[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

Some years ago, I was involved in a project to develop "filters" for certain online forums .... (SNIP)

As for editing posts, you might want to look at this post in another forum.

Well, I agree that filters don't work... filter out Viagra and you get v1agra, Vi@gra, etc.... not to mention the problems helene mentioned.

The law's page doesn't say what their standards are. They say, that their policy is "to not edit other people's posts except in very rare circumstances."

They do not state what those circumstances are.

They claim that if they edit a post: they will indicating who did so.

Generally we do too. I add an "edited by inquiry" thingee if I edit a post. Titles that are edited do not have that little "editted by" thing. I also usually say in the text what I changed...

They say, "if a post is considered inappropriate here, we may remove it, but that's a different thing. Usually when we do so we will PM the original poster explaining the reason for the action."

That is also true for us. I didn't send a private message to the two authors I deleted post in this thread, but I did talk about it at legnth in the post above.

They have 29,391 post and 1,325 registered members, we have
267689 posts and 5802 registered members

As far as I can tell, they are not a for profit site, I pretty sure Fred and UDay are trying to make money.

The number of members, the sheer volume of post, and the nature of the site (not for profit, and a web-based support for a for profit products like BBO software and games played on bbo itself), suggest different rules might be appropriate.

As it is, out of more than a quarter of a million post, very few have been editted, deleted. WE have 84 deleted threads... the last was sceptics "Should we cull the Human race" (since he already mentioned it in this thread, i will mention it) that was posted on and deleted on Feb 3. Many of the deleted threads dealt with purchasing viagra, or some other spam stuff before we instituted a way to stop those. (examples, "buy new cars", "Im looking for mail friends", "Warning! Anyone can peep at sites you visit! ", "Losing weight has never been so easy!
phentermine online", "need a home equity loan? "). Of the ones posted by real members, some were crazy things... most dealt with calling someone or the other a cheat. One went over the top on the incident at tenerife, one was by a person banned on the bbo and he went off on everything related to bbo. In addition, several threads were started by BBO yellows.. fred, uday, rain, gweny, have all got some in there. When we deleted a forum that wasn't used.. the post in that went in... By my count, of the 84 threads deleted, a bundle of them in the deleted dutch forum that didn't work... .it was eventually removed for lack of activity. Only 26 post by real bbo members were deleted for being objectional (as opposed to out of date). And most were really objectional, ones like would world peace occur if all members of one religion where killed overnight. Or what women like, going into sexually explicit examples.

Ben

[luke warm]

i believe ben is about as good a moderator as there can be for a forum such as this... unfortunately, he doesn't have the time (or probably the inclination) to spend all his time here

[blackshoe]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

The law's page doesn't say what their standards are. They say, that their policy is "to not edit other people's posts except in very rare circumstances."

They do not state what those circumstances are.

They claim that if they edit a post: they will indicating who did so.

Generally we do too. I add an "edited by inquiry" thingee if I edit a post. Titles that are edited do not have that little "editted by" thing. I also usually say in the text what I changed...

They say, "if a post is considered inappropriate here, we may remove it, but that's a different thing. Usually when we do so we will PM the original poster explaining the reason for the action."

That is also true for us. I didn't send a private message to the two authors I deleted post in this thread, but I did talk about it at legnth in the post above.

They have 29,391 post and 1,325 registered members, we have
267689 posts and 5802 registered members

As far as I can tell, they are not a for profit site, I pretty sure Fred and UDay are trying to make money.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I wrote that post. "They" would be David Stevenson and I, for the IBLF. The site belongs to someone else ("Bridgeaddict" :-)).

In the end, the success of any online forum depends on several things. It depends on the site managers to provide interesting content, or at least a place for members to provide interesting content. It depends on the members to treat each other courteously. And it depends on trust. Trust by management that members will, in general, behave, and trust by members that management will not act capriciously in ensuring that they do.

In general, I don't have a problem with the way BBO is handling things, so don't think I'm criticizing. I'm not. I was simply trying to point out what another site — one I happen to help manage — is doing in the same area. If you guys don't think it'll work for you, that's your call.

[finally17]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

But the question is not does the majority find it objectionable, it should be how many people might find it objectionable and if some number do, should it be allowed. Is one complaint enough (I don't edit things i don't find objectionable or at least highly questionable on one complaint), two? three? And should we wait for complaints? I mean if it takes three days for three complaints to come in, what is the point of censoring it then? This is where I think the discussion in this thread should go.. most of us will accept that "do you have the balls" will not upset the majority of forum readers, but we also know it will be objectionable to at least some. Q.E.D. So.. the question is when the "fun" of the many outweighs the "discomfort" of the few.

