Forum "censorship" is broken...!

Right first time Captain- the Austrian steroid abuser is the ex-guv
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6PQ6335puOc

"Ill Will" ...is that ILL WILL or 3 WILL ? Either should be appropriate

When I was an administrator of my old clans forums, we decided to have just a couple (((rules))) to the area.

Rules....

1. No bashing of another persons religion!
2. No racism!
3. Political statements may be attacking, but only with viable information behind the attack, as to prove legitimacy.
4. No bashing of ones possible handicaps!

That's about all the rules we set in motion, and with those rules things went fairly well. Of course once in a while you get your extremest who choose to go up and beyond the call, and tests the rules. But the area had it's own moderator force, 4 moderators in total, who's primary purpose was to monitor the area for possible violations of the rules. Also the area just wasn't open to everyone. We only allowed members that met certain criteria admittance, length of stay, post counts and so forth. For those who might have slipped under the radar and got in, or people who choose to violate the rules and had been warned, we could instigate both a "user name" and "I.P. address" ban of the area to the violating member or members.

Heck if this kind of area here on TechSpot was to come to reality, let me be the first to volunteer my services as being a part of a moderating force to help watch the area, after all, it's not like I haven't done this type of thing before!

Well, that takes all the fun out of it right up front. It seems to me what you have left is just an everyday run of the mill forum. Besides, when exactly did political attacks begin to require substantiation. Hell, they don't even require that on network TV.

Allow me to second Julio's veto of this idea, and your moderation offers.

This is (IMO) a fail, in the same way I won't accept a PM to elicit help with a build. The information and ability to input should be made public. Plenty of material is sacked from these forums, including volumes of my own. That said, I've come to accept that as the moderator on duties's judgment call, and deal with it accordingly.

There are already controls and boundaries in place. And arguing, (in a civil context), is already permitted.

Well I guess "to each there own"! I was just simply telling everyone a way here to allow for more adult vocabulary, bad words, cussing and such without it effecting the regular parts of this forum.

I was just giving an example of an already successful format that is still successfully in use today on another forum!

People can "second" other people's veto votes all they want, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it!

In closing, sometimes it is a relief, and sometimes a blessing to be able to go into a place and not be so worried or concerned with trying to talk like an "executive" or an "English Professor" or a "suit"! Sometimes even the best of us have to "cut loose" once in a while.

This site does over-censor when it comes to some words in my opinion; The words "I_d_i_o_t" and "a_s_s" shouldn't be included in the censor I think.

Then you should learn to spell imbecile.

But perhaps more importantly, the average member could more judiciously and correctly interpret whether they've been called s*****, or merely been accused of doing or saying something s*****. Bright people do dumb things. How will they know if you don't tell them?

But, nobody ever really gets a perfect score on the GED reading interpretation test, now do they?. I would like to mention that I came in about the 97% percentile. Of course they don't! Some people actually finish high school on their own. In my own defense, I'd like to remind everyone that the test is based on what students who did finish high school, indeed managed to learn.

In an , "it's about time you wrapped this up, cranky", manner, I would also like to point out, you can drop the "F bomb" one time (!), in a movie and still retain its PG-13 rating (USA). However, you must use it as an interjection, and not any other part of speech. In other words, it can't have anything to do with sex, you must just blurt it out, willy nilly. (If you'll forgive the pun on the "dangling participle").

It's what that has do to with Techspot, which still has me baffled. See, I just did a stupid thing, (< fancy that ! ), I went off topic