EvaGeeks Forum Rules & Regulations

[Markal]

Clicking on the "Forum Rules" link in the User Control Panel elicited a weird message from my browser about missing security certifications. Is this safe to ignore?

[NemZ]

Yeah, it's fine. Just go through the hoop of creating your own certificate in the 'advanced' option that pops up and it shouldn't show up again.

[BobBQ]

Reminder for users on mobile devices: section 2.4 of the rules asks you to post in a form we can actually read. If autocorrect renders your sentences nonsensical, please turn it off or fix its foul-ups before submitting your post.

[Shamsiel-kun]

I would like to seek a clarification as to what is considered as unacceptable comments on each others' (posting) habits, as per the Mod action described in this post plus Paul's and my own comments following it.

Because if advice to other posters is illegal, then we can as well shut down a large number of threads in the OT forum...

[NemZ]

Turning a discussion about the site as a whole into an extended tangent on one guy was both off-topic and threatening to become the sort of dogpiling problem that had been mentioned before. Also he didn't ask for advice, and you aren't in a position to arbitrarily hand it out on behalf of the board.

[Bagheera]

I would think the topic of being intentionally vague and its effects on communication is a valid topic for discussion, though, particularly in that thread.

Also, it would be helpful if people understood the difference between dogpiling and widespread disagreement. If you say something stupid and/or offensive and multiple people comment on it, that's not a dogpile. That's a stupid and/or offensive statement getting its natural response. It's only a dogpile when people are intentionally kicking the original poster when he's down, in an effort to silence or humiliate him. And yes, that's a bad thing, no matter the topic at hand. But extending use of the term to include multiple people expressing polite disagreement is misleading at best, and downright disingenuous at worst.

[DarkBluePhoenix]

Dogpiling is generally done to a statement that people disagree with in order to force the person to not respond by inundating them with so many points to contend with the discussion is buried before it began, or in an attempt to respond they end up omnislashing multiple posts to back up their statement, which is against forum rules if I'm not mistaken.

In the SD forum where this happened often, it was generally done as a silencing tactic rather than anything to do with polite conversation, which is (partly or in large part) what led to SD being closed. Calling it anything else is disingenuous at its best and worst.

[Chuckman]

In the SD forum where this happened often, it was generally done as a silencing tactic rather than anything to do with polite conversation,

I never posted in SD except to inquire as to someone's point of view, attempt to change their mind, or illuminate spectators who read without participating.

[NemZ]

The feedback thread is not an invitation to continue a graveyarded tangent, guys. Like it or not, an answer was given.

I mean we also generally frown on people obstinately continuing conversation threads that have been intentionally locked or purged, so don't push it.

[Shamsiel-kun]

Honest question with regards to a recently closed thread that was closed after the original author was repeatedly told to stop using a certain word :

If the word in question is banned, why don't you just add it to the list of banned words that will show up as asterisks in people's posts?

AFAIK, most forum software has such a blacklist for potentially offensive terms, and it is a simple solution to avoid unnecessary drama.

[pwhodges]

Automatic banned word lists don't work nearly as well as one would like them to. They also sidestep the opportunity to confront real issues.

[Mr. Tines]

The word-filter functionality in the forum software is geared towards removing the seven words you couldn't say on TV or the modern-day equivalent thereof, and doesn't handle the case where the deprecated slang is applied as an affix. At best it would locate just the affixed words and replace them in their entirety e.g. turning both "Askua-fan" and "Rei-fan" (which is roughly what the deprecated affix really means, any negative associations about the tagged group having been lost over the decade-plus of the usage) into "a fanatical supporter", with the "of whom" flattened.

[TheFriskyIan]

I'd like to say that Xard did bring up a good point though, the example he gave may have been from 2013 but in terms of social-change, not much has changed. I don't see what makes usage back then different than usage now. I'd also like to say that several other sites I visit use this terminology quite frequently as well. Regardless, I don't particularly mind the unspoken rule of not using such terminology all that much, I'm rather indifferent towards it.

Just please don't ban "trap", I don't want to lose another internet home.

[Mr. Tines]

Just please don't ban "trap"

I'm more inclined to pre-emptively deprecate the use of the affix "-cel" which is showing signs of losing connection with its original coinage and becoming this decade's generic indicator of demographic.

[Shamsiel-kun]

The word-filter functionality in the forum software is geared towards removing the seven words you couldn't say on TV or the modern-day equivalent thereof, and doesn't handle the case where the deprecated slang is applied as an affix. At best it would locate just the affixed words and replace them in their entirety e.g. turning both "Askua-fan" and "Rei-fan" (which is roughly what the deprecated affix really means, any negative associations about the tagged group having been lost over the decade-plus of the usage) into "a fanatical supporter", with the "of whom" flattened.

So it can't take something like "*-fan" (to continue using your replacement affix), with a wildcard for the preceding symbols? That's too bad.

Sometimes I wonder why we have all those fancy regular expression capabilities in programming languages, but they don't get used in the kind of situations where they would be a definitive plus...

[Reichu]

A filter isn't needed anyway. It wasn't a problem at all until Xard reappeared and wrongfully assumed the forum hadn't changed with the times. The user base in general knows better. The last time slurs were enough of an issue to merit us talking about changing the rules was back in 2015!

[Mr. Tines]

Sometimes I wonder why we have all those fancy regular expression capabilities in programming languages, but they don't get used in the kind of situations where they would be a definitive plus...

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.

They are difficult to get right, come in a few subtly different variations (php has two different flavours, though fortunately one of those is deprecated), and generally allow scope for foot-shooting. Simple combinations with wildcard "*" meaning any zero or more non-space characters are easy exactly because they are less powerful.

The fact that there are no official word-filter extensions of any form suggests that, while something could be coded, the demand just isn't there.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I also think any poster in any forum should have the ability to “read the room,” as it were. If a poster is reading the (years worth of) recent postings on this forum, they should pick up on that type of speech is being used, and appropriately “do as the romans do.” If no one else is using a slur, then it’s best to not introduce one to the conversation. I know if I were gone for an extended period of time, my first couple of days back would be spent getting a sense of the vibe in the forum so I know what conversing appropriately looks like.

[robersora]

I don't think we should discuss censorship just because one person isn't capable of switching into proper social conduct and isn't willing to adhere to basic etiquette / be purposefully abrasive riling up the community in the process. The problem with filtering words is, that language has nuances and intent does matter. I for myself do not mind no-no words, but I do understand social cues and if a person gives off negative vibes, which is something a filter inherently cannot do. So instead I suggest cancelling the respective person, if they are unwilling to behave in a friendly way.
We also could just grow up and maybe be not so offended by everything, but this is an Evangelion forum on which most people who are heavily mentally scarred find refuge, so we really should not expect that other people do the heavy lifting for [REDACTED] assholes.

[glitz2hard]

i'll admit i, even in all my attempts to be a nice little child, have a really, really bad habit of not getting my tone across properly. it's baaaad in real life, and even worse on the internet, and has created WAY too many problems. so my stance on censorship is... try to save it for the pms with your friends?