Since reading a few of Barbiegirl's posts, I have a suggestion for a new rule (footnote - this is not aimed at her specifically because n00bs occasionally stroll in from time to time doing the exact same thing)
-- how about adding a new rule or set of rules defining the acceptable format for dialogue. Basically, it would be a list of boundaries that defines the desirable format for posts, and outlaws certain "non-standard" verbiages. I'm sure this kind of rule would be helpful in a place that wants to discuss science/math/etc.





PS: if you decide to do this, please don't outlaw the words "thingamobob" or "whatchamacallit"

I fully support this. I also think we should install Net Nanny to block sexually explicit words and images, use forum filters to block out profanity and all permutations and combinations of member names which can be considered as profane.

Moreover, any sentence not passing basic spellcheck or grammar check should be scrambled into gibberish. And any post with the word lol should be automatically deleted.

I think all posts are acceptable except posts like SAM's above. I will work on an algorithm to identify that kind of post so the mods don't have extra work.

In principle I agree.

But in practice it would be too arbitrary (as evidenced by sowhat's post).

We can only pray that people like BarbieGirl eventually realize that this isn't the place for them.

I think all posts are acceptable except posts like SAM's above. I will work on an algorithm to identify that kind of post so the mods don't have extra work.

I think we should install software so that some posters will keep seeing a "404 error: Page Not found" every time they try to post. :bugeye:

This could be interspersed with other messages : Your computer cannot connect to this website. Please contact your administrator" etc. to avoid suspicion.

And the truth is finally out there. Stuff anyone who might need or want to learn anything about science who finds themselves here!

I do not agree to this at all. All should speak how they can speak and we should do our best to understand them. Because people like Barbie are too young to use elaquent language to please our taste buds. We also have many international members here and not all of them can speak english well enough. If this "acceptable format" will be implemented it will breach the rules of member freedom to express themselves how they can. Cursing is another thing, but this is how members communicate with each other and each one does it differently.

And the truth is finally out there. Stuff anyone who might need or want to learn anything about science who finds themselves here!

Other posters should be redirected to sites about the biology of cunning hamsters.:mad:

And the truth is finally out there. Stuff anyone who might need or want to learn anything about science who finds themselves here!

exactly! This is wrong! :mad: Creating the so called "acceptable formats" means the circle of those who can indeed conversate using such format will become smaller and most likely not include newcomers thus halting our progress of the forum in implementing a successfull strategy for future discussion development.

New rule. Footnote. New rule or set of rules. List. Kind of rule etc.
PS: if you decide to do this, please don't outlaw the words "tits" or "wank"

I have put your post through my own filter, rentable to sf for only $1000,000 a week. I think it improves it greatly. It rejects most words, but unfortunately sometimes adds swear words where they weren't originally.
I am still working on it.

I think we should install software so that some posters will keep seeing a "404 error: Page Not found" every time they try to post. :bugeye:

This could be interspersed with other messages : Your computer cannot connect to this website. Please contact your administrator" etc. to avoid suspicion.
I think we should put in a filter that adds 'this post is intended to be ironic' for members who seem, according to the filters subtle algorithms, only to be able to take things on one, flat, literal level.

By the way, I am pleased to announce that this, your second post in the thread, made it past my filter.

I call my filter Ganesh, I might add.

I fully support this. I also think we should install Net Nanny to block sexually explicit words and images, use forum filters to block out profanity and all permutations and combinations of member names which can be considered as profane.

Moreover, any sentence not passing basic spellcheck or grammar check should be scrambled into gibberish. And any post with the word lol should be automatically deleted.

LOL, Asguard is in a world of hurt then. Oh crap! I LOLd. :wallbang:

shit, my filter is not allowing me to read my own posts. Will someone quote them so I can read them.

Thank you.

If you don't like Barbie, ban her and be done with it. Though, her posts don't bother me like the crap that comes from gendanken, who is "oh, so smart" but can't get beyond herself.

