I would normally be contacting via PM about this, but I think that this is a reasonable subject for public discussion. If any administrator disagrees, I would be happy to address the matter privately instead.

http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showt...178#post322178

I was under the apparent delusion that the JCF allowed discussion of sexual matters if not in a crude way. Is no mention of this word allowed whatsoever, as indicated? If so, why not? Past frank sexual discussion has been allowed, and I do not believe that my post was anywhere near out of bounds.

There was nothing wrong with my post relative to past discussion unless:

A. The topic at hand is banned, despite falling reasonably in the general sexuality discussion;
B. The post was edited because it quoted an already crude entry.

I don't really object to the edit, but the bounds seem ridiculously ambiguous. In this case, the word I mentioned was a word that average fifth grader does (or should, in an educated society) know. I did not use it in an offensive way, and it was the most respectful terms I could have phrased it in. I do not find "it used to be in the filter" a reasonable removal, since the reason it is/was filtered does not seem to fall into bounds of established rules.

Seconded.

...what did you and Michael say?
(I think you can safely PM it).

It was about (/).

Derby: Content removal. An unfiltered word was removed.

Agreed, as long as it's not descriptive or something.

There's no reason to edit sexual content expressed in words, AT ALL.

Derby, I realise that you are busy, but an eventual reply would really be appreciated. There is certainly no rush.

Well, I am definitely not for filtering the technical word Faw wrote. D:
And I have seen other posts use that word as well, and they were not edited (well, the word was spelt wrongly in one post, but still).

Since no other administrator has volunteered their opinion here, I shall state mine. Based on my understanding of the JCF rules, I would not have removed the word. Michael's original post had basis for removal, as it was fairly suggestive (which Derby stated in the edit notice), but I don't feel Trafton's use of the word was anything more than 'sex-related discussion in a general way.'

As far as I know, this specific subject has not been brought up officially amongst administrators, so there is no set policy about it. In removing it, Derby used his own judgement and interpretation of our rather unwritten rules. For something with no specific policy, it can be expected that different administrators would have different opinions.

I would, however, implore Derby to respond to this thread with his reasoning. Edit contestations with valid basis (i.e. one believes the rules do not support the edit) are allowed and even encouraged, and resolving this specific issue might lessen future uncertainty about it.

Derby has not been online since November 26th, over a week ago, so if any other administrators could clarify this policy, I'd more than appreciate it.

Sorry for the delayed response. Here is the explanation you requested.

The current rules draft has been written as objectively as possible to be most understandable. Technicalities involving subjective violations must be interpreted by both the user and the moderator. Most of them are easily avoided, though there are exceptions.

The rules draft has been written with the notion that this content may be discussed in a topic exclusively dedicated to it, though such content may be discussed subtly in other topics, given that no graphical context is supplied to the content. This falls in line with the interpretation that no "crude" content or context may be posted.

The problem here is that these posts are in a topic that does not at all pertain to sexual content. The first post that was edited was edited because it was suggestive with the aid of graphic context. This is prohibited because causes content that is otherwise acceptable to become crude. Users who enter a topic about left and right-handedness should be able to expect content suitable for general audiences. This is why the rules draft was written with an actual general discussion in mind.

The word in your post was also censored out due to the presence of supplementary context, but the significantly greater issue lies with the fact that it was an off-topic post. Some words that do not currently appear in the filter will still be removed when objectionable with the present context or discussion. I commented that the particular word's omission from the filter was questionable because allowing an exclusive discussion on it is equally questionable. When discussion of general sexual content was explicitly permitted, it has still been unclear whether other similar topics would be allowed based on their most common uses in any discussion. The word was previously filtered with the notion that its discussion could rarely avoid being crude.

I think the use of the word is fine within the context of a topic based upon it. At the same time, I disagree with the idea that users may stumble into the word within the context of an entirely different topic. Users previously argued that other users who do not want to read through general discussions of sexual content can avoid those topics by simply not clicking on them. In this case, both of the users who posted very general content with in graphical context did not give those users a choice. This is why the content was removed, and I feel this is a valid justification.

If other administrators disagree with this stance, it is perfectly understandable, and I will discuss this with them if necessary. If other administrators agree with this stance, then this is more likely an issue about the rules draft pertaining to what type of content may not be posted. I approve the current draft of the rules because it is very objective, and users generally do not want to be told about subjective technicalities. I personally do not like to provide warnings for subjective rule violations unless they are consistently repeated, which is also rare.

If you have any questions about my explanation, feel free to ask me.

I appreciate your response.

If I am to understand correctly, it was removed because it was effectively off-topic, which somehow makes this post go from grey area but acceptable into the black-area realm? However, I must disagree; the post is only off-topic because the original one it was replying to was removed. The original post was on-topic, although coarse. The reply was not coarse.

