Make OB Less Kid Frendly

[Lord Rannos]

This is something I've been kind of curious about. Why does Otakuboards have limitations against swearing? I mean, it doesn't seem like this forum is exactly geared towards children, nor are there a lot of children here. For example, in Morpheus's poll for people's ages, only 1 out of the 35 people who voted thus far were under 13. (Located [URL=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=51181]here[/URL])

Plus, looking at the 28 threads in the adventure inn (On Dec. 27, tracking the last 2 weeks), only about 5 are not rated M. I just think these all point towards the forum really doesn't have much in the way of kids.

Now, I'm not saying that we should allow porn or directly offensive language (i.e. the "N" word ), nor do I suggest every post requires a swear word to be meaningful. I just don't believe in censorship in any form, and that sometimes you just want to say *******.

[Saya]

Well it might just be an observation of mine, but I've seen a number of young individuals on the forums (typically around the age of 16). While I wouldn't go so far as to call them "children," I wouldn't classify them as adults or "mature" generally speaking. Certainly there are those who happen [i]to be mature[/i], I mean that as a loose generalization.

As for the Adventure Inn, I've spotted a number of individuals involved in mature threads who aren't over 17 (as clearly stated in their profiles). I care little for policy matters as to whether or not they should or should not be posting in such threads, thought I'd mention it.

I suppose an important question would be is what does the forum as a whole (namely their staff and those responsible for it), consider to be "children" and what do they make of mature content in the hands of teens? What lines are drawn? Whether or not these questions are answered in the "Rules" are unknown to me, while I've read them more than once I cannot recall them word for word off hand.

My point is simply that I believe these classifications you hinted at (and the forum moderators? use for policy matters) should be clarified before any suggestions of this sort are considered.

Personally speaking I don't care what the official policies regarding the use of profanities are. I'd rather they not be used simply because younger forum members might abuse them (a poor reason but one which I think is important on a forum). Certainly when addressing one's senior (as in respect of ones profession, knowledge or age) some decorum should be used? this is a preference of mine which I doubt everyone feels strongly about.

As it stands I don?t see any reason to stand any way in regards to whether or not swear words be allowed for usage on the forums. Simply wanted to make mention of an important consideration which can easily be overlooked.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Well, just because someone's over the age of 17 or 18 or whatever doesn't mean they necessarily want to swear or read others' swearing on an online forum. Sure, we keep the censor in place partly to keep younger members from being exposed to language that their parents might find unsuitable, but also because others just don't want to see it. I know I wouldn't care to visit a forum filled with mindless swearing and I'm sure there's a good number of others here with the same opinion.

So aside from keeping OB "kid friendly," the censor also keeps it open to a wider audience of adults.[/color]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Arial][size=2]And also there's the fact that with the pretty little asterix in place, the words don't necessarily have to [i]be[/i] swear words. For instance, if someone curses at me for something, I can choose to believe that ***** is actually "honey", "sugar" or even a friendly "Asphy", while **** you could be "love you" or "kiss you" or "hugs you" --

-- it makes the world much more pleasant.

Regarding the rating, I think they aren't there so much as to stop younger people from going into it as to advise of content. So the M rating is saying, "Yes, this [i]is[/i] M, it [i]is[/i] for mature audiences, so be aware." I think it's up to the discretion of the members if they then want to be involved or not. I know that I was involved in violent RPGs at 15, and if someone had told me not to, I would have said, "Love you" and gone to another forum. [img]http://otakuboards.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
[/size][/font]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Decorum in addressing one's elders? This is an [i]internet forum[/i]. You should have basic respect and courtesy when posting, but it make no difference to me whether I'm abusing an eight year old school-kid, or a thirty year old teacher, for making a stupid post.

The censor is in place merely because there will be people who are wont to abuse language, and flame others. Tendency to do this has little to do with their age I find. If you find something personally 'wrong' with censorship, then I'm afraid that's too bad. If people didn't swear, then you wouldn't even know that OB had a censor :p

As Asphy said, the ratings are not there as a restriction of any kind, rather they're there so that people who would rather not be exposed to language, or violence, or sexual writing can avoid these things. It's out of our hands as to who participates in what. This is the internet, we know nothing about the person on the other end. It's a self-regulation thing, mainly. If you don't want to read a mature thread, or think you might feel badly about it, then you don't read it. To sum: No lines are drawn by anybody who runs this forum. And there need not be.

And persocomblues, from your post 'Thought Police' is an apt title ~_^[/size]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The main thing to note is that we don't censor people's ideas or anything. I mean, censoring swearing is one thing, but we don't actually censor what people have to say. The language filter is simply to encourage quality posting. I don't think we should assume that adults necessarily want to see bad language - they probably want to avoid it more than younger members.

Regarding classifications, I want to clarify that a little. Our classifications are not designed to physically block people from threads. They are merely suggestions, so that thread creators can let other members know what kind of content a thread may have. That's all they are for. If people enter these threads, they do so with the knowledge of what the content may include. So at that point it's their choice really.

What we wouldn't do is present something mature without forewarning people. I do not want to limit what subjects people discuss, but I do want to ensure that other members are forewarned about the content.[/font]

[Saya]