I don't think it's too arbitrary.
As can be noted in the number of members that dislike "cell phone newspeak", there seems to be a consensus as to how far language can be truncated/compressed before it becomes extremely annoying. There's also the occasional user that posts using excessive cutesy "LOLcat" styled jargon, or leetspeak -- at least I see that elsewhere.
Having some sort of official rule in place would at least help keep the discussions from going all the way down that drain.

I don't think it should be totally draconian however (that may have been SAM's point via sarcasm).

If you don't like Barbie, ban her and be done with it. Though, her posts don't bother me like the crap that comes from gendanken, who is "oh, so smart" but can't get beyond herself.

Some posts should come with a qualifier:

"This post is too sanctimonious and prissy to be read before a healthy dose of caffeine or alternately a healthy sense of the ridiculous"

People should be given a choice not to wade through pompous crap.

deleted due to ***zes


Hmm did I miss something? :confused:

......sanctimonious and prissy ....
....pompous crap.


And who will define what is "sanctimonious" and "prissy" and "crap" ? :bugeye:

Under who's accord? Who'se point of view will we have to bend under?

Some posts should come with a qualifier:

"This post is too sanctimonious and prissy to be read before a healthy dose of caffeine or alternately a healthy sense of the ridiculous"

People should be given a choice not to wade through pompous crap.

I think the warning label idea is perfect but we must take a constructivist approach.

Warning: atheists may find the contents of this post excessively stimulating
Warning: careful spellers and other pedants may find this post irritating
Warning: Christians may find actual sinful acts, albeit in verbal form, in this post.

and so on.

And who will define what is "sanctimonious" and "prissy" and "crap" ? :bugeye:

Under who's accord? Who'se point of view will we have to bend under?
I think that was the point. (sorry, SAM. Sometimes I am so banal)

Sciforums Warning:
Are you sure you want to read this?

Click here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1810731&postcount=17) only if you are reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly sure!!!!:mad:


Thats a new filter. I wonder what it filters.

/clicks

Arrrgggghhhhhh!

/tears out some more hair:wallbang:

I don't think it's too arbitrary.
As can be noted in the number of members that dislike "cell phone newspeak", there seems to be a consensus as to how far language can be truncated/compressed before it becomes extremely annoying. There's also the occasional user that posts using excessive cutesy "LOLcat" styled jargon, or leetspeak -- at least I see that elsewhere.
Having some sort of official rule in place would at least help keep the discussions from going all the way down that drain.

I don't think it should be totally draconian however (that may have been SAM's point via sarcasm).

Let the market rule!
(I can't believe I just said that)
Ah, well. Look. Someone with an irritating style should be ignored. Perhaps told a couple of times by their readers. If the not being taken seriously and the not being responded to have no effect, they are still a rather limited phenomenon. They are not the problem. If lots of people respond while being irritated and wishing they would go away, this is like going out with someone repeatedly who one does not like.

well than if such goes we should just have a warning sticker thread with all the warning for Muslims, Christians, Paedophiles, Atheist, Gay lovers, careful spellers...and reference to it in the thread.

so we can have something like this:

thread created by somebody,

----

LOLZ LIKE MY BOO AND LIKE YEAH

so like I....I am emo yesturday and today I am pretty totally ok, yeah

----

Warning No: 1,13,8,9,5 please refer to warning thread

Thats a new filter. I wonder what it filters.

/clicks

Arrrgggghhhhhh!

/tears out some more hair:wallbang:

well this so called filter is nonsense

Let me introduce our members to some not so obvious advantages of this forum:

Click on image below:

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/384/171.gif (http://www.sciforums.com/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=ignore&match=all&titlesonly=0)

Let me introduce our members to some not so obvious advantages of this forum:

Click on image below:

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/384/171.gif (http://www.sciforums.com/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=ignore&match=all&titlesonly=0)

Oh, but SAM, I find the ignore function is like actively not thinking of a purple elephant. I end up thinking about them all the time. It is like they are pressing in on my consciousness CONSTANTLY but not perceptibly.

Can't you mods do something about how I experience things and not just what I experience?

Can't you mods do something about how I experience things and not just what I experience?

ask the next mod in hierarchy, ask mod the God. Also, if you think of a purple poodle instead...you will forget about the elephant...just think of the purple poodle.

