they were forum PM'ed to remove the sigs...if not done so by the end of the day (my time), I will remove them myself.
Next time, forum PM complaints.

closed

excaliber7388 · #31 02-26-2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darlene159

Most people use said word, more often then not, as an attack against someone...how many times do you hear/see people use said word meaning happy?
I never do....ever.
The word is almost always used negatively, so shall remain filtered.

Yeah but when is idiot never used to offend? Or *****, dumb, etc. Just because it can be used to offend doesn't mean it will.