[quote name='Baron Samedi]Decorum in addressing one's elders? This is an internet forum. You should have basic respect and courtesy when posting, but it make no difference to me whether I'm abusing an eight year old school-kid, or a thirty year old teacher, for making a stupid post.[/quote]It was a personal preference not a suggestion for the thread. I'm fully aware that must people wouldn't agree with this and therefore have no expectations to see such curtsey delivered in the future (plus in actuality the criteria I mentioned earlier would be hard to judge online people by on a forum).[quote=Baron Samedi]The censor is in place merely because there will be people who are wont to abuse language, and flame others. Tendency to do this has little to do with their age I find. If you find something personally 'wrong' with censorship, then I'm afraid that's too bad. If people didn't swear, then you wouldn't even know that OB had a censor[/quote]Ah, equality! The beautiful, fair, and equal argument brought up... I'll try to remember this for all time. Unfortunately I think you'll completely agree when I say that a lot of young people [i]tend[/i] to be more inexperienced and therefore thoughtless to rules than older people? It was merely a generalization, I said it then, and if I didn't I'm saying it now. Generalizations aren't bad so long as something useful can be derived from them... it should be considered, that's all. If I really felt so strongly about ages do you really think I'd be here to begin with? I could care less.[quote=Baron Samedi]the ratings are not there as a restriction of any kind, rather they're there so that people who would rather not be exposed to language[/quote]I'm actually going to have to agree with you there. My initial response was to the one who started the thread, but as far as policy is concerned (which yes I promised not to comment on), I'm fine with the ratings being more of a guideline and less of a restriction. Doesn't hurt anyone as far as I'm concerned.[quote=Baron Samedi']And persocomblues, from your post 'Thought Police' is an apt title ~_^[/quote]What you would call equal I'd probably call outrageous and unfair if your forum ideology extends out to other areas of the internet. There are certain considerations and exceptions which always need to be taken under advisement.

One of the things I love about this site is that the wonderful moderating team does well to try and stick by the rules of the site. At times the moderating staff is faced with difficult decisions and in the end has to go the extra yard and interpret the rules as they see fit. They do so with efficiency and skill. Is it completely fair and equal that there is a moderating team in the first place? It is completely fair that they are interpreting the rules as they see fit at times? Not completely by the standards you hinted at, but what's important is that they're doing a good job with what they've got and that they're skilled in such things.

If the site was as free and open as you are hinting at (trust me, your post [i]was[/i] doing just that), I'm afraid we'd see a lot more recklessness and flaming than we do now. Do I think the site needs to become stricter? Not at all, the moderating team is apparently doing quite a good job with the rules they've set up... I don't think any changes need to be made at this time.[quote name='James']Our classifications are not designed to physically block people from threads. They are merely suggestions, so that thread creators can let other members know what kind of content a thread may have. That's all they are for.[/quote]And there the site director himself said it. As for where I stand if it matters, I don't anything wrong with the site policies and/or the moderators' actions in dealing with these sorts of matters up till now. That said, I disagree with any suggestion to change said policies or revisit them at this time.

[Dragon Warrior]

Since when does swearing and such make you mature? In my opinion, we don't need to swear to be more adult here. The forum isn't child-oriented due to lack of profanity. Our maturity comes from our ideas and posts and the way we discuss things, not how we portray the ideas through "naughty words." You can always use them in your writing, which is many cases can be appropriate, but if it's not needed in your everyday discussion, why use it? I wouldn't think more highly of you. And I wouldn't go by the ratings in the Arena. No one follows them very well. Everyone makes things rated "M" to, like the swearing idea, appear more mature.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='persocomblues']Ah, equality! The beautiful, fair, and equal argument brought up... I'll try to remember this for all time. Unfortunately I think you'll completely agree when I say that a lot of young people tend to be more inexperienced and therefore thoughtless to rules than older people? It was merely a generalization, I said it then, and if I didn't I'm saying it now. Generalizations aren't bad so long as something useful can be derived from them... it should be considered, that's all. If I really felt so strongly about ages do you really think I'd be here to begin with? I could care less.[/quote]I'm sorry to say, but I have no idea where this is coming from. The beautiful, fair and equal argument? To me, it sounds like you were reading somebody else's post, lol. Please explain.

[quote name='persocomblues']What you would call equal I'd probably call outrageous and unfair if your forum ideology extends out to other areas of the internet. There are certain considerations and exceptions which always need to be taken under advisement.[/quote]What exactly is my forum idealogy? And how would this forum idealogy of mine be outrageous and unfair if applied to othr sections of the internet? Forum-wise, OB is at the forefront of [i]large, yet quality[/i] forums. So, that wouldn't be a problem. Blogging? Nope, not seeing a problem there either. So, once again, please expand on your points as I am at a bit of a loss :p[/size]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#A18A58]See? Post #8 is why DW must be made a moderator of OB. *thumbs up*

Even if all the members are above 13 years of age, I don't think that swear words should be spelled out. I, for one, am not fond of seeing them, especially when written in uppercase letters. They disrupt this member's inner peace and they don't really have much sense in them, do they?

[SIZE=1]Instead of riddling sentences with asterisks, I say the censor should replace them swear words with random phrases (just 'cause it looks quirky). It was at the height of Rei Ayanami's fame, I think, when 4chan started to replace them "Rei Ayanami" 's with "Donate to 4chan" 's or something like that. Lovely way to take sense out of sentences.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Raya][COLOR=#A18A58]
[SIZE=1]It was at the height of Rei Ayanami's fame, I think, when 4chan started to replace them "Rei Ayanami" 's with "Donate to 4chan" 's or something like that. Lovely way to take sense out of sentences.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
There was a brief period of time during which the Anime on DVD forums (where mentioning fansubs isn't permitted) had the word "fansub" replaced with "Narutard." Ah, good times. :animesmil

~Dagger~

[Citrus]

[SIZE=1]Lord Rannos, I am not gonna beat you down but I do have a few things to say. (Those of you who know me well know that this is gonna be a post with hard core tongue lashing. :D)

[QUOTE]Why does Otakuboards have limitations against swearing?[/QUOTE]

Heh. It's basically the same concept of why your parents would ground you if you swore. Swearing has been a way of letting out anger for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Swear words are just inapropriate. And the OB is very strong on rules as stated in the General Rules. I don't think James, Desbreko, or Dagger want people to run around typing *******.

Let it out on your own time, not ours.

[QUOTE]Plus, looking at the 28 threads in the adventure inn (On Dec. 27, tracking the last 2 weeks), only about 5 are not rated M.[/QUOTE]

This is where the rules come in. Just because some threads aren't M in the Adventure Arena and Inn doesn't mean we have to make the whole message board "kid proof".

Oh, yea. What makes you think that if the OB does make an age limit, that the individuals under the age limit will make up a birthday and sign up anyways, hmm?[/SIZE]

[Lord Rannos]

I understand what you're all saying, and I just wanted to clarify a couple things. First, that I honestly didn't realise that there were this many people that were offended or bothered by swearing. It's not something that's ever bothered me, so I didn't anticipate it. If the majority of people would prefer for there to be no swearing, I agree that we shouldn't have it.

