"theflatearthsociety" word filter

  • 61 Replies
  • 9330 Views
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
"theflatearthsociety" word filter
« on: January 25, 2016, 06:25:19 AM »
So this is rather disappointing. We just discovered that a word filter has been set up on this forum to replace any instances of "tfes" with "theflatearthsociety" - a clear attempt at blocking links to tfes.org. I would like to ask the admins of this site to reconsider this decision, for (some of) the following reasons:

  • It retroactively breaks links that others have made here to discussions on tfes.org. If you want to restrict others from linking to our websites, that's your prerogative (even if it's needlessly incendiary). However, automatically breaking a whole bunch of links simply renders some of the threads unreadable, especially those which reference our FAQ/Wiki as sources of arguments. This is not only annoying on a political level, but it's also simply not how the WWW is supposed to work. Don't deliberately break links.
  • It's a very one-sided tactic. I would understand if this was in response to us doing something similar, but we do not stop our members from linking to theflatearthsociety.org on tfes.org. We share a common goal, and if it weren't for the fact that Daniel disappeared in the middle of discussions, we wouldn't even be two separate sites. What do you stand to gain by openly attacking us?
  • Finally, this comes as a particular disappointment on a personal level, since there is only one person who could have likely set this up - John. John, you recently stopped by on our forum and got attacked by Thork. Notice what happened afterwards. We warned Thork, and, as I understand, you received multiple reassurances that he doesn't represent us in any way. We're playing nicely. I'd like to ask you that you do too.

All in all, this strikes me as extremely petty. I hope that this was just an angry reaction to your recent clash with Thork. I hope you can take a look at this in a calm and collected state of mind and take it back.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2016, 07:51:05 AM by John Davis »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2016, 07:47:20 AM »
I'm with the pizza. As it stands, tfes is the site with a working, vaguely well-made wiki: we pretty much need to link to it in order to explain the FE point of view, especially to newcomers. The one on this site is poorly maintained, and far harder to navigate and far less filled-in than the alternative.
Preventing anyone from linking to it is just shooting yourself in the foot.

That being said, it should be pointed out that it isn't entirely one-sided. I notice there are objections on the other site to linking to this one in some situations (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4298.msg86662#msg86662),  but even so the word filter is just silly. If you don't want people to link to the sister site, don't make it necessary.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 07:51:12 AM by Jane »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2016, 08:34:30 AM »
That being said, it should be pointed out that it isn't entirely one-sided. I notice there are objections on the other site to linking to this one in some situations (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4298.msg86662#msg86662),  but even so the word filter is just silly. If you don't want people to link to the sister site, don't make it necessary.
I see your point, but I disagree that the two situations are equivalent. In the case you've referenced, it's been requested that we make our FAQ rely on an external site (especially one with which we had a history of clashes - this very thread being a good example. What if we make our FAQ rely on this site and something similar happens again?). The FAQ is particularly important, so we're being more (perhaps overly) careful with it. Our Wiki is generally meant to act as a self-contained resource, with links mostly serving as references, not as core sources of information. Among other reasons, this is because we can't guarantee that the content of other websites won't change or suddenly disappear.

jroa's post might do a better job at explaining this than anything I've said:

This is just my opinion, for what it is worth, but the faq should contain very few links.  It should present a common question, a short summary that explains the flat Earth side, and maybe an illustration or two.  I think it would be a bad idea if the faq simply contained links to threads, even if the thread does cover the subject of the question.  You might as well just have the faq say, "Use the search function" if you expect them to read through ten pages of a thread to get the answer to their question.
[source]

There are links  to theflatearthsociety.org all over our forum, and we're not trying to stop people from referencing this site in any way.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 08:39:19 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2016, 12:30:32 PM »
The situations definitely are't equivalent, but you can see why a response might be to ban a mention of your site. I agree with your reasoning to not have an FAQ filled with links, but needing to mention links to a site you're at odds with fosters the silly rivalry that presumably prompted this decision.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2016, 02:00:10 PM »
I don't think a simple statement of fact should be that big of a factor. We have a history of past clashes, with perpetrators on both sides. We've made amends and remain cautiously neutral now, but it seems like a perfectly sensible thing to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to include a 14-page thread as part of our FAQ. I don't see why I should pretend otherwise, and, frankly, I'm not convinced that it's at all relevant to the subject I've raised here.

In any case, I guess all we can do now is wait and see what John has to say. I sincerely hope you're wrong about the reasons for this, since that would be even more petty than what I originally assumed.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 02:05:08 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2016, 07:34:12 PM »
Really quite a few of our staff could have done this. However, it was me and it was agreed upon by everyone present.

