No genius Posted By: Icculus on 08/11/06 at 09:54 AM
You were banned for the f-off reply. -Icculus

	Posted By: Ytrewtsu on 08/11/06 at 12:30 PM

	Posted By: Ytrewtsu on 08/11/06 at 12:32 PM
Not to mention - act like a jerk, get treated like a jerk. He warned you once about circumventing the spam filter.

Clueless Posted By: Sombalance on 08/11/06 at 05:00 PM

You can give up the conspiracy theory Scandum. Dale and Matt had nothing to do with it. You posted content in violation of the terms of service - you know that thing all of us agree to follow when we become members, and I reported it. If reporting content problems presents an alternative to full moderation of the forum, then its something we should all consider. We can police ourselves, or let others do it for us. I know which direction I would rather go. Sombalance

	Moderation or TOS reporting... Posted By: Conner on 08/11/06 at 05:18 PM
Actually, Sombalance, if the current motion for moderation fails, maybe it is time for more of us to start utilizing some self-policing by reporting those blatent TOS violations that occur so often.

	Posted By: Baram on 08/11/06 at 09:20 PM
Thank you

Posted By: Hades_kane on 08/12/06 at 12:43 AM

I'm against moderation, but Conner has a point. If users want to basically police it, I can't complain :p But I'm definitely not anti-Scandum... I'm not sure if I've defended him in the past, but I have agreed on a few things with him. But anyway, had he been banned for posting just that above, I would be a little bit "eh... I dunno..." about it, but the fact that it was removed, and he then reposts it exactly as it was in an edit onto the same thread... that was a blatant challenge and slap in the face. So, I can't defend him past that point. Had he reposted a censored version, or replaced the expletives with something else, then I don't think there would have necessarily been this outcome. Oh well, what's done is done.

Posted By: Baram on 08/12/06 at 12:57 AM

I personally am glad he's gone, the majority of his posts have been filled with racial slurs and other things that I find completely disgusting. I know I'm not the only one, I know of many people that have stopped using the TMC forums because of posts like his(not to say they left because of him, but because of posts similar to his that have in the past gone uncensored). That is the main reason I am for moderation, only to remove things that really have no place here. If someone wants to post those types of things, go to a forum that is designed for it, I'm sure there are plenty of places that would welcome his type of comments.

Posted By: Conner on 08/12/06 at 02:31 AM

Exactly, nothing for or against Scandum personally, but rather regarding the content of the posts. The explicit reason that I'm in favor of instituting moderation at this point is expressly because I'm tired of seeing the racial slurs, the personal attacks, the foul language (even when 'censored', half the time it's circumvented), and the posts where folks will attack someone's post solely to troll (things like saying, in the mud promotions area, that someone's mud must suck because the poster had some typos or they dared to say they had the best mud.. like any of us don't believe that our own mud is the best out there or that we're ultimately trying to make it so...), and so on. I've got far better ways to spend my time than to have to wade through posts filled with garbage to get to a few interesting/useful posts, and I'm sure most of the rest of you all do too. I probably wouldn't care (in fact, I'd just ignore it) if we were talking about one troll who posted weekly, or even a few flames here and there that cropped up now and then. I'm sure we're all able to understand that people cross the line once in awhile when they get mad enough. But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about the majority of the posts on TMC have become 'non-content' and sifting through it to find the content has been reduced to being a chore. Perhaps with some serious effort to self-police, moderation wouldn't be necessary, and if that is the case, what's been stopping us??

	Posted By: Tyche on 08/12/06 at 04:12 AM
It was censorship of this post that really pissed off a lot of us: http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG2&area=general&page=1&message=16741#16782 21 NO 17 YES Since the outcome thus far was not what you expected, you've compounding the problem by assuming those who voted NO meant YES.