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/384/78.png

Other posters should be redirected to sites about the biology of cunning hamsters.:mad:

Oh really!


What you appear to want here and Ben 'accidentally' stated (freudian slip?) is a nice little ingroup who pander to all your 'high' intellectual demands and get the in jokes. There is a line up there ^^^^. 'Science' is supposed to be above it and general forum fodder below. Yet you all seem to be so surprised and horrified when you attract those whose interest may lie in the more general material and then go about beating them up when they don't have the desirous lofty science credentials or correct posting style when they dip their precious little toes into the bit above the line! This is a fabulous example of how not to attract peoople to science!! Well done.

If you were all honest about what you really want you wouldn't have to apply your 'rules' so arbitrarilly and piss off your 'more interesting' posters (and no I don't include myself in this group before you blast me with your acidic little tongues) to the extent that they are banned or leave. It appears that as a forum have become victims of your own schizophrenia.

Just be honest about your aims. If it is to recreate some imagined glory days then the mods and this forum need to grow up and away from the bitch fest.

If however you actually want a bitch fest then you are welcome to share my little hole!

Go on delete away.

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/384/78.png

No, you must tailor fit your pedagogy to me. I did not understand this symbol. I have no living flies to feed that. I am not closer to not reacting to those who irritate me.

Bring me home, oh, bring me home.

You must be the cortisone to my histaminic overreaction.

...Hmm did I miss something? :confused:

Yeah, me too. What was deleted??

ask the next mod in hierarchy, ask mod the God. Also, if you think of a purple poodle instead...you will forget about the elephant...just think of the purple poodle.

Great...
I know your intentions were good, but there is no chance I will get a wink of sleep tonight.

The poodle and the elephant are getting along well however.

Oh really!


What you appear to want here and Ben 'accidentally' stated (freudian slip?) is a nice little ingroup who pander to all your 'high' intellectual demands and get the in jokes. There is a line up there ^^^^. 'Science' is supposed to be above it and general forum fodder below. Yet you all seem to be so surprised and horrified when you attract those whose interest may lie in the more general material and then go about beating them up when they don't have the desirous lofty science credentials or correct posting style when they dip their precious little toes into the bit above the line! This is a fabulous example of how not to attract peoople to science!! Well done.

If you were all honest about what you really want you wouldn't have to apply your 'rules' so arbitrarilly and piss off your 'more interesting' posters (and no I don't include myself in this group before you blast me with your acidic little tongues) to the extent that they are banned or leave. It appears that as a forum have become victims of your own schizophrenia.

Just be honest about your aims. If it is to recreate some imagined glory days then the mods and this forum need to grow up and away from the bitch fest.

If however you actually want a bitch fest then you are welcome to share my little hole!

Go on delete away.


Are you a sockpuppet of shorty?:confused::confused::confused:

You have to role model using the ignore function SAM.

You have to role model using the ignore function SAM.

Well the sniffy I remember used to be a humorous and intelligent poster. Clearly supernatural forces are at work here.

And if you weren't referriing to sniffy, I put posters on ignore all the time. I need a break from the mod bashers too occasionally. :p

No, not referring specifically. Saw you banging head on wall at the end of page 1 in response to somebody and I thought
well...

Are you a sockpuppet of shorty?:confused::confused:




You fucking asked for it! :D

You fucking asked for it! :D

Don't you mean fuking you foul mouthed, maggot ridden, uncouth pustule on the butt of a hamster? :spank: :mad:

I'll get you banned for that.

/flees

Well the sniffy I remember used to be a humorous and intelligent poster. Clearly supernatural forces are at work here.



Hmpf!
This used to be a humorous and intelligent website.

Hmpf!
This used to be a humorous and intelligent website.

PMS is a bitch. :cool:

Don't you mean fuking..

LOL!!
%^&@# I did it again. Its a sickness. I can't be held responsible for LOLing.

If you don't like Barbie, ban her and be done with it. Though, her posts don't bother me like the crap that comes from gendanken, who is "oh, so smart" but can't get beyond herself.

Be careful in your judgements. Your perspectives are being skewed by the appreciation for her return showed by those who know her. Don't fault her for the congratulatory responses to her posts. They'll fade away to normal after she's been around a bit and things settle back in to normalcy.