This was not meant to be vindictive at all. I had ended all that Thork business when I had left your site. At the time I implemented this, I had already been informed that Thork was not representative of your site or community - so I had no reason to act out of ill conceived motives.

It was meant to enforce long standing rules concerning external links that we have ignored for far too long. These rules are partly in place due to SEO and that drove my actions here (as I'd be happy to share from screenshots of our discussion in the admin forum).  Frankly, it should have been done at the time of split to avoid this kind of mess. That was my fault. Mainly, these rules existed to stop folks from using our site as a link farm.

Upon perusing some of the posts I felt this may have been the case as aside from a lack of solid content in many of them, there is a huge disparity between the number of links from our site to yours compared to the opposite; I have to be led against my want, much like you in your view of me being rash concerning Thork, to assume this was an attempt from some of those whom at the time were against our forums to perform black hat (well gray hat perhaps) SEO. Fine, no big deal and alls forgiven if this is the case. If not, ok too. What matters to me is not the intent here, but the effect.

One can note a jump up of our site above yours in rank as showing if this was not the intent, there is a correlation to it being the effect (though it could be due to our blank homepage being corrected or the small speed improvements I have tried to implement).  As administrator of our site, I can't have it be a link farm for other sites if it will affect our ranking. I'm sure you understand this.

While I have no ill will towards you guys over at theflatearthsociety (in fact I will again here publicly apologize for my part in our past bad beef), I still have a responsibility to this site to do the best I can to enforce the rules and do what I can to affect our search rankings; I have to do this no matter what my personal feelings are towards you guys. Personally, I love you all over there and think very highly of what you've done as an organization - I'll be the first to say I was wrong and miss a good lot of ya.

Perhaps this was a mistake. I'm reasonable and open to arguments to change our minds - I don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Hopefully, we can reopen talks soon of reintegration so this doesn't matter. The media is making a mockery of us. In the meanwhile, it seems your concern however is not mine - it is the readability and usability of threads. On this we can agree. Tonight I will solve this problem by introducing client side javascript to replace instances of say, the word "EXTERNALSITE_theflatearthsociety.ORG" or something similar to a usable link and update the filter. This solves both our problems, and honestly I should have thought of it sooner. While this doesn't help those with js disabled, we don't claim to support non-js browsers.

I'll be on your irc shortly if you want to discuss this further, or we can do so here if you want more transparency.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 07:57:22 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2016, 11:07:46 PM »
If SEO is your concern than there are more powerful and less divisive ways to achieve this.  One would be to update your home page more often with videos and blog posts.  Why not start with something more constructive than the editing of poster's comments without their consent?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2016, 05:13:10 AM »
I'm fairly inactive on IRC these days, so I'd probably prefer to keep talking here.

Okay, I'll divide this into two sections. The first will be mostly me just trying to respond to your points and arguments, and then I'll move on to concrete suggestions for solutions.

Responses

First of all, I'd like to note that you already tripped yourself up by trying to use "tfes" in your post above. You ended up saying "I have no ill will towards you guys over at theflatearthsociety". I hope this can serve of anecdotal evidence of just how silly this solution is. It hurts the everyday user more than anyone else.

Secondly, you say there's a policy against "external sites". That policy doesn't seem to be documented anywhere (other than a single rage-fuelled post by yourself threatening to permaban anyone who does so little as mention tfes.org, for which you apologised and which I believe you deleted). I know things are done a bit differently here than at tfes, but I'm sure you understand why this strikes me as a bit odd, especially when only one site has seemingly been targeted.

Yes, there was a time some 2 years ago when our members spammed this forum with links. This was during the time when tensions were at an all-time high. You keep saying you want to put this behind us, and so do I, so why is that still a factor? If you feel that these posts still existing somewhere in the archives is a problem, clean them up (I'll happily offer my help in doing so in an expedited manner), but don't introduce arbitrary filters.

I monitor our site's Google rankings quite closely, and as a necessary side effect this also means I monitor yours. We only jumped up above you because your homepage vanished entirely from Google. Because it was dead for about a month. We had nothing to do with that.

I can no longer perform a count of tfes.org links here (obviously - they've all been clobbered by the wordfilter), nor can I look through them to see what the content was exactly. However, BiJane's posts seem to make a good case for why it may be beneficial to include links to our Wiki, at least. The links to theflatearthsociety.org coming from our site seem to all be meaningful and intended as support for the posts' content.