Your mud sucks because ...... Posted By: Sombalance on 08/12/06 at 06:30 AM

Lets not forget that the forums are a discussion board. If someone posts a comment and someone else wants to counter it we should be encouraging that, not attempting to restrict it. Pointing out the quality of someone's mud is likely to be poor based on the quality of their mud promotion - how ever the poster words it - shouldn't be something that is censored. On the other hand, comments about the poster's which are personal in nature, and have no relationship to the topic does seem to fall under the terms of service, and I'd like to see those brought under control. It is possible to have a heated discussion without resorting to personal attacks. Sombalance

	Tyche... Posted By: Conner on 08/12/06 at 12:27 PM
Who are you addressing, Tyche? If it's me, I fail to see how your perceptions of my assumptions should impact even the price of tea in China.

Sombalance... Posted By: Conner on 08/12/06 at 12:30 PM

While I certainly agree that it's very possible to have a heated discussion without flames or trolling, that's not what usually seems to happen here. You're right that there is no reason to censor comments about a mud being unlikely to be of high quality based on a low quality promotional advertisement, there's also no reason why folks couldn't try logging into that mud first to see if perhaps the poster just isn't very good at promotionals before deciding that the poster, their mud, their staff, their parents' choices in attiring their young, and the poster's dog all suck either. ;)

	Posted By: Baram on 08/12/06 at 01:20 PM
Unless Iccy decides to change his plan, I think we all should use what he's given us and start reporting things that just shouldn't be there. I know I will be reporting every racial slur, direct attack, etc that I see from now on(I honestly never noticed the report link at the bottom).

	Posted By: Tyche on 08/12/06 at 06:11 PM
The "your assumptions" was addressing Icculus per the moderation thread on the forums.

No Moderation Posted By: Vanquish on 08/14/06 at 02:03 PM

Ok, to all that ask for moderation, quit asking for it because you don't need it. Use what has been there forever, and all of you ask, well why haven't we did that before?(Used the Report link) I will tell you, because you never really cared before. You are going to sit here and say, yes, I wish I could have gotten Scandum's and others posts censored or removed, well you could have, but deep down inside, you maybe even got a laugh about it and didn't really care that it was there. I have an idea, if you know the person trolls, flames, or is just a plain retard, then don't even waste the time to read what they have to say. It's a forum, you can't hate someone for posting what they want to, it isn't against the rules, unless they curse, or make racial slurs, or....we all know the T.O.S. so I won't bother repeating it. Quit complaining about what other people post, if you really have a problem with it then use the link at the bottom to Report it. Easy enough? Or do you need a moderator to hold your hand and click the mouse for you? (that last sentence was a joke, and it was quite funny while typing it, so please don't take offense to it.)

Egads! Posted By: Osiris on 08/14/06 at 02:26 PM

Scandum! Circumventing the language filter after a warning was over the top. You know it. I enjoy many of your posts and I am not offended that you conduct a little social experimentation for amusements sake on the forums. Just seeing who will go apoplectic on what topic is often hysterical. Tyche: I almost wet my pants when I saw your new avatar. If the TMC username 'Bob' is not already taken... wait, are mults legal? hah. And what post was edited that pissed you off? The url you give goes to a post by Diern in a thread I bailed out of I think and I don't get the context or see any editing/moderation of it. Finally, Iccy, I would implement a real poll system at TMC where they only get specified choices. Like I said the existing poll is not going to reflect the true feeling of the membership because 'moderated' is too broad a term and everyone has their own ideas. I also note that on the social network, if I am composing a post for a while or leave the window incactive for a few minutes all of my typed info vanishes and the screen goes back to where I started. Can that timeout be extended or removed? I'm usually working while on the net and can be IAW for an hour or more during a particular rant/composition.

	Posted By: C_rassus on 08/18/06 at 12:15 AM
What's the difference between "duck" and "f--k"? Only one letter. Why is one horribly bad, and one not? The taboo-ness of swearing is one of the silliest human constructs out there.

	Scandum Banned from TMCnet as well? Posted By: Raukodacil on 08/18/06 at 01:06 AM
When I click on Scandum's name it brings me back to the index page. A great loss if you ask me (which I know you didn't but that is the beauty of a forum like this).

	Banned? Posted By: Osiris on 08/21/06 at 01:45 PM
His profile page must be redirected...