Just because someone looks down on Barbie doesn't mean they 'can't get over themselves'.
Even our resident dummies look down on Barbie.

Just be honest about your aims. If it is to recreate some imagined glory days then the mods and this forum need to grow up and away from the bitch fest.

If however you actually want a bitch fest then you are welcome to share my little hole!

What do you think the glory days were like?

And when you're looking down you miss the shit flying above.

What do you think the glory days were like?

warm and sunny and nice and sweet :rolleyes:

and everyone had thicker skin and could handle a cunt or two

warm and sunny and nice and sweet

Heh.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32212

Right about the cunts, that's for sure.

Let the market rule!
(I can't believe I just said that)
Ah, well. Look. Someone with an irritating style should be ignored. Perhaps told a couple of times by their readers. If the not being taken seriously and the not being responded to have no effect, they are still a rather limited phenomenon. They are not the problem. If lots of people respond while being irritated and wishing they would go away, this is like going out with someone repeatedly who one does not like.

Not really.
As in the case of BarbieGirl (again, **not singling her out or anything**, just using her as an example), she's using a form of communication that's totally common within the realm of AOL chat/cellphone messaging. It's not a limited phenomenon, and there are bound to be more participants in the future who show up using it.
Having the rule in place would be instructions describing what's considered ideal. I think it would be a much more appropriate message than tons of veteran users ridiculing the offenders. It would basically mean "an acceptable form of communication needs to be used to participate".

I'm sure there's a not-overbearing way to pull this off.

Does anyone miss Donnal?

Not really.
As in the case of BarbieGirl (again, **not singling her out or anything**, just using her as an example), she's using a form of communication that's totally common within the realm of AOL chat/cellphone messaging. It's not a limited phenomenon, and there are bound to be more participants in the future who show up using it.
Having the rule in place would be instructions describing what's considered ideal. I think it would be a much more appropriate message than tons of veteran users ridiculing the offenders. It would basically mean "an acceptable form of communication needs to be used to participate".

I'm sure there's a not-overbearing way to pull this off.


I certainly wasn't suggesting 'tons of veteran users' ridiculing....
I find I can't read barbie. Or don't. Or something in between those.
I think, given the fact that others do, she is communicating effectively to those people. Or they are acting strangely and against their own interests.

Heh.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32212

Right about the cunts, that's for sure.


Oh I missed those cunts. I was always asleep when the americans and canadians were in. They still induce the same response in me now. :D

Puck up your arse, eh!

It happens every time I bend over!

I certainly wasn't suggesting 'tons of veteran users' ridiculing....
I find I can't read barbie. Or don't. Or something in between those.
I think, given the fact that others are, she is communicating effectively to those people. Or they are acting strangely and against their own interests.

You personally do it the right way, but for a lot of others - ridicule is what *currently* happens whenever any new user enters the forum, and posts in minimalist/phonetic jargon. People don't tend to ignore them - rather they consciously take the time to rake them across the coals about it.

Assuming someone does make the rule, the reason I keep suggesting a "non-draconian" approach to it is because the same jargon is accepted in instances where it is not the primary vehicle for all communications (read: small doses). In times where someone is using it as a joke, or a few popular acronyms (examples: ROFL, LOL, BTW, FTW) don't seem particularly bad. There are also posters like Asgard who post with a few typos/misspellings here and there, but it doesn't detract from the "meat" of what he's trying to say.

Are you a sockpuppet of shorty?:confused:

Why would you have to even ask that? Don't you MODS KNOW EVERYTHING? :rolleyes:

You personally do it the right way, but for a lot of others - ridicule is what *currently* happens whenever any new user enters the forum, and posts in minimalist/phonetic jargon. People don't tend to ignore them - rather they consciously take the time to rake them across the coals about it.

Assuming someone does make the rule, the reason I keep suggesting a "non-draconian" approach to it is because the same jargon is accepted in instances where it is not the primary vehicle for all communications (read: small doses). In times where someone is using it as a joke, or a few popular acronyms (examples: ROFL, LOL, BTW, FTW) don't seem particularly bad. There are also posters like Asgard who post with a few typos/misspellings here and there, but it doesn't detract from the "meat" of what he's trying to say.