Solutions

Okay, so you say your main reason for this is worrying about competition in SEO. I've played around with this stuff for the past couple years, admittedly starting with self-teaching through tfes.org, but at this point I'm involved with a few not-huge-but-not-insignificant-either websites. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm not clueless either. Let me begin by saying that no matter what you do, you will not affect our website's standing with Google in any meaningful way.

Google ignores websites which are too saturated with links to another website (or links in general). It also takes the website's reputation into account. A recent Guardian article linking to our site is a thousand times as meaningful as turning this forum into a "link farm". Our little Google competition will largely be outside of your or my control (except for Rama's point - we can still compete for content).

So, what I'm trying to say up until now is that I'm not coming here asking you to revert the change because it will hurt our SEO. I'm here asking you to revert the change because it hurts Flat Earth.

Now, let's say that alone doesn't convince you, and you still want a technical solution to prevent search engines from following the links to our forum. You know me, I'm a bit of a stickler to Web specifications. Generally, the way to go about this stuff is to add a rel="nofollow" to the link.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en

I'll make a little leap here and assume that you do actually care about "external sites" as you said, and that you're not deliberately targeting our site. If that is the case, that's an easy way of getting Google to ignore all links, truly preventing anyone and everyone from using this site for blackhat SEO in the future. If you're interested, all you'd have to do is edit 2 lines of code in /Sources/Subs.php. That way, the links will still work for normal users, but you will be leaving a clear message for bots that you do not wish for these sites to be indexed.

However, while this is the "least worst" of the solutions, it's still unnecessary. Search engine rankings are an enormous chain of interlocking factors. In particular, it's important to keep in mind that search engines are pretty good at detecting rogue SEO attempts and actually punish websites which don't play nice. For all we know, the links to tes.org here might be penalising us, not rewarding. You might also be hurting yourself, since you've just introduced a large amount of broken links to your own domain (which often gets interpreted as "this site is outdated - why else would it contain broken links?"). This is seriously just not how SEO should be done.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 07:57:01 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2016, 09:26:18 PM »
I'm fairly inactive on IRC these days, so I'd probably prefer to keep talking here.

Okay, I'll divide this into two sections. The first will be mostly me just trying to respond to your points and arguments, and then I'll move on to concrete suggestions for solutions.

Responses

First of all, I'd like to note that you already tripped yourself up by trying to use "tfes" in your post above. You ended up saying "I have no ill will towards you guys over at theflatearthsociety". I hope this can serve of anecdotal evidence of just how silly this solution is. It hurts the everyday user more than anyone else.

Secondly, you say there's a policy against "external sites". That policy doesn't seem to be documented anywhere (other than a single rage-fuelled post by yourself threatening to permaban anyone who does so little as mention tfes.org, for which you apologised and which I believe you deleted). I know things are done a bit differently here than at tfes, but I'm sure you understand why this strikes me as a bit odd, especially when only one site has seemingly been targeted.

Yes, there was a time some 2 years ago when our members spammed this forum with links. This was during the time when tensions were at an all-time high. You keep saying you want to put this behind us, and so do I, so why is that still a factor? If you feel that these posts still existing somewhere in the archives is a problem, clean them up (I'll happily offer my help in doing so in an expedited manner), but don't introduce arbitrary filters.

I monitor our site's Google rankings quite closely, and as a necessary side effect this also means I monitor yours. We only jumped up above you because your homepage vanished entirely from Google. Because it was dead for about a month. We had nothing to do with that.

I can no longer perform a count of tfes.org links here (obviously - they've all been clobbered by the wordfilter), nor can I look through them to see what the content was exactly. However, BiJane's posts seem to make a good case for why it may be beneficial to include links to our Wiki, at least. The links to theflatearthsociety.org coming from our site seem to all be meaningful and intended as support for the posts' content.


Solutions

Okay, so you say your main reason for this is worrying about competition in SEO. I've played around with this stuff for the past couple years, admittedly starting with self-teaching through tfes.org, but at this point I'm involved with a few not-huge-but-not-insignificant-either websites. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm not clueless either. Let me begin by saying that no matter what you do, you will not affect our website's standing with Google in any meaningful way.
From my experience working for a somewhat large site as well, and their department dedicated almost solely to SEO, I have to disagree. Plus empirical evidence shows otherwise - we've obviously affected it by not having a homepage. Our speed also affects it.
Quote
Google ignores websites which are too saturated with links to another website (or links in general). It also takes the website's reputation into account. A recent Guardian article linking to our site is a thousand times as meaningful as turning this forum into a "link farm". Our little Google competition will largely be outside of your or my control (except for Rama's point - we can still compete for content).
Agreed.
Quote
So, what I'm trying to say up until now is that I'm not coming here asking you to revert the change because it will hurt our SEO. I'm here asking you to revert the change because it hurts Flat Earth.