	Featured Member Posted By: Raukodacil on 08/29/06 at 12:20 AM
Haha, Scandum just came up as the "Featured Member" on TMC. I clicked his picture but it just brought me to my TMCnet home. C'est la vie!

Swearing Posted By: Fizban on 09/01/06 at 10:16 PM

I agree with C_rassus, why is it that so many people are offended by them. They are words like any other, I believe the overuse of such words makes one look ignorant, but in no way do words deemed "curses" offend me. I find racial slurs and Tyche's gay comments in the past to be offensive but that is because of the topic of such posts not the specific words used to portray said views. I have never seen the purpose of censoring your vocabulary because specific words are seen as offensive, and most likely never will, as far as I see it there should never be an issue with the F word unless you have an issue with all words, or have an issue with the actual meaning or concept of the word. And as only 5% or less of people (approximated) know what the F word truly means being offended by it is ridiculous. By the way for those of you that think I'm kidding...it is an acronym for Fornication Under Consent of King. It was a pass given out by the King of England if I remember correctly that allowed a woman to have sex because they were worried about overpopulation at the time.

Differences? Posted By: Fizban on 09/01/06 at 10:22 PM

Another question, why was Scandum banned for swearing, but Mechaterror was warned in his roleplayer's go home thread. And to make one thing crystal clear for everyone, I am not trying to get Mechaterror banned as well. Is is because someone reported Scandum's to you, whereas Mechaterror's was spotted by yourself and editedby you without a user asking you to do so? Because I doubt there's much difference in how many people saw the two posts...I read Mechaterror's post before you got to it, but didn't report it, because I was in no way offended by the post, I found it to be humorous.

	Difference Posted By: Icculus on 09/01/06 at 11:16 PM
The difference was Scandum was pointed to the terms of service and asked not to bypass the language filter, his response was another post deliberately bypassing the language filter again and basically telling me to f-off ... Icculus

	Posted By: Tyche on 09/01/06 at 11:48 PM
By the way for those of you that think I'm kidding...it is an acronym for Fornication Under Consent of King. Sheesh

The middle finger Posted By: Vanquish on 09/02/06 at 01:05 AM

Actually, from what I read....and it was a long time ago, so I am not sure on the specifics...in some battle, before there were guns and what not, they had bows and knives and such. Well anyways, the bowmen were the ultimate killers in the battle, so, to take them down and not be able to be usable, if they were caught by the enemy, they would slice off their middle finger so that they could not have it their to hold against the arrow. Well, when all was said and done, and the bowmen were walking past the enemy that had surrendered, they all held out their middle finger showing that they still had them, and told them F you, so, that's when flipping someone off with that term came along, so the F word was originated well before the term Fornication Under Consent of King. Or, possibly the bowmen didn't know what they were talking about either.

Posted By: Kavir on 09/02/06 at 06:23 AM

That's just a myth, Vanquish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign#Mythic_origins "The same story has circulated in the US as a supposed explanation for the use of the middle finger as an obscenity, with the added flourish of saying the slang term for the sign, "flipping/giving the bird," has something to do with feathers on arrows. This is absolutely untrue, as the middle-finger sign dates at least to ancient Rome and definitely symbolizes a penis"

How can they say it's myth? Posted By: Vanquish on 09/03/06 at 05:29 AM

The story of the English waving their fingers at the French is told in a first-person account by Froissart. They mention the above statement, but then go on to say that the British filed it as a myth. If they have proof that they actually did do this in that particular war, but they had did it before a certain battle where the myth was said to have started, how can they continue on to file it as a myth?

2 myths 2 explanations Posted By: Desharei on 09/03/06 at 07:54 AM

Foissart's account was of the English waving their own fingers at the French at some castle seige during the 100 years war. The myth of middle fingers being cut from English archers would have occurred during the Battle of Agincourt, which didn't begin until after Foissart's death. The latter was only a myth, it never happened. The Battle was well-documented and there wasn't a single reference to archers (or anyone else) on either side having their fingers forceably removed. In addition, chivalry of the period would've prevented such action, and moreover, there would have been no purpose for it. Thanks for playing, please try again another time :)