Originally posted by martin williamsI think that's a great idea. Afterall, whatever bot is being used to screen posts before they are allowed into the forums is still just a bot, and therefore flawed. It doesn't understand that the word sw@nky isn't a bad word, and so shouldn't be moderated.
Would it be possible to implement some kind of appeal system for rejected posts?
The author of a rejected post or new thread should be able to ask the mods for information on exactly what elicited the rejection.
They would then be able to either edit the post or accept the ban in they agree with the mods reasons, or argue their case if they feel ot ...[text shortened]...
Perhaps the mods could elect a 'supreme judge' amongst themselves to adjudicate such appeals.
Originally posted by Shanshu311I figured out what was wrong, let you know so you could fix it... how's that for service?
I think that's a great idea. Afterall, whatever bot is being used to screen posts before they are allowed into the forums is still just a bot, and therefore flawed. It doesn't understand that the word sw@nky isn't a bad word, and so shouldn't be moderated.
Next, you tell the world about it, and everyone is writing Swanky for kicks making more work for the mods. Thanx. No kind deed goes unpunished.
ES
Originally posted by PhlabibitSorry about that...my curiosity and confusion gave way to random posts and threads that did nothing but make it worse.
I figured out what was wrong, let you know so you could fix it... how's that for service?
Next, you tell the world about it, and everyone is writing Swanky for kicks making more work for the mods. Thanx. No kind deed goes unpunished.
ES
I will never again bring up that word on purpose, again!
And I DO appreciate your help, I truly do. Sorry for making it worse.