Now, let's say that alone doesn't convince you, and you still want a technical solution to prevent search engines from following the links to our forum. You know me, I'm a bit of a stickler to Web specifications. Generally, the way to go about this stuff is to add a rel="nofollow" to the link.
Good point.
Quote
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en

I'll make a little leap here and assume that you do actually care about "external sites" as you said, and that you're not deliberately targeting our site. If that is the case, that's an easy way of getting Google to ignore all links, truly preventing anyone and everyone from using this site for blackhat SEO in the future. If you're interested, all you'd have to do is edit 2 lines of code in /Sources/Subs.php. That way, the links will still work for normal users, but you will be leaving a clear message for bots that you do not wish for these sites to be indexed.
Thanks! a much better solution than mine.
Quote
However, while this is the "least worst" of the solutions, it's still unnecessary. Search engine rankings are an enormous chain of interlocking factors. In particular, it's important to keep in mind that search engines are pretty good at detecting rogue SEO attempts and actually punish websites which don't play nice. For all we know, the links to tes.org here might be penalising us, not rewarding. You might also be hurting yourself, since you've just introduced a large amount of broken links to your own domain (which often gets interpreted as "this site is outdated - why else would it contain broken links?"). This is seriously just not how SEO should be done.

Indeed, I had thought about the 404 issue myself. An easy way to fix this would be simply to perm redirect 404 to the homepage. However, I think your solutions sound great. I know I said I'd get to it last night when we talked about this on IRC, but hopefully tonight is the night.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 09:35:48 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2016, 02:51:39 AM »
I'm glad we agree on most things here, and I look forward to your implementation of my suggestion. If you don't mind, could I ask you to remove the filter ahead of time if it starts looking like the alternative solution might take a while

Just to quickly respond to a couple of your points:

Well, sure, we did jump up when your homepage went down, if you want to be super-technical about it. We were, on average, 3rd in search results for "flat earth society" (behind Wikipedia and theflatearthsociety.org), and we jumped up to 2nd. You know, because the 2nd page ceased to exist. However, if we stick to common-sense interpretations of data, it's evident that your disappearance didn't directly affect our standing. It just... y'know, made you disappear.

As for your "empirical evidence" point, I thought I'd provide some of my own.

This is a graph taken from our Google Analytics, showing visits to the homepage generated through search engines only. That is to say, people searched for us, found us, and actually clicked on our link.



The highlighted date - 23rd of January - is when I believe you introduced your filter. I know that the sample size of days is quite small, and I'm happy to report in later when we have more data, but so far it seems that your change has either left us unaffected, or in fact helped us (as I speculated before).

This is especially relevant since we've just hit an all-time high when it comes to visits. I sincerely suspect this has to do with us making major overhauls of how our homepage works more than anything.

hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37835
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2016, 10:43:17 PM »
I don't understand what the big deal is.  The sister site's admin run the forum the way they want, and we do the same.  What we do here has no bearing on your site, so why are you so upset? 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37835
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2016, 01:23:23 AM »
I still don't understand what the big deal is. 

I don't understand what the big deal is.  The sister site's admin run the forum the way they want, and we do the same.  What we do here has no bearing on your site, so why are you so upset? 

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2016, 09:54:48 AM »
Rayzor, PizzaPlanet, lets keep this geek-debate civil.  PizzaPlanet, perhaps you can run a control chart to illustrate to Rayzor the concepts that he's not grasping?  An X-Bar and S should suffice.  Then we can discuss the impact of the variation and determine its source.

Also, a bell curve would be nice so we can understand the standard deviation and place these spikes into perspective.  Thanks.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2016, 11:52:57 AM »
I'll remove it until I code the fix.

I haven't had time to read all this, like B.o.B I can't even keep my phone charged up ;).

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12250
  • Now available in stereo
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2016, 02:42:12 PM »
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2016, 10:26:01 PM »
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
Least I could do.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2016, 08:20:24 AM »
Well, I can see you have yet to remove your signature that clearly has been updated to link to your site, and also whines about our rules regarding external links. This despite you saying you would help clean up frivolous links to your site. This is very disappointing. I am considering running the query later tonight to strip all mentions of tfes.org from the site as a result of your actions.

Very unfortunate.

Though I doubt I will bother.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2016, 08:49:24 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2016, 10:05:09 AM »
Re-implementing the word filter. The usability of their site is not our concern.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11690
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2016, 10:12:05 AM »
Re-implementing the word filter. The usability of their site is not our concern.