Second, that while I still believe it shows maturity to use swear words appropriately, I concede that many people do/would use them inappropriately, and thus lower board quality.

Thirdly, I wasn't using the M ratings to suggest we don't allow people under 17 to participate, just to show that the majority of people were at least in their teens. I don't believe in limiting who can join RP's at all.


[quote name='Citrus']Oh, yea. What makes you think that if the OB does make a age limit that the individuals under the age limit will make up a birthday and sign up anyways, hmm?[/quote]

Again, and I wanted to address this individually because of the condescending tone, I was not suggesting that we block OB to anyone willing to join. Just that we should be allowed to use swearing, when appropriate.

Thanks for tuning in.
~dq

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]A general [humorous, and blanket] assumption:

1-8: No swearing.
8-20: Medium to excessive swearing.
20-35: Appropriate swearing.
35+: Comfortability with little to no swearing. The real maturirty.[/size]

[Saya]

[quote name='Baron Samedi'] Decorum in addressing one's elders? This is an internet forum. You should have basic respect and courtesy when posting, but it make no difference to me whether I'm abusing an eight year old school-kid, or a thirty year old teacher, for making a stupid post.[/quote]Reposted for reference purposes.
[quote name='Baron Samedi']I'm sorry to say, but I have no idea where this is coming from. The beautiful, fair and equal argument? To me, it sounds like you were reading somebody else's post, lol. Please explain.[/quote]No, I won't explain much further... what I said was clear enough for those that understood it, and there were individuals who understood it because many made reference to it later off the forums. Generally speaking though you seem to think that an internet forum should be more "free" and open if you will than other types of forums (which was backed up further by your comment regarding my title, which I think was in jest).

How can I say that? You made it clear that you disagreed with the type of curtsey I had in mind: the only explanation for this can be seen when you said briefly, "This is an internet forum." The distinction between an internet forum and a general social get together at a convention hall is no distinction at to me at all. My ?ideal? forum type applies across the board, offline and online. In both situations the type of etiquette I mentioned is desirable.
[quote name='Baron Samedi']What exactly is my forum idealogy? And how would this forum idealogy of mine be outrageous and unfair if applied to othr sections of the internet? Forum-wise, OB is at the forefront of large, yet quality forums. So, that wouldn't be a problem. Blogging? Nope, not seeing a problem there either. So, once again, please expand on your points as I am at a bit of a loss [/quote]I meant specifically the snippets of thought or line of thinking you exhibited in the quotation mentioned at the very top of this reply. You seem to think a forum of this sort should be more tolerating, more open. That's the mentality I'm referring to. Indeed your spelling mistake marks the difference in thought perfectly (?idealogy?), whereas I disagree and find that a forum cannot function well without tight, proper moderation (your ?ideal,? if you get what I?m saying, is impossible). And no, that was not an attack on your spelling; I certainly hope the example's meaning wasn't lost.

Now if that?s not what you meant than I certainly hope you?ll revisit your old post when you said, ?This is an internet forum.? Maybe phrasing it that way wasn?t the best of choices after all? but that?s up to you. In light of my response I think the answers to your other questions can easily be answered with some thought and careful consideration.

As this is not my thread nor is it a thread about me or the etiquette I think would be best suited for the OB (as I stated the OB is fine as it is and needs no changing), I fail to see what good discussing this further would have. If for whatever reason you?d like to discuss it outside of the forums feel free to PM me in the future.

[quote name='Lord Rannos']Second, that while I still believe it shows maturity to use swear words appropriately, I concede that many people do/would use them inappropriately, and thus lower board quality.[/quote]Please note Baron Samedi that he said [b]many[/b], as I did. I?m in full agreement with Lord Rannos as having been on internet forums in the past I?ve noted that many sites that allow swear words tend to be of ?lower quality,? and the usage of such swear words is often ?inappropriate.?

[quote name='Dragon Warrior'] Since when does swearing and such make you mature?[/quote]I don?t think it?s a question of maturity, but instead proper etiquette all people should have at all ages (at least that?s what my post was concerned with... whether or not you believe this type of etiquette important or not depends on your personal preference). When I mentioned ages ? as I mentioned earlier ? my post referred to age groups in general and only in passing (guidelines, not rules if you will).

[quote name='Dragon Warrior'] Our maturity comes from our ideas and posts and the way we discuss things, not how we portray the ideas through "naughty words."[/quote]Yup, which is why I think that profanity should be left out of all intelligent discussions, apparently there is mixed opinions regarding that.

[quote name='Raya'] I don't think that swear words should be spelled out. I, for one, am not fond of seeing them, especially when written in uppercase letters. They disrupt this member's inner peace and they don't really have much sense in them, do they?[/quote]I agree with that completely, it also disrupts what could potentially be a reasonable conversation. Not a very good thing to have? mature audience or not, age 3 to 130, all the same.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Many made reference to it later off the forums? I'd love it if they could step forward and explain it to me then. How can an internet forum [b]not[/b] be free and open? You can restrict it to members only sending sign-up applications to people that they have met in person, and trust. And then you'll know the people who are at a forum, but aside from that [i]a person on the internet can tell you anything[/i]. For all you know I could be an eight year old spoilt brat, or a fourty year old pervert. Or I could be neither.

When you come onto the internet, what you do in real life is unimportant. All that matters is your brain. Your personality, your thoughts, your ideas. There is no need for anyone to bow down to anyone else on the internet. I have met people on here who, though many years older than me, are much 'worse' members. Take online gaming for example. The guy who just flamed you, when he stepped in front of your vehicle, could well be a rich and successful lawyer. If you met this person in real life, then you'd respect them because of their background. But the internet is the ultimate equaliser, because you know nothing about me, and I know nothing about you. I'm not saying that the anonymity of the internet is an excuse for people who flame and abuse others. I'm saying that for any reason other than appreciation and respect of personality and ideas, there is no cause for anything more than basic politeness and courtesy on an internet forum. Which is hard enough to get people to do, lol.

