Screenshots unedited on the BOI

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Ultimately, some common sense should come into play. One could argue that the uncensored version gives "the real story"...but this IS supposed to be a business forum, and Rich has repeatedly asked that people conduct themselves with some semblance of professionalism. Sometimes I miss the days of calling an assclown an assclown; but I agree that doing so conflicts with the business aspect of the BOI. There's enough crap to sift through without letting it deteriorate to that.

If the one using the swearing is supposed to be a professional, I believe it does tell "the real story" or at the very least, their lack of professionalism.

Originally Posted by Snake-Queen

... swearing... lack of professionalism.

So many people seem very quick to make that connection, in an absolute blanket-statement sense. I just can't bring myself to go nearly that far. I guess I just don't know if swearing absolutely equates to a lack of professionalism; and I don't know if professionalism is necessarily such a great thing, if it comes at the expense of reality. I generally factor intent into how I interpret whether someone's words are out of line. In my eyes, real people say some real from time to time - it's often a beautiful thing. There are times when I really chafe against the prohibition on profanity. Sometimes, it just feels very disingenuous to not call it like I see it - in precisely the terms that truly come to mind. It's got nothing to do with any deficiencies in my vocabulary; I just don't like the feeling that I'm playing a role that doesn't quite suit me. What can I say? I'm a cheerful vulgarian at heart. [/Rant]

I'm a legal adult. I do understand the possible social, legal and "responsible" ramifications of not censoring on a public site.

It is also the decision of the site owner to set and enforce the terms set forth, as well as to alter, edit or otherwise revise those terms.

It's a difficult dilemma, and one I'm happy not to have to tackle and balance.

That said, I'm okay with whatever the Rich wants to do with his site.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

Ask (well, ok, you didn't actually ask) and you shall receive. I'm sure I've seen more of them. I guess he may want to officially weigh in on what's acceptable.

I thought you meant that he had been the one to post like that (even though the discussion was about quotes)

Originally Posted by hhmoore

I thought you meant that he had been the one to post like that

In the interest of not giving anyone any specific reason to look more thoroughly through my own posts; I'm not even gonna bother looking into that one.

Originally Posted by Occidentalis

For what it's worth I support uncensored screenshots. With the call for unadulterated content, I think it's best. I don't think our sensibilities are that delicate.

Perhaps not...but, to be honest, those screenshots aren't always relevant or necessary. Further, if we're going to just flat out accept the content of screenshots; it becomes more of an issue addressing foul language that is posted. If the language is tolerated in that format, it's prevalence will increase...and some people will become less guarded about typing it in their posts.
(I know a lot of people would be fine with the language constraints being removed; but that's a whole other discussion)

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Perhaps not...but, to be honest, those screenshots aren't always relevant or necessary. Further, if we're going to just flat out accept the content of screenshots; it becomes more of an issue addressing foul language that is posted. If the language is tolerated in that format, it's prevalence will increase...and some people will become less guarded about typing it in their posts.
(I know a lot of people would be fine with the language constraints being removed; but that's a whole other discussion)

I don't think it would increase appreciably, but I have no real evidence to support that claim. I'd have to conceed the point if you have seen similar problems before.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

In the interest of not giving anyone any specific reason to look more thoroughly through my own posts; I'm not even gonna bother looking into that one.

It is just as well you didn't waste your time, because I SERIOUSLY doubt your search will be successful, even looking through the HELL forum. I speak using profanity quite often, but have not seen much need to use profanity when I write except in very rare occasions, and usually only in very private conversations. I normally can make my point understood without using such words and don't need them for emphasis nor as crutches to try to bolster my breadth of vocabulary. To me, the written word is far too permanent and uncontrollable as to what eyes can view it YEARS in the future for me to want to sully it, and myself, with such language.

Yes, this topic has been talked about among myself in the moderators, and I believe we left it such that the infraction will remain on the books, but we will de-emphasize the enforcement of it. This was because I too thought that it might be an unreasonable burden upon someone who had a screenshot that would provide insight and evidence concerning claims and statements made, but would be placed in a dilemma if they did not have the tools nor expertise to edit out profane language from the screen shot. They would have to choose between getting an infraction for providing that screenshot, or not providing what could be useful information, at all. So would that be fair to EVERYONE, and perhaps even detrimental to the aims and goals of the Board of Inquiry? I think, perhaps yes, it would be. Perhaps already has been.

So yes, this is a pretty sticky gray area which will have no solution palatable to everyone. Which is why I have decided to not only de-emphasize the infraction, but also make it discretionary to any of the moderators viewing the possibly offending image. Since infractions are not publicly viewable, I felt that quietly acting in this manner might be the best approach rather than making any sort of public announcement to that effect. But now that my hand has been forced, a public explanation becomes unavoidable.......

Will this be consistently enforced in a manner that will satisfy everyone? Of course not. Should the infraction be removed completely? Perhaps, but at this point in time I am not granting everyone the ability to post all the profanity they wish to simply by providing it as an image. There may still be a line that can be crossed at the discretion of any of the moderators and myself.

Fortunately such images cannot be scanned for context and have such embedded profanity get the site blocked from corporate firewalls. At least not that I am aware of as a standard procedure. So I am not real overly concerned with relaxing that particular rule too much. I still don't like it much, but I can recognize what side of the gray area seems best to be on, all things considered.

One possible unfortunate result of this, which I think was brought up among the moderators, is that some people seeing profanity posted in such a manner might very likely come under the impression that profanity made in posts is also acceptable. So those people might very well earn an infraction for profanity that might have otherwise been avoided by not seeing it allowed in any form. That infraction is a 4 pointer, and only three such infractions will trigger a 3 day ban. This is unfortunate, but sorry, I am not relaxing my restriction on that particular rule. Perhaps profanity has become much more acceptable in every day life, but in my opinion, it's use still presents what I personally feel is a bad image of not only the people engaging in that sort of talk, but also a site that allows it's free and unrestricted usage. Maybe it is a bit prudish and behind the times of me to feel that way, but that is just the way it is. I may change my opinion in the future, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. You know what they say about being set in your ways when you get older....

So, anyway, hope this clears things up a little bit about a "behind the scenes" policy alteration. I would have rather that this did not come up in public discussion, but I do understand that it was quite likely inevitable that it would.

Seems fair to me. Thanks for the clarification.