The usability of this site should be. if you want to include such a filter, wouldn't it be better to wait until, at least, the wiki on this site has been improved? You seem to have ambitions in that direction, consider it an incentive. While their wiki is the only one that really addresses countless questions, people will want to link to it.
That's just one case of an issue. At any rate, the word filter would seem to be (at the very least) premature.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2016, 10:27:31 AM »
He went out of his way after acting nice about the whole thing to circumvent it in his signature while insulting us despite it being removed. At this point its a matter of principle. Our wiki will be here soon enough. This is why they had to leave here; because they shit all over our house, attacked our bandwidth and acted generally like children testing their teachers limits. They did this until they almost ruined the forums. While I have forgiven the transgressions of the past, I will not turn a blind eye to those of the present and will act appropriately. So long as the moderation team agrees, which it seems they do.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2016, 11:04:56 AM »
He went out of his way after acting nice about the whole thing to circumvent it in his signature while insulting us despite it being removed. At this point its a matter of principle. Our wiki will be here soon enough. This is why they had to leave here; because they shit all over our house, attacked our bandwidth and acted generally like children testing their teachers limits. They did this until they almost ruined the forums. While I have forgiven the transgressions of the past, I will not turn a blind eye to those of the present and will act appropriately. So long as the moderation team agrees, which it seems they do.

John, I hate to burst your bubble, but the forums are much worse now than they were and it is for some simple reasons:

-Moderation is scant
-Administration, namely Daniel, is absent and disinterested
-Trolls are allowed to run amok, although this is mostly related to the first issue

Anyway, a word filter seems an extremely petty solution to a problem and will be ineffective in the long run.  I am pretty sure google degrades the ranking of sites that inhibit the visibility of others although I could be wrong.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2016, 11:31:45 AM »
If it is indeed petty, then who cares?

I'll talk to my google rep about your claim next time we meet with her. I doubt that its the case that google penalizes site for moderating who they link to.

Aside from this, as he often said - irrelevant. Parisfal has already told us that it is not about the link backs, so who cares.  If it is, he can keep farming reddit if he wants. We aren't a link farm.

A non-petty solution would have been for Parisfal to 1) not change his signature to a purposeful attack on us while linking back to his site, something I had already expressed concern with and 2) for him to have taken action to clean up the mess he caused.

He did neither. So unless there is a real reason why this matters, or if moderation disagrees with this decision, I'm done talking about it.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 11:35:14 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2016, 11:54:08 AM »
Censorship is just such a terrible solution in almost every instance.

Its your sandbox, do as you wish.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16625
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2016, 12:01:06 PM »
Its cleaning up graffiti. Censorship is "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

Nothing is unacceptable about the links other than they are graffiti.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2016, 12:35:45 PM »
lol!  Whatever you need to think man.  That was pretty funny though.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2016, 12:36:02 PM »
I am honestly baffled. PizzaPlanet (who hasn't been on in like a month) didn't change a signature so...you're censoring/adjusting/whatever-you-wanna-call-it any mentions of the other site? And then suddenly begin insulting us for some reason? I genuinely can't fathom what on earth is the point of any of this, and I really don't want to believe it's "one person upset me by not doing a thing so I'm striking any evidence of their site's existence from our forums", because you're better than that.

If I'm missing something, I wouldn't mind being let in on whatever the secret is that causes everything to make sense.
Recently listened to:


*

Lorddave

  • 16203
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2016, 01:17:38 PM »
Linked from the other site about this argument.
(see?  Free link!)

And I'm very confused.  Why didn't you just edit his profile sig yourself?  It's easier, faster, and won't break any other link?


Also, love the new layout, by the way.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2016, 01:31:20 AM »
We've largely left the sister site alone, and minded our own business. That we're being viewed as the aggressor simply for doing something that has absolutely no bearing on anywhere else but here, perplexes me greatly. Do we owe that site anything?

PP's sig has now been adjusted in accordance with the rule regarding advertising.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2016, 05:45:15 AM »
You guys should concentrate on cleaning up the user base here rather than censoring something so petty. You really seem to have no sense of priority.

A link to another site is offensive and censored but users that encourage suicide and troll on a regular basis here run amok. What is it you are hoping to achieve?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: "theflatearthsociety" word filter
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2016, 05:45:59 AM »
No, you don't owe us anything, which is why nobody's demanding anything of you. Is it really so perplexing that someone might ask about your reasoning for something? I just think it's absurd and immature, and all I did was state as much.
Recently listened to: