HOME       >>       Staff Room

Moderators' Suggestions To Admins Suggestions from moderators that would enhance trap17


electriic ink

New Suggestion :: EDIT Button for members

 

Yes, I do know why it was disabled and why we can't allow it. If it was disabled because of the way that it cannot recount credits on editing, then why I don't see why we can't allow it for the no post-count forums, unless you can't do that with IPB.

 

Do not post pictures in shoutbox

Good rule. Maybe we should have limits on dimensions ie do not post pictures larger than 50px in height and 200px in width?

BuffaloHelp

I'm sorry guys that I barely learned how to edit the shoutbox that allowing EDIT buttons for subsections might be just beyond my understanding. As I understand it, removing EDIT button also allows to leave concrete evidence--a member can post offensive materials and later go back and edit it out before moderator has the chance to issue a warning. People are posting pictures in the shoutbox? Although I have not seen it, I will add that rule to the file.Thank you.


Dooga

Well, you're lucky you didn't see the offensive/porn 1000 X 800 pictures in the shoutbox when the shoutbox was still php include and wasn't in frames.... some porn pic took up the whole screen... it was also the first time I banned someone lol


jlhaslip

Any chance of getting an explanation for this topic: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/30911-xysis/ about the xysis page?


electriic ink

New Suggestion

 

Can we remove d|amn from the censor? Seeing it censored to *darn* all the time is getting annoying. All prime time radio stations/tv channels allow the word, so why can't we?


wassie

removed damn from the bad word filter.i also thought it was annoying... and i dont see it as a bad word.


jlhaslip

Does the "bad word filter" apply to both the shoutbox and the threads?


wassie

i dont know,but i cant really look because the cpanel is a bit going crazy...(need to sort it out)


BuffaloHelp

New Suggestion

 

Can we remove d|amn from the censor? Seeing it censored to *darn* all the time is getting annoying. All prime time radio stations/tv channels allow the word, so why can't we?

211219[/snapback]

If the world started to sniff glue does that make it right? I felt the need to add that to the filter because of wide age range we have here in the forum. If members are casual about using, would that casual mentality teach younger users that minor cursing is alright 1) in the forum and 2) in the society?

 

I suppose you can treat my restrictions as prude, but how are we suppose to enforce united rules when members can say damn this and damn that... Believe it or not the expression "damn" and "dammit" are part of cuss words--just like the word "bastard." Just because it is not highly offensive as other words, it does not make it a cuss words.


wassie

i think damn is more a universal word. you hear it in films all the time... and anyway, because all forums you must be 13 years or older... i dont think it would be a problem


BuffaloHelp

*caugh* definition *caugh* Like I said, the first and foremost it is an oath word

Definitions of damn on the Web:
used as expletives; "oh, damn (or goddamn)!"
curse: wish harm upon; invoke evil upon; "The bad witch cursed the child"
blasted: expletives used informally as intensifiers; "he's a blasted idiot"; "it's a blamed shame"; "a blame cold winter"; "not a blessed dime"; "I'll be damned (or blessed or darned or goddamned) if I'll do any such thing"; "he's a damn (or goddam or goddamned) fool"; "a deuced idiot"; "an infernal nuisance"
bloody: extremely; "you are bloody right"; "Why are you so all-fired aggressive?"
something of little value; "his promise is not worth a damn"; "not worth one red cent"; "not worth shucks"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn



electriic ink

I don't mean to start a war but that dictionary doesn't label "damn" as vulgar slang. I have no problem with goddamn being censored seeing as that is offesnive to some people's religion.The point I was making was that if people can watch tv and listed to "damn" then they can read it in a forum.Nearly everyone here is 13+ and in (12) rated films (and now in some (PG)s), they'd easily allow damn, bast---, crap etc etc.


BuffaloHelp

No, it's not a war or you started one. It's a debate. And my counter reply was that just because everyone uses it, it still does not make it alright to be used... you know what I am trying to say? On the notion of that the world is going down the immoral path (again, using it loosely) that does not mean that particular path is right, alright or okay to travel. Besides, the TV and movie industries are trying to be cutting edge to gain higher view ratings by deploying tactics such as brief nudity and adult language.Anyway, then we should start patrolling more often with what forum posts are containing. I sure don't want to be flamed for, "well this member said the bleep word and you didn't warn him" kind of excuses.


jlhaslip

Well, I'm with BH on this one. As cmatextra points out, the word is being used elsewhere, so if you want to use it, go elsewhere.I work Construction and there aren't too many words or combinations I don't know, so they don't shock or surprise me. It would just be better if they weren't allowed here, IMHO.


mayank

That is absolutely right! Because you'll find movies which will have the work F*ck in it and that word is heard by each and everyone who watch that movie...there are lot of places where you'll two friends saying bad words in high tone..and that is also heard by most people..so this way it doesnt mean that those words are used elsewhere so they must be allowed over here as well...and I think all of us are MODS here and the point of view which Buff & Jim have put will be clear to all of us now.....How about a new suggestion