You have the hots for barbie.

Admit it.

All this trouble over lolspeek and leetspeek :mad:

I like totally support this i c y it cud be a problem if ppl like talk like they r texting all the time


Like like like like

You have the hots for barbie.

Admit it.

All this trouble over lolspeek and leetspeek :mad:


Not that I'm defending her, but I've received this same schoolyard-style teasing whenever I've defended gay people (you're statement is supportive, Therefore you are gay).

Actually, I'm just tired of seeing newspeak, and tired of seeing people complain about it. Someone should chisel up a new commandment.

domesticated om

I like this idea about formatting very much.
But, I'm afraid that would be a sort of censorship.

Acronyms and abbreviations are spicing up discussion sometimes, but I admit that I'm getting rash when I'm reading Runescape/IM chat all over.

*Panthenol mode*

However, rule about proper formatting could be applied in certain forums (science subforums, formal debate,etc.), but not in all forums definitely.

Otherwise, I would again gain epithet of http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/Hitler.gif

When idea about Knowledge Base was active, I've set up a few guidelines how KB article should look like (footnotes, citations,...).
That could be easily applied to forums discussion as well or at least to certain threads marked as alpha, sci, etc.

I'm again interested in applying article idea, this time through the GARS (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=75916), so this idea could be implemented there as well.

I would love to hear more suggestions how this would work, trying to avoid discrimination toward any member.

And the truth is finally out there. Stuff anyone who might need or want to learn anything about science who finds themselves here!

:bugeye:Learn... something... here?!

can i point out that not only do we have alot of members for whom english is a second language but spelling error's arnt always something that can be helped.

Would we REALLY want to demonise someone who is simply dislexic because they have a disability?

What a stupid idea

can i point out that not only do we have alot of members for whom english is a second language but spelling error's arnt always something that can be helped.
Asguard, get a spell checker! English seems like your 4th language! :D :p

oh for christ sake avatar, you have known me long enough to know its not something i can help

If we're taking this seriously, and sciforums is a quasi user oriented forum, then there should appeal against the filter. I,e asguard's case. But we run into the problem of proof and exceptions....blah de blah..

heres an idea, why don't we use our ignore lists as always.

can i point out that not only do we have alot of members for whom english is a second language but spelling error's arnt always something that can be helped.

Would we REALLY want to demonise someone who is simply dislexic because they have a disability?

What a stupid idea

As I was saying, it shouldn't be draconian, and named a few exceptions (I also included the fact that you occasionally make spelling errors, but it didn't detract from your entries )
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1810935&postcount=54

If we're taking this seriously, and sciforums is a quasi user oriented forum, then there should appeal against the filter. I,e asguard's case. But we run into the problem of proof and exceptions....blah de blah..

heres an idea, why don't we use our ignore lists as always.

Somone else mentioned the "software filter" (like a vbulletin plugin) which wasn't what I was referring to at all. I simply meant appending a new rule to the list under the "new members please read" listing. Just a little section saying "we have a moratorium on newspeak" and describing what was acceptable/unacceptable.

domesticated om

I like this idea about formatting very much.
But, I'm afraid that would be a sort of censorship.

Acronyms and abbreviations are spicing up discussion sometimes, but I admit that I'm getting rash when I'm reading Runescape/IM chat all over.

*Panthenol mode*

However, rule about proper formatting could be applied in certain forums (science subforums, formal debate,etc.), but not in all forums definitely.

Otherwise, I would again gain epithet of http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10062/Hitler.gif

When idea about Knowledge Base was active, I've set up a few guidelines how KB article should look like (footnotes, citations,...).
That could be easily applied to forums discussion as well or at least to certain threads marked as alpha, sci, etc.

I'm again interested in applying article idea, this time through the GARS (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=75916), so this idea could be implemented there as well.

I would love to hear more suggestions how this would work, trying to avoid discrimination toward any member.