That is the thing that you're not getting. You see no distinction between a gathering in real life, and an internet forum, where there is all the difference in the world. What is the best way to simulate an internet forum.... turn off the lights, and put you in a room with people whom you know nothing about. Who have voice filters on, so that they all sound the same. Then, the only way that they deserve anything more than common courtesy is by [i]proving themselves[/i], through what they say, and how they say it.

Phrasing it as 'this is an internet forum' is exactly what I meant, exactly what I still do mean, and exactly [b]what it is[/b].

And the thing is, not everybody on here is mature. You know why? This is an [i]anime[/i] site, whose principle target audience is [i]teenagers[/i]. Who, as you so wilfully put it, generally 'aren't mature'.

And as for 'tight, proper moderation' to work, if I didn't enjoy and appreciate the high standards set by OB, I'd be at one of those other, numerous, internet 'forums'. Free and open has nothing to do with spammy and uncontrolled, to my mind. Maybe you're confused- I am 100% behind the censor.

The original point has been addressed, and now the thread is changing direction [as they are wont to do] so, unless any of the mods see a problem with it, I think this is a good discussion to have in the open.[/size]

[Saya]

Let me quickly respond to some of the points you made...
[quote=Baron Samedi]For all you know I could be an eight year old spoilt brat, or a fourty year old pervert. Or I could be neither.

When you come onto the internet, what you do in real life is unimportant. All that matters is your brain. Your personality, your thoughts, your ideas.[/quote]I never said that you were wrong, I simply disagree with the standards you mentioned... your view seems more to be to be an idealistic view. While in one discussion an individual may prove himself to be both intelligent and mature, in another he might prove himself to be an utter dolt. How then can you get a proper impression of someone online? The only criterion is trying to determine what that individual is like in person and that's one reason I feel that etiquette pertaining to real world values is important to have. To put it simply I think it's a good starting ground for intelligent discussions/threads.

Of course there is an issue of individuals pretending to be [i]something they are not[/i], but that goes beyond the scope of what I was trying to convey. The point of my initial post was not to see this type of forum etiquette made common practice on the OB, it was merely to briefly make mention of something I like to see, both online and offline. In my opinion it can only serve to enhance the conversational value of said threads/discussions.[quote name='Baron Samedi]There is no need for anyone to bow down to anyone else on the internet.[/quote]I think you took what I initially said a little too personal. It was meant as a general etiquette, again, a starting point which serves in the background to guide discussions away from such things as flaming (by youngsters as well as adults, I make no specific distinction between age groups there).[quote=Baron Samedi'] If you met this person in real life, then you'd respect them because of their background. But the internet is the ultimate equaliser, because you know nothing about me, and I know nothing about you.[/quote]A good point and well taken, the problem arises when the forum as a whole must develop guidelines for post quality and the like. Again, my intention was to provide a frame work for such guidelines (not really on the OB, just a preference of mine for forums). Granted profession might be a poor choice for online debate, but age should be considered in the back of one's mind - after all, just a moment ago someone here agreed that it is far more likely for a younger individual to abuse rules of decency and etiquette rather than an older person.

Is this always the case? Certainly not... to be honest on the OB in particular I've found a great number of people of all different types of ages to exhibit a myriad of different personalities. Straying from the stereotypes and generalizations if you will.
Unfortunately reality must be taken into consideration and you know full well that by and large younger individuals have a difficult time proving themselves to be on the same intellectual level as one who is older than them (and on the same token are assumed to have limited knowledge/experience [i]of[/i] proper etiquette to begin with).

Do [b]I[/b] agree with this generalization? No, again I've seen a lot of cases that break the norm [i]but[/i] to keep everyone happy the middle ground seems to be to have a site that favors high quality posts, intelligent conversations, and keeps a watchful eye on the younger individuals (sad truth but I think a lot of people would want this, and being an owner of a few high traffic forums in the past I know that it is highly desired even if people dislike admitting to it). That's what seems to work.[quote name='Baron Samedi']I'm saying that for any reason other than appreciation and respect of personality and ideas, there is no cause for anything more than basic politeness and courtesy on an internet forum. Which is hard enough to get people to do, lol.[/quote]Well at least I agree with you there, it is hard enough to do... [b]regardless[/b] of age. Which is why guidelines and frame work for post quality should be clear when joining a forum (done quite nicely on OB as I've mentioned earlier). I suppose I'm also hinting at the assumption that overtime, by reading posts you can more or less guess at an individuals level of maturity if not age. This is also important, a constant theme in my posts (it is determines the etiquette required, after all).[quote=Baron Samedi]
That is the thing that you're not getting. You see no distinction between a gathering in real life, and an internet forum, where there is all the difference in the world. What is the best way to simulate an internet forum.... turn off the lights, and put you in a room with people whom you know nothing about. Who have voice filters on, so that they all sound the same. Then, the only way that they deserve anything more than common courtesy is by proving themselves, through what they say, and how they say it.[/quote]I understand full well that there are fundamental differences between the two, and those fundamental differences lead to complications in determning one's age, future post quality, or anything of the sort. But since forum guidelines and the creation of such guidelines are not for a specific individual, they cannot be so narrow minded either. You must consider the forum as a conference hall if you are to encourage post quality. Sure it has its problems as you mentioned, but in the end the rules will always have flaws... the best thing to do is simply to encourage the desired etiquette.