I agree completely. In fact, I said something very similar a few posts back:

Quote

Now, since there are always people who take things to extremes, a list of things that are considered unacceptable shouldn't be generated by asking the question "does anyone have a problem with this" but rather something like "do a reasonable percentage (whatever that is) of reasonable people (however we define that) have a problem with this."

But I'm not at all certain time should have anything to do with it. If it's been up for 3 days, and you reach a complaint threshold at that point, strike it. The fact that people choose not to be reactionary and complain in large numbers, quickly and largely, doesn't mean problem statements should remain in perpetuity.

[jillybean]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Not sure we have settled much in this thread about what the standards are.

For one thing, the water cooler standards are much less than the other forums. There are profanities in this thread that would never stand in the other forums. We could establish automatic filters that change profanity words to something else, so for example if you typed in *****, it would change it to fiddlesticks (or what ever we wanted). This is something I (we?) have avoided.

Im still not clear if this discussion is about standards for the WC, the main forum or both?

The WC has become the place to let things fly so I think add R18 rating warning and let people go at it, those who don’t like it can avoid it.

[cherdano]

My opinion on this is divided:

1. I do think the thread title that caused all this was a sexist formulation. Of course, it has become a common place formulation, it wasn't intended as offensive, and it is pretty harmless, but all that doesn't change it's sexist nature. (And, in fact all the contributions by female posters in this and the other thread seem to agree.)

2. I also think very strongly that this is waaaay below anything that the moderators should even consider to censor. I continue to believe that censoring causes more problems than it solves - every time a post is edited because it was offensive to some, the act of censoring offends others, every time the moderators start to censor some stuff others will call to censor more (as exemplified by blackshoe's story of high school filtering..., but also seen here), it will cause yet another group to test the moderators by writing similar posts, etc. etc.

In particular, I don't think the moderators should edit or remove posts based on complaints, or because they are offensive to some. They should remove/edit posts when they violate clear rules, and otherwise explain those who complain why censoring will just cause more problems.

[jillybean]

If you are reading what is going on in the cell phone thread, nothing has changed but then I’d be kidding myself if I thought it would.

I will still not post “Jesus Christ! I bid this poorly, this auction is f’ed or look what a cretin I was here” because I know someone is very likely to find it objectionable.

I don’t think these expressions violate any site rules and I would be surprised if a significant number of forum readers took offense with any one of these. So should I be free to use them? I don’t think so but if the majority accept this as a way to have some ‘fun’, so be it.

And I swear I will not post about this again

[onoway]

Just curious..it seems as far as many of the men in the forum are concerned, it is pefectly ok to make sexist remarks. Most of the posters appear to equate the remark made with being asked if they have balls, and nobody seems to find this offensive. I agree, this expression is part of common use (which the title of the thread was not, I certainly have never run across such a reference in this context before). However, if the remark made to a man was something like "what are you, a queer to bid like that???" I wonder if their gut reaction would be quite as relaxed...or is it just in my part of the world that THAT expression would be considered hostile and unacceptable? ( and now I hope this doesn't start a new trend in pseudo insulting partners..)

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

While we are on the subject, Uday edited one title in the normal forums, I edited han's, because at least two people objected to it. Perhaps i shouldn't have editted, but I didn't think the discussion in that thread should be rather "balls" was appropriate or not, i thought it should be about the interesting problem. The balls issue was hijacking that thread. Discuss it here is fine.

My strong preference is that you had sent a PMail to Han saying "would it be all right if I changed your title? Some people may find it offensive". And if he said no, well, then you could leave it alone or warn him for bad language, depending upon how bad you thought it was (in this clear, I think it's clear that a warning would not be appropriate).

[TimG]

onoway, on Apr 1 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Just curious..it seems as far as many of the men in the forum are concerned, it is pefectly ok to make sexist remarks. Most of the posters appear to equate the remark made with being asked if they have balls, and nobody seems to find this offensive. I agree, this expression is part of common use (which the title of the thread was not, I certainly have never run across such a reference in this context before). However, if the remark made to a man was something like "what are you, a queer to bid like that???" I wonder if their gut reaction would be quite as relaxed...or is it just in my part of the world that THAT expression would be considered hostile and unacceptable? ( and now I hope this doesn't start a new trend in pseudo insulting partners..)

Somewhere along the way, I mentioned the currently in vogue usage of "gay" or "ghay" to denote something stupid or lame. I was surprised that the reaction was mostly along the lines of "language evolves and while it's evolving we can just put up with it, pretty soon it won't be offensive so we shouldn't be offended by it now".

[inquiry]

jtfanclub, on Apr 1 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 29 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

While we are on the subject, Uday edited one title in the normal forums, I edited han's, because at least two people objected to it. Perhaps i shouldn't have editted, but I didn't think the discussion in that thread should be rather "balls" was appropriate or not, i thought it should be about the interesting problem. The balls issue was hijacking that thread. Discuss it here is fine.