Dooga

Here's a suggestion: Put an edit button, and when the user edits their post, make it under review.ScenarioBobthegreat posts a post. He posts a tutorial. "Hello! this is how you eat fish! First you take a spoon and you eat it." Lets say Bobthegreat wants to insert a picture of fish in his tutorial, but he already submitted it. (perhaps he bought a new camera).What bobthegreat would do, just like any other person would do... Where's the edit button? OMG! This site doesn't have an edit button! I'll have to suggest it! It just so happens bobthegreat isn't really intelligent. What's a sticky. Whatever it's not important... thinks bob.He posts and gets banned.Lets see another scenario.MaryJane_the5th posts a post about flowers that she's selling. Suddenly, her husband left her all alone without any flowers. She's really pissed, and decides to change the post to talk about how she hates flowers and her bad husband that steals flowers. She knows the drill...1.) Post a double post2.) Report the "damn" thing ;)3.) Wait.There's nothing wrong with that... except...She hates flowers. She doesn't want to tell people she likes them. What's with the post pending editing? She doesn't want anyone to see it... better hurry up Mr/Mrs. Admin/ModIn all these scenarios, we know something is wrong. However, how can we change this?Putting a pending edit button.Scenario 3: What's really supposed to happen.LuckyChick posts a post saying that she hates her english teacher. However, at school, she learns that the English teacher actually checks the Xisto forums because she is hosted there. She doesn't want the teacher to know, so she sneaks onto the Xisto forums when she's having computer class. She easily clicks the edit button, remove the words "Ms. Anglais is a witch", and replaces it with "Ms. Anglais is a very nice teacher". She promply notices the words "Please note that this edit will be pending, and a moderator will have to verify it." She clicks "Edit my post and let a moderator check it". She returns to the topic, it says that "this post is pending editing". No one knows she posted the topic.A moderator gets a control panel with the original content, and the requested edited version. A moderator can either, select to delete the post, or accept the change. Simple. Person doesn't get the topic posted, and gets to edit, no cheating, voila.


mayank

I have to say that Dooga has given a very nice suggestion.With this what will happen is that people who always yell that there is not edit button over here...will not complaint..secondly there will be less double posts and also we wont have to tell each and everyone that "Please use the report button to make any changes" there are hardly few people who do that regularly.And because of that approval from mods...there will be no chance of cheating as well. And if we find out that ok someone posted a copied stuff first and then is changing his content, then we'll be able to warn him then and there.


Dooga

It also provides the user the ability to not have their post viewed by other members when they decide that they don't want it viewed.


jlhaslip

Signatures At End of PostingEffective Jan 03, 2006, members should be (first) notified that the inclusion of signatures inside their postings are a violation of the TOS and/or AUP and/or Xisto Rules. (second)Warnings will be issued for violations that follow the above notifications.Okay, so I am going to suggest that there should be a note about this included in the Xisto Readme file and in the AUP/TOS and in the Help file.Another thing about this is how do we as Moderators know who has been warned by another Mod? Unless there is a note made in the same posting (and we see it and remember all the posts and member names), we do not know about whether another mod has already issued the notification to stop.It might be easier to spend the next few days or a week issuing warnings and removing the banned signatures and then start issuing warnings after the 'transition' period is over? Say, effective Jan 10, 2006, there will be no excuses for the inclusion of the banned siggies and then the Mods won't look foolish because the same member has been warned a bunch of times, but never issued the warning. See what I mean?Also, what about a pinned topic or announcement in the Hosted member's area explaining that this rule will now be enforced??


BuffaloHelp

I mentioned what jlhaslip is talking about in the shoutbox today. I wanted everybody to be enforcing the same restriction. In the past the veteren moderators and admins were discussing when I joined the moderating team. We all agreed that signing off with one's name all the time and listing so many URL links without using quotes can be viewed as "cheating" the hosting credit system. But it was never ruled into the official rules and such. My thoughts are these: I don't want to see enforcing name signing off as mandatory thing for us moderators and administrators. So, let's make it simple by doing this--if jlhaslip sees member X with constantly signing off with the user name. Since to jlhaslip, this member X is the first time that jlhaslip is noticing that member is signing off and not using the sig so jlhaslip PMs member X. I, two days later, notice the same member X and PM with a caution note. Three days go by and this member X does not comply. jlhaslip since then issued warning because the member X ignored jlhaslip's PM. I check to see if member X had received warning regarding disregarding to use signature and does not issue additional warning (since jlhaslip already taken care of that). Few more days go by and I now noticed that member X did not regard my PM and so I too issue a warning.So all we have to do is just keep a tab on which member each of us Pmed. Regarding URLs... I think we don't have any issue with posting URL without using the CODE tag. But if a post contains more than 30% of just URLs or excessive URLs (like listing sites with free domain names, etc) CODE or QUOTE tags should be used.



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Page 6Page 7Page 8


VIEW ORIGINAL REGISTER GET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.