And yes, toward the end you are quite right - as I mentioned earlier it [b]does[/b] have to do with their post quality too (in fact I mentioned that in my first post, it seems as though it was overlooked).[quote name='Baron Samedi]And the thing is, not everybody on here is mature. You know why? This is an anime site, whose principle target audience is teenagers. Who, as you so wilfully put it, generally 'aren't mature'.[/quote]You said it yourself, teenagers... not me. I agreed that there were [b]many[/b] teenagers here, but I know many individuals 20+ that visit the forums. As for what I said in regards to their maturity, you took what I said entirely out of context.[quote=Baron Samedi]Free and open has nothing to do with spammy and uncontrolled, to my mind. Maybe you're confused- I am 100% behind the censor.[/quote]I don't care if you're behind the censor or against it, after all that wasn't what we were discussing. And I'll mention once again that while you might not think "free and open" has anything to do with "spammy and uncontrolled," I do. I think the idea of moderators guiding conversations at all is a form of control, control means the opposite from uncontrolled, and yet I think this control only leads to even more freedom. The freedom to express your ideas in a clear way... a quality way, if you will.[quote=Baron Samedi]The original point has been addressed, and now the thread is changing direction [as they are wont to do'] so, unless any of the mods see a problem with it, I think this is a good discussion to have in the open.[/quote]I'm not entirely sure I agree. This thread has apparently served its purpose (or not, as the moderators see fit), I see no reason why we should continue discussing this. However if it does remain open I'll gladly continue this with you further if you insist.

I'm not quite sure that we'll be able to reach an agreement: it seems that both our views are fundamentally different from one another. I define freedom and openness in a much different way than you do. I also think it is achieved in a much different way just as I think post quality should be shaped by real world etiquette. It doesn't seem as though that will change any time soon either (after all, we might not even have the same concept as to what "real world etiquette" is).

Should this thread be closed I want you to know that I certainly respect your opinion, and I'm glad we were both able to clarify our thoughts. I can only hope that forum members of all ages, from all walks of life can continue to make use of these forums in such a quality fashion as it has been. Thankfully this forum does not suffer from many of the etiquette/flaming problems found elsewhere - a prime reason why our opinions regarding "proper forum etiquette" and online forums vs. real ones hold no value to this thread.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]The thing is, one post a reputation does not make. Developing an opinion of someone [and what follows: respect, friendship, admiration etc.] is an ongoing process. If a person generally shows themselves to be mature and intelligent, or incisively witty, then I'll most likely develop respect for them. As I've said before, I don't care about their background, or age, or sex or any of a number of other variables which don't impinge on an internet forum. An internet forum is undeniably about people: about their views, thoughts, attitudes and personalities. What else do we have cause to judge people on?

I'm not sure how my view is idealistic: indeed from my side of the fence, your expressions of respect based on the 'outside' criteria seems idealistic :p

In real life, people have more respect for a doctor than a truck-driver. But without the social backgrounds that we know of in real life, we can appreciate the person behind it all.

As for the moderation system... it is necessary. It is a loss in freedom of laziness, for a gain in freedom of legibility. It is a part loss in freedom of expression, for a gain in freedom of security [i.e. in reference to flaming]. If you view an internet forum in the same way as you view a social forum, then you'll understand that moderation and rules are necessary to stop people from punching each other when they don't agree.

Is it far more likely for a younger member to flame? Yes it is. But the point is, although blanket rulings can be acceptable, we don't know about the person on the other keyboard. So, the only judging system which is necessary is a member-by-member one. Age, creed etc. has to be irrelevant on an internet forum. You judge people on their behaviour, not their background. It's not idealistic really, though it sounds so. It is just how it needs to be, especially if you want to foster a good community.

The desired etiquette for an online forum is pretty basic, as far as I can see. Nothing difficult. View these basic manners as a minimum level. People don't get respect for anything other than how they come across online. And really, common courtesy shouldn't be beyond most people.

[quote name='persocomblues']While I wouldn't go so far as to call them "children," I wouldn't classify them as adults or "mature" generally speaking.[/quote]
[quote name='Me']This is an anime site, whose principle target audience is teenagers. Who, as you so wilfully put it, generally 'aren't mature'.[/quote]
[quote name='persocomblues']As for what I said in regards to their maturity, you took what I said entirely out of context.[/quote]
Seems pretty contextual to me :p Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what it sounded like. I included the 'generally' and everything!

[quote name='persocomblues']And I'll mention once again that while you might not think "free and open" has anything to do with "spammy and uncontrolled," I do. I think the idea of moderators guiding conversations at all is a form of control, control means the opposite from uncontrolled, and yet I think this control only leads to even more freedom. The freedom to express your ideas in a clear way... a quality way, if you will.[/quote]
You just said that you equated free and open with spammy and uncontrolled. Then you say that control brings freedom of quality. Which I agree with, but which is at odds with what you intially said. Clarification?

And I do insist on continuing this discussion. I don't think our views are that far apart. Just that yours are wrong [:p]. This is an interesting discussion, to me at least, and I think it is worthwhile having. Who knows, a resolution might yet be reached.[/size]

[Saya]

[quote name='Baron Samedi]The thing is, one post a reputation does not make. Developing an opinion of someone [and what follows: respect, friendship, admiration etc.'] is an ongoing process. If a person generally shows themselves to be mature and intelligent, or incisively witty, then I'll most likely develop respect for them. As I've said before, I don't care about their background, or age, or sex or any of a number of other variables which don't impinge on an internet forum. An internet forum is undeniably about people: about their views, thoughts, attitudes and personalities. What else do we have cause to judge people on?[/quote]Never said it takes a post, it might take a hundred posts but people should be paying attention. As I mentioned earlier I would be inclined to believe that in [i]some[/i] cases you can determine an individuals level of maturity by how they post, what they say, the arguments they use, and so on.

I think we're in "general" (*smirks*) agreement with that. In addition to that I do think that background, sex and age are important - not in predetermining their post quality, but in understanding who they [i]might[/i] be. If that view of who they might actually be on the other end does not sit well with guidelines set forward by the site (namely the level of maturity), then they can be watched closely. However I should note that I have seen sites that immediately do away with such things and try to curb this further by putting a strict age limit on the forums.

Some forums it works, some it doesn't. Such limitations are again beyond the scope of my opinion regarding proper forum etiquette, though I do think they serve as a foundation for why I believe what I do. I'm sure you'll end up thinking that my view is to limit out those who are potentially "undesirable" before they have proven themselves on the forums (an issue which you said was important to you), and you might be right... it does have that effect.