To what extent are you planning to shield the user base from words that fifth-graders know? The word was the only thing suggestive in my post. It was a sarcastic comment that I "appreciated' Michael's discussion of something. There was no implication of obscene content beyond the word itself.

There needs to be a standard. Is coarse content not allowed if you cannot tell from the topic? Is it still not allowed under those circumstances? I appreciate the work you volunteer into this, but if you are going to expect the user base to conform to constricting rules, you need to clearly and absolutely define under which circumstances these are allowed. Otherwise, it might be advisable to err on the side of leniency.

Although I appreciate that a warning wasn't given, I don't think that any reasonable way of seeing this would result in a warning. Certainly, if a warning could even be considered, the rules would need to be extremely clear.

Thank you for your feedback.

Actually, the first edited post was on topic, but the remaining posts were absolutely off-topic, even if the first edited post remained, as the content of that post allowed for an off-topic conversation to occur. While the posts could have been removed for being off-topic, their content could also be edited due to a combination of the remaining context and supplied content. If the posts contained both off-topic and on-topic content, only the off-topic content would be removed if it is too far off-topic or has significant problems with supplementary context, both of which are the case here.

The word you used has never been used in a discussion dedicated to what it describes on the JCF. When it is instead more often used in graphic context, off-topic conversation, or both, it becomes a candidate for the filter, as two other forms of the word are already in the filter. You ask to what extent I plan to shield users from words that "fifth-graders" know, but you may also want to consider that these users may very well know these words yet do not want to see them used in a topic in which they do not expect it. This really only applies to content that may be objectionable with enough graphic supplementary context; otherwise, users may feel too restricted to post slightly off-topic when the content-context combination is not objectionable.

Again, you may very well be objecting to the clarity of the rules. If you have any suggestions for an easily interpreted clause that would help other users where you were edited, they would certainly be appreciated. It is difficult to come up with something concise alone, as someone else who might have previously wondered, "if these words were in that particular clause, perhaps I would not have been edited," would definitely have better ideas than someone who can already interpret the rules from the given objective clauses. I will try to come up with something clear to help the users understand this, yet at the same time, I feel this may be too rare a case to remove the objectivity of a certain clause.

Additionally, as I stated in the previous post, warnings are typically provided for objective offenses. The removal of flame tags is almost entirely subjective, and users are warned if they repeat this. This case is far more likely and severe to be repeated than yours, and this is why that particular subjective rule violation easily receives warnings from repetition. Your case is similar, though not to such a severe extent, and while warnings may still be given for the repetition of the offense, it is also very unlikely that it will be repeated. Since there are technically many places where users can mess up or miss something when interpreting subjective rules from the objective rules provided, it is far more reasonable to forego adding subjective clauses and instead have more encompassing objective ones that most people will understand.

Feel free to ask me to clarify anything I have stated.

I understand your argument, and although I still disagree with it, I can respect it.

However, I must ask one last item (forgive me if it was included in your post, as I am forced to skim by time constraints): why was Fawriel's post in this topic (which clearly indicates possible content in the subject line) edited?

Although I'm just guessing what the word was, I'm not quite sure I would agree with the description that fifth-graders would know it.
...course, I wasn't a normal fifth grader.

To answer your question, Fawriel's post was edited because this topic relies on the other topic to be understood. Supplied with identical graphic context, the use of the word becomes disallowed to the same extent. Additionally, the topic title indicates a general discussion of the editing of sexual content and not a discussion about sexual content, and the latter is even more unexpected based upon the forum it has been posted in, which is geared toward forum questions and feedback rather than miscellaneous discussion pertaining to sexual content.

Originally Posted by Derby

To answer your question, Fawriel's post was edited because this topic relies on the other topic to be understood. Supplied with identical graphic context, the use of the word becomes disallowed to the same extent. Additionally, the topic title indicates a general discussion of the editing of sexual content and not a discussion about sexual content, and the latter is even more unexpected based upon the forum it has been posted in, which is geared toward forum questions and feedback rather than miscellaneous discussion pertaining to sexual content.

So "editing of sexual content" is not specific enough to imply that sexual content could be within? What is the standard?

I disagree with Derby for this final point. Here's part of what I said in my deleted post:

Originally Posted by Link

This thread was neither originally intended as a general discussion of the editing of sexual content, nor a discussion about sexual content itself, but rather a contestation of a specific edit. In such a case, it does not make sense to prohibit explicit mention of the removed content.

Derby (and other administrators) can read the rest of the post if they want—I just didn't really want to start an argument in this thread.