My strong preference is that you had sent a PMail to Han saying "would it be all right if I changed your title? Some people may find it offensive". And if he said no, well, then you could leave it alone or warn him for bad language, depending upon how bad you thought it was (in this clear, I think it's clear that a warning would not be appropriate).

Well, let;s be straight, I personally didn't find han's title offensive. But then, last time I checked my balls were intact. There is no way I am going to issue a warning for such a comment that was made without intent to provoke.

Second, to be clear. The phrase used was not "do you have the balls", sort of the generic phrase being quoted in this thread. It was "GROW SOME BALLS". Is this any different? Well, I am not certain but a few users (yes more than jillybean) thought so.

Jillybean was singled out in this thread because she publically objected to the threads title. I saw her object and did nothing, in fact, I posted what i would do in the thread (she was reply 1, I was reply like 12 or so. Before I replied, hand posted this...

Quote

It was meant humorous and not at all sexist. If you find it offensive though then I will refrain from using such titles in the future.

Which I took as acceptance that if the title was offensive he would refain from using it in the future. He lacks the power to make the change, I do not. Still I did not change it then. However, when I opened my email, I found email from two members objecting to the title, one addressing the sexist nature of "grow some" instead of "have the".... So I came back and edited the title...

The author issued a possible apology and said wouldn't do it anymore if people found it sexist. At least two people did, and an issue was made of the word "grow", Maybe there is no distinction, maybe there is, but I took the conversation in the thread as tacit approval if people found it sexist to change it. So I did. Uday got the other one, I never even saw the original title on that one.

[jillybean]

inquiry, on Apr 1 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

The author issued a possible apology and said wouldn't do it anymore if people found it sexist. At least two people did, and an issue was made of the word "grow", Maybe there is no distinction, maybe there is, but I took the conversation in the thread as tacit approval if people found it sexist to change it. So I did. Uday got the other one, I never even saw the original title on that one.

Correct, and then later;

han, on Mar 23 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

I bid only 3♠ which lead to a disaster, I need to grow some synapses. Next time though I will grab the bull by the balls horns.

[luke warm]

well hell... i don't find it sexist at all, but that's just me

[Elianna]

jillybean2, on Apr 1 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 1 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

The author issued a possible apology and said wouldn't do it anymore if people found it sexist. At least two people did, and an issue was made of the word "grow", Maybe there is no distinction, maybe there is, but I took the conversation in the thread as tacit approval if people found it sexist to change it. So I did. Uday got the other one, I never even saw the original title on that one.

Correct, and then later;

han, on Mar 23 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

I bid only 3♠ which lead to a disaster, I need to grow some synapses. Next time though I will grab the bull by the balls horns.

luke warm said:

well hell... i don't find it sexist at all, but that's just me

I don't think that it's sexist so much (after all, bulls DO have them), it's just that the expressions IS "grab the bull by the horns", and the strike-through correction seems put in just to rile someone.

I mean, why write "balls" with a strike-through EXCEPT to try to offend?

[TimG]

Elianna, on Apr 2 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

I mean, why write "balls" with a strike-through EXCEPT to try to offend?

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post.

[finally17]

TimG, on Apr 2 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

Elianna, on Apr 2 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

I mean, why write "balls" with a strike-through EXCEPT to try to offend?

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post.

But it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. In fact, you're taking advantage of your knowledge that they'll be bothered to provide humor for others.

[TimG]

finally17, on Apr 2 2008, 03:07 PM, said:

TimG, on Apr 2 2008, 08:35 AM, said:

Elianna, on Apr 2 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

I mean, why write "balls" with a strike-through EXCEPT to try to offend?

To put a light hearted spin on the matter. You may not think it effective, but that is what I thought when I read the post.

But it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. In fact, you're taking advantage of your knowledge that they'll be bothered to provide humor for others.

As I said, you may not think it was effective.

[han]

I did not mind Ben changing the title at all, I actually thought it was rather amusing. Not sure why this is even discussed.

The title was "grow some balls?". I did not use capital letters.

I understand why the expression "grow some balls" is sexist and said I wouldn't use it anymore. I didn't.

The joke about the balls of the bull is not sexist, come on! If Elianna does't like my humor then that's unfortunate but I don't understand how anybody could find that sexist.

Finally, Jillybean swore that she would not post about this again and now she did. I find this kind of light-hearted swearing pretty offensive.

(This is a joke, adding smillie for clarity: )

[kenberg]

As W. C. Fields said regarding bulls, sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

[Elianna]

han, on Apr 2 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

The joke about the balls of the bull is not sexist, come on! If Elianna does't like my humor then that's unfortunate but I don't understand how anybody could find that sexist.

I never said it was sexist, I don't know anyone who did. I'm sorry that I don't find comments humorous that seem to be at someone else's expense.