In my book it is, in many cases, far preferable to take the initiative and have strict censorship on [b]any[/b] type of forum than it is to risk having the forum populated with undesirable/immature conversations (undesirable here strictly refers to "immature" since that's essentially what we're talking about).[quote name='Baron Samedi]I'm not sure how my view is idealistic: indeed from my side of the fence, your expressions of respect based on the 'outside' criteria seems idealistic[/quote]Understandable now, again this is precisely why I can't fathom your interest in prolonging this discussion. I don't mean to insult you; I just can't see a point in it. But very well, I'll gone on...[quote=Baron Samedi']In real life, people have more respect for a doctor than a truck-driver. But without the social backgrounds that we know of in real life, we can appreciate the person behind it all.[/quote]I agree completely with you analysis of the role that preconceptions have socially. The idea that a doctor is any more important or deserving of respect than a truck-driver [b]is[/b] foolish. [b]But[/b] what I'm saying is if you don't have some starting point for proper etiquette than the center cannot hold not hold.

For instance, does cursing really determine maturity? No, come on. I know a number of individuals who are very mature and curse non-stop. To tie it in with what I was saying earlier, they also happen to have some pretty good job (I've had the pleasure of associating with a number of doctors in my day). The problem arises when you are forced with making a decision as to who or what to allow in a discussion and what not to allow in a discussion.

If it is any consolation to you at all, personally speaking I do like the idea of giving individuals a chance to prove themselves first (as they do on the OB). It works... but it doesn't always work, so I fully appreciate it when more strict guidelines are enforced.[quote name='Baron Samedi]As for the moderation system... it is necessary. It is a loss in freedom of laziness, for a gain in freedom of legibility. It is a part loss in freedom of expression, for a gain in freedom of security [i.e. in reference to flaming']. If you view an internet forum in the same way as you view a social forum, then you'll understand that moderation and rules are necessary to stop people from punching each other when they don't agree.[/quote]Agreed and that's actually what I meant when it was said:

[quote name='Baron Samedi]Free and open has nothing to do with spammy and uncontrolled, to my mind. Maybe you're confused- I am 100% behind the censor.[/quote]And I replied:[quote=Persocomblues']And I'll mention once again that while you might not think "free and open" has anything to do with "spammy and uncontrolled," I do. I think the idea of moderators guiding conversations at all is a form of control, control means the opposite from uncontrolled, and yet I think this control only leads to even more freedom. The freedom to express your ideas in a clear way... a quality way, if you will.[/quote]

But essentially I said this in the end:

[quote name='Persocomblues']I'm not quite sure that we'll be able to reach an agreement: it seems that both our views are fundamentally different from one another. I define freedom and openness in a much different way than you do.[/quote]That's how I define it, that's how I interpret what you said, and that is my response to it.

Provides security just as you mentioned and limits spammers and the like. Like you, I find this desirable, unlike you I classify it differently as noted above.[quote name='Baron Samedi']Is it far more likely for a younger member to flame? Yes it is. But the point is, although blanket rulings can be acceptable, we don't know about the person on the other keyboard. So, the only judging system which is necessary is a member-by-member one. Age, creed etc. has to be irrelevant on an internet forum. You judge people on their behavior, not their background. It's not idealistic really, though it sounds so. It is just how it needs to be, especially if you want to foster a good community.[/quote]I agree with you again, up till the point you said that age and so on "has to be" irrelevant. I don't accept what you said about how internet forums differ from real world forums, so why would I logically agree that such factors are irrelevant?

And yet still you brought up what I keep agreeing with you about, behavior is key. I just think that there are other aspects which you can discern about a person that can be used as indicators to how they will post in the future. You might think it is stereotypical nonsense, but whatever it is you think is irrelevant:

Your view is [b]very[/b] clear to me. Your arguments are logical, but logic doesn't dictate what is and is not as it pertains to informed, well founded opinions. It, like my etiquette provides a framework in which one can discern whether or not an argument has legitimacy and is well founded. I'm half certain that you'll agree that my argument too has been both honest and logical - if so, then why continue to discuss our opinions? I have no reason to change my view and you've failed to convince to do so despite the fact that your arguments are sound. [quote name='Baron Samedi]these basic manners as a minimum level. People don't get respect for anything other than how they come across online. And really, common courtesy shouldn't be beyond most people.[/quote]Understood it the first time, the second time and the third time. [i]How they come across[/i] has many more factors in my book other than their post quality and use of legitimate arguments (after all, I believe like in person you can fully get to understand a person and what makes them tick, just as you would a guest at an evening affair you might be holding).[quote=Baron Samedi']Seems pretty contextual to me Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what it sounded like. I included the 'generally' and everything![/quote]Nope, you're wrong... because the context I'm referring to not only applies to how it was immediately brought up but also what it meant in the overall context of my post (my idea as a whole if you will).

As it stands I cannot possibly take those fragments you quoted and use them in any sort of response to you. Once more they are taken out of place and to split hairs like that would be futile.[quote name='Baron Samedi']You just said that you equated free and open with spammy and uncontrolled. Then you say that control brings freedom of quality. Which I agree with, but which is at odds with what you intially said. Clarification?[/quote]Clarification. That paragraph simply says that it is my opinion that you do not think free and open has anything to do with "spammy and uncontrolled" whereas I think freeness and openness have everything to do with leading to "spammy" and uncontrolled posts.

It should be further clarified that when I said, "I think the idea of moderators guiding conversations at all is a form of control, control means the opposite from uncontrolled," I am referring to the definition of control. Control is the opposite from uncontrolled. Since I think moderation = control, I believe the lack of moderation = uncontrolled.

I see absolutely nothing at "odds" there.

Unless I'm completely off base (which I don't think I am), the problem lies here: you honestly believe that moderation is good insofar as it contributes to post quality. However you do not think that anything other than an individual?s behavior on a given forum should be used to either predetermine his or her actions before hand, or restrict him or her from posting. After all, to you that would be akin to calling someone a moron before he has a chance to speak.

Understood... and yet the problem is that I think those "other" contributing factors weigh in quite a bit (ever present, ever in sight). Plus unlike you I do not associate an online forum with being in a real life room, completely black, in which individuals have their voice masked (as you mentioned earlier), since I [b]do[/b] think those other factors weigh in.

So where exactly do you want to go with this discussion? Do you honestly think that my opinions are so off base, formed on illogical conclusions about the way conversations are held? That's fine, but I've done my utmost best to provide logical reasons as to why I feel the way I do - I believe that I've done that, it's just that you dislike the [b]approach[/b] I'm using to curb what we [b]both[/b] call undesirable behavior. But, that's the way I see fit.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]The problem with restricting people based upon what we'll call 'outside' criteria is that it is only a general statement. Hence, rather than looking at those you are restricting, take a look at those who you are letting in. They fit the necessary 'outside' criteria mentioned, but there is no guarantee that they will be any better than those who weren't granted access. The likelihood is that older people will have more grounded and intelligent ideas to cntribute to a discussion. The reality is that many 'children' may also have much to contribute, and that some adults won't have anything worthwhile to contribute.

And if a barrier somehow lets in some unworthy people, and blocks some worthy people, it isn't an effective barrier. Due to the nature of internet relations [and again, difficulty in age verification], a fluid barrier is what is needed, to weed out the 'bad' members as effectively as possible, with no other discrimination. Because really, that is what you're suggesting. Discrimination and prejudice based on criteria, which whilst they [i]may[/i] have an effect on the person's behaviour, are not guaranteed to produce a certain outcome.

I'm not saying discrimination and prejudice in the usual buzzword-dropping fever some people do either. Obviously, even by filtering out those with bad posts, we are supporting a form of discrimination. However, you're considering doing this on a level which is ineffective and unwarranted. As a forum, we want intelligent posts and stuff like that, but the criteria you think are worthy of being used as parsers [whilst I agree, often affecting their behaviour] do not always do so. There used to be a regular here who was [i]ten[/i]. I was blown away when I found out. He always seemed like a really intelligent and thoughtful person. By your take on accessibility, he wouldn't have been allowed here.

Of course, you get a lot of younger people who spam and flame and whatever. But you know what? If they don't get banned [which not all that many people do] then they generally shape up quite well. As an internet forum, it is a fact that we allow for some degree of growth in maturity.

The problem with taking the 'strict' controls you consider is that not only can you not apply them to an internet forum, but that they aren't all that effective. They would weed out a lot of problems, but not all, and they would block a lot of good people.

And with that other clarification thing, you said basically that freedom = uncontrolled, yet that control = freedom. But controlled /=/ uncontrolled, lol. Thats where the problem lies. We define freedom and openness differently [I don't think it has to be, or should be, Anarchy] yet you then agreed with my definition of freedom, heh.

Indicators are all well and good, but they aren't definite, just a guide. And at that, a guide that has the potential to let in bad things, and keep out good ones, which kind of knocks out it's foundations.

Your arguments aren't offbase or illogical, aside from the fact that they aren't definite. The only definite way to [B]make sure[/B] that spammers don't get a foothold is to let everybody in, and weed out the spammers individually. It's not like there are massive influxes of them or anything, heh. Sure, those 'outisde' factors do generally [that word again!] affect people's behaviour, but it isn't definite. You want to discriminate entry based on criteria which quite possibly have nothing to do with our goals.

I see where you're coming from, but I think this just boils down [as you said] to our approach. As I see it mine is most effective. A small amount more work for any moderating system, but it is more accurate than yours. Yours has less volume of work for any moderating system, but the point is that you're blocking those who might match your goals [these being intelligence, maturity etc.].[/size]

[Saya]

[quote name='Baron Samedi] The problem with restricting people based upon what we'll call 'outside' criteria is that it is only a general statement. Hence, rather than looking at those you are restricting, take a look at those who you are letting in. They fit the necessary 'outside' criteria mentioned, but there is no guarantee that they will be any better than those who weren't granted access. The likelihood is that older people will have more grounded and intelligent ideas to cntribute to a discussion. The reality is that many 'children' may also have much to contribute, and that some adults won't have anything worthwhile to contribute.[/quote]Agreed, and as I said earlier it is my opinion that it is far better to be wrong when all of those factors are considered than to be wrong when only post quality is considered (for example).[quote=Baron Samedi] And if a barrier somehow lets in some unworthy people, and blocks some worthy people, it isn't an effective barrier.[/quote]More effective than the alternative, that?s my opinion once more.[quote=Baron Samedi] Due to the nature of internet relations [and again, difficulty in age verification], a fluid barrier is what is needed, to weed out the 'bad' members as effectively as possible, with no other discrimination. Because really, that is what you're suggesting. Discrimination and prejudice based on criteria, which whilst they may have an effect on the person's behaviour, are not guaranteed to produce a certain outcome.[/quote]It is difficult, but I do not think a fluid barrier is what is needed, bending a good amount is usually bending too much. I realize that it sounds like discrimination (not against ones race but instead on other features we mentioned earlier), but again, I would consider the loose rules we have now in the same boat, or any guidelines for that matter. So I sleep well at night. :) [quote=Baron Samedi] Obviously, even by filtering out those with bad posts, we are supporting a form of discrimination.[/quote]Yup, so to me it?s the same difference? I know in your opinion it is not, that?s where we fundamentally differ in opinion.[quote=Baron Samedi] By your take on accessibility, he wouldn't have been allowed here.[/quote]Nope, true? you win some you lose some (my responses aren?t to be insulting, they are literally the logical ramifications of accepting such a policy). And in the end again I think the outcome is far more desirable (etiquette wise and potential post quality wise).[quote=Baron Samedi] As an internet forum, it is a fact that we allow for some degree of growth in maturity.[/quote]See, I like my growth prior to coming to the forum, not while on the forums. Again a difference in opinion.[quote=Baron Samedi] The problem with taking the 'strict' controls you consider is that not only can you not apply them to an internet forum, but that they aren't all that effective. They would weed out a lot of problems, but not all, and they would block a lot of good people.[/quote]Well I don?t know about that ?good people? part, I?m sure they?d block out of lot of ?bad people? too? but again, the end result is what I?m concerned with.[quote=Baron Samedi]And with that other clarification thing, you said basically that freedom = uncontrolled, yet that control = freedom. But controlled /=/ uncontrolled, lol. Thats where the problem lies. We define freedom and openness differently [I don't think it has to be, or should be, Anarchy] yet you then agreed with my definition of freedom, heh.[/quote]I do, I don?t think there is anything illogical about that? controlled to me is the opposite of uncontrolled. But overall you are correct? I don?t think we define freedom too much differently: the approach we use is different.[quote=Baron Samedi'] Indicators are all well and good, but they aren't definite, just a guide. And at that, a guide that has the potential to let in bad things, and keep out good ones, which kind of knocks out it's foundations.[/quote]Never said it was definite? it doesn?t work all the time, nothing will ? I mentioned that earlier, again though, as a guideline I think it serves its purpose better than the alternative.[quote=Baron Samedi] Your arguments aren't offbase or illogical, aside from the fact that they aren't definite. The only definite way to make sure that spammers don't get a foothold is to let everybody in, and weed out the spammers individually.
? I think this just boils down [as you said] to our approach. [/quote]Well thank you for the compliment then, I too found your arguments logical and decent enough. Again, I disagree with your overall conclusion but such is the case with any [i]valid[/i] opinion. I?m glad that there are people interested in intelligent conversations here.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think one of the difficulties we face is that OtakuBoards is part of a network that, on the whole, attracts teenagers rather than adults. Something like 20% of myOtaku users are actually over 20 years old, I believe. The vast bulk are between 14 and 18 years of age.

On myOtaku that works out just fine, because each person can create their own page and can have control over it. OtakuBoards, on the other hand, is a more "public" place, where everyone's posts are mixed together and are largely held to the same standard. That makes things difficult.

As you can imagine, many new OB members come from theOtaku.com or myOtaku.com and as a result, we do end up having to do a major job of moderating, because there isn't the need for that kind of moderation on a place like myOtaku. If your myOtaku site is horribly written and confusing, nobody will visit it - so in the end, it's a kind of self-fulfilling thing. But OB isn't like that for obvious reasons.

This is something that we cannot really control, but we can take steps to improve the situation. When the new OB is released next year, I think you'll find that it will act more as an entryway to the network as opposed to being a place where people visit after they've seen other sites. At the very least, my hope is that it'll be designed to be more flexible and more easy to use and moderate. I think the actual design and implementation of the site will make a difference there.

In regard to blocking users and stuff...I think that we need to keep some quality control on registration, but we also need to make the entire process a lot faster and easier. One thing we don't want to do is alienate people before they've even posted. The actual registration process will play a role there. I think we can redesign it to encourage higher-quality members and to filter out the lower-quality ones before they even post.

But I would not want to filter people based on age in general, because I think that measure is too arbitrary, especially when you consider the network that OB sits within. I like the idea that OB can be a place where someone of any age can find something relevant to them. That obviously makes the challenge more difficult for us, but I hope that it also makes for a slightly more diverse and interesting site.[/font]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]Not including the current debate going on, I really see no need to allow swearwords on OtakuBoards. The quality of posts already make this site less Kid friendly. Like James says this is a public place and in general swearing is not considered acceptable behavior. Personally I really have no problem with swearing, I worked as a Semi-Truck driver for a while so I?m use to hearing all sorts of interesting expressions. But I really think it?s just not needed here.

It?s one thing to express how you feel and not be censored and yet another to be courteous towards others and where I live people are offended by any type of swearing, so I don?t use cuss words. I?m sure that many other places and jobs and social environments frown upon swearing so it?s really something that I think doesn?t belong here.

I also agree with James in that you can use your myOtaku page to express how you really feel, I know I?ve seen plenty of members who do. Truthfully I really prefer well written posts verses the short post saying my day was **** as the former takes more thought and effort where the latter falls on the easy path of well know shortcuts for expressing how you feel.[/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I think we're pretty well much sorted now persocomblues :) My final point I wish to make is that to my mind, OB's current system is fluid, and works fine as it is. We don't really place restrictions on entry, rather we place restrictions on continued access. And because of this, we give [i]everyone[/i] a chance to prove themselves. If this was a different and private forum, I think your method could work. But OB is an anime site, and as I mentioned earlier and as James said in his post, it is primarily composed of teenagers.

And I have a suggestion. Perhaps there should be a written test for joining OB, same as for joining some RPGs :P[/size]

[Saya]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]I think we're pretty well much sorted now persocomblues :) My final point I wish to make is that to my mind, OB's current system is fluid, and works fine as it is. We don't really place restrictions on entry, rather we place restrictions on continued access. And because of this, we give [i]everyone[/i] a chance to prove themselves. If this was a different and private forum, I think your method could work. But OB is an anime site, and as I mentioned earlier and as James said in his post, it is primarily composed of teenagers.

And I have a suggestion. Perhaps there should be a written test for joining OB, same as for joining some RPGs :P[/size][/QUOTE]Very cool, well I'm certainly looking forward to the new changes James mentioned, certainly no changes are [b]needed[/b] so as far as I'm concerned this next step can only be a big bonus.

Indeed, Baron Samedi, we seem to have everything worked out... seeing eye to eye is never easy (and truth be told I'm a forum Nazi when it comes to posting and guidelines, as you might have been able to tell).

That last line is the greatest! A written test would be interesting. Thought it was funny at first then giving it some thought... you know? I wouldn't mind it. Fits both our outlooks on quality posting, eh? ;) Heh, I guess some people just can?t type well though? I?d hate to see them suffer because of something like that. But it would ensure quality posting!

You know what some sites do? They have a big long user end agreement that if you don't scroll it (and presumably read it thoroughly) you can't find the button to enter the forums. Came across a site like that today, thought it was silly at first since you can easily scroll the document fast but with no knowledge of the button being there it actually serves its purpose (you actually need to click the different sections of the agreement in order to find it).

Not sure if I'd go so far as to suggest it but it did strike me as a neat idea at the time.