I found it in my main
EQ forum faq at the bottom, under "Anything else I should know"
The nature of the guideline "posts that are pornographic, overly obnoxious" leaves a lot of lattitude and I'm sure that was the intention of "light moderation".
But definitions aside, no forum needs people posting drivel like
SmartieKjm wrote:
There was a jew who bought drugs from a nigge r who's brother was a faaaaaaayg.. but the colored boy jewed the hebe for 500 dollars so the gay went to a catholic priest and was banged for 500 to give to the jew... and the christian hypoctites went and bought oranges from thw ******* dirty mexican selling on the street... to stone the jew,black,and gay with oranges..
Obnoxious:
1. highly objectionable or offensive; odious: obnoxious behavior.
2. annoying or objectionable due to being a showoff or attracting undue attention to oneself Guideline met?
edit: I just spent 20 minutes in The Asylum and have to conclude that this isn't significantly different than most posts there. Perhaps it just needs to be moved to the proper forum...
It's funny in an odd way. I used to be a regular poster on the original Verant forums. Now we have new SOE forums with extreme censorship. When I moved here from Caster's Realm, I assumed that this was another PG rated forum with more moderation than I preferred, albeit with more interesting people and content. Now I see the difference.
In general you let it go and allow the rating 'system' to bury posts that people can't stomach.
<pausing a moment to consider that>
Each forum has a population of posters that enjoy and expect different things. There are always outliers. Bottom line - rate it down and it disappears. Each forum rates as it desires and each individual majority rules. My only issue with this is that any thread with a frequent sub-default poster becomes impossible to follow; essentially meaningless as a result of the posts lost via using the default filter. Solution, turn off filter. Is that really a solution? I want to read meaningful sequential messages and the default filter prevents that, so I don't use the filter.
I don't have a better solution. I do think it is grounds for a discussion on better ways to censor objectionable speech.
Edited, Fri Aug 20 20:24:07 2004 by Samatman