This isn't really targeted at BG specifically, it's just that users show up all the time with weird posting styles (newspeak/phonetic/all-caps, etc) and people tend to harass them. It's just that she is the current "it", so she makes a great case in point.
Hmmm----I'll give it some more thought

Would censorship by any other name smell as sweetly?

Language evolves just like the speakers of it.

Would censorship by any other name smell as sweetly?

Language evolves just like the speakers of it.

Censorship is limiting what a person can or can not say.
This proposed rule says "say whatever they want, but say it normally" -- I mean, unless you consider someone telling someone else to "stop mumbling" to be censorship.

But that's just mocking the afflicted!

Censorship is limiting what a person can or can not say.
This proposed rule says "say whatever they want, but say it normally" -- I mean, unless you consider someone telling someone else to "stop mumbling" to be censorship.

Actually telling someone to 'stop mumbling' is not making a rule and creating some enforcement process. One person is reacting to another. To define mumbling in this context will be a very tricky and complicated process. As it is now, it seems like posters do say 'stop mumbling' to certain people.

But that's just mocking the afflicted!
No, they are afflicting the mockers:
(I had to say that, sorry)

Actually telling someone to 'stop mumbling' is not making a rule and creating some enforcement process. One person is reacting to another. To define mumbling in this context will be a very tricky and complicated process. As it is now, it seems like posters do say 'stop mumbling' to certain people.

But that's just mocking the afflicted!

Ok - if it serves as a bad analogy, think of "bubble lettering". You remember that from grade school right? Well....maybe not if you didn't grow up using English alphabetical characters......

Bubble letters were fun for kids passing notes back and forth between friends. They could make little "eyeballs" out of the letter "O", or whatever other kind of amusing modification they wanted to include. Of course, they would write normally if they were turning in homework or writing some sort of paper because the teacher wouldn't accept it.

Bubble lettering is not in itself it's own form of dialect, or significant to the "limits of a person's ability to write". It was simply a commonly used stylized form of text.
Ideologically, it's the same as cellphone-speak/LOL-cat phoneticism/all-caps/l33t-speak/whatever.

I think the warning label idea is perfect but we must take a constructivist approach.

Warning: atheists may find the contents of this post excessively stimulating
Warning: careful spellers and other pedants may find this post irritating
Warning: Christians may find actual sinful acts, albeit in verbal form, in this post.

and so on.

You left one out.

The dyslectic may find this one difficult.

wot about when we're like a bit fick?

What a freakshow.. :bugeye:

I fully support this. I also think we should install Net Nanny to block sexually explicit words and images, use forum filters to block out profanity and all permutations and combinations of member names which can be considered as profane.

Moreover, any sentence not passing basic spellcheck or grammar check should be scrambled into gibberish. And any post with the word lol should be automatically deleted.

No, just, No

LOL- Will this be deleted ? I wonder...

And who will define what is "sanctimonious" and "prissy" and "crap" ? :bugeye:

Under who's accord? Who'se point of view will we have to bend under?
Suddenly you got a backbone, Bubby ?

Shaddap and make with the Sieg Heil for the nice Gestapo like you always do !

I should have alpha tagged this thread, although I don't think it works outside the physics subforum :grumble:

....at any rate, I was pondering the distinction between what people were willing to put up with, and what they can't stand.
The problem with a rule like this is it might alienate someone like "duendy"
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=2086428
I see here that people continued to have discussions with this person (on topic) even though their posting style was far from standard - but it wasn't newspeak. Was duendy from the Carribean? I kept expecting to see "I and I" written in there somewhere.....

at any rate, maybe the rule should limit itself to the outlaw of newspeak specifically, and define it as "cellular text message styled jargon, overuse of phoneticism, overuse of leetspeak, overuse of all caps" -- those are the only ones I can think of right off, I think there's others.
"Overuse" could be defined as "used as the primary posting style".




BTW -- I'm posting this for the sake of conjecture since Plazma views it as censorship.

OK (bumping thread)

How about instead of posting this as an official rule, how about as just a "recommendation". I thinks this at least deserves a place within the list.

Well, recommendation is better choice. If the rule for dialogue is just recommended, the climate for discussion is better.

Forced rules build a box where the discussion is stuck soon.