[subego]

Is there a place where this crossed the line? Was it closed prophylactically? Did Shaddim ask for the lock?

[sek929]

I think it contacted an STD.

[subego]

Valtrex FTW.

[Lateralus]

It was closed because it crossed the line of permissible discussion on this forum.

I think there's been a failing on our part to continually reiterate the fact that this is a family forum, and a failing on the part of many long time members to adhere to that which they already know.

Consider this a step toward rectifying that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

and a failing on the part of many long time members to adhere to that which they already know.

This is simply not the case. We know what you tell us. If the moderation fails to moderate, how are we supposed to know this is a failure in moderation and not a change in the interpretation of an enormously vague directive?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I think there's been a failing on our part to continually reiterate the fact that this is a family forum, and a failing on the part of many long time members to adhere to that which they already know.

A 83 page "hot babes" thread perfectly fits a family forum

-t

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is simply not the case. We know what you tell us. If the moderation fails to moderate, how are we supposed to know this is a failure in moderation and not a change in the interpretation of an enormously vague directive?

In your 9 years here you've never once seen an indication from a moderator or administrator that this is a family board? Really? Are you not aware of the swear-filter's existence?

Originally Posted by turtle777 

A 83 page "hot babes" thread perfectly fits a family forum

-t

Scantily clad women, with guidelines for posting that have been made clear repeatedly, is not dissimilar from topics about Kinky and/or group sex?

If you honestly feel that way, I'm sure the Babes thread can be closed again as it has been before.

We're pushing for clean topics of discussion, not trying to make teenage boys scared of women by way of total lack of familiarity.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

If you honestly feel that way, I'm sure the Babes thread can be closed again as it has been before.

No, I fail to see the difference. For me, both are permissible for the kind of "family forum" that 'NN is.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

In your 9 years here you're telling me that you've never once seen an indication from a moderator or administrator that this is a family board? Really?

You can't even post curse words on this board.

No shit?

In my nine years I've been here, that would have been edited out for most of them.

The point is things change. In all my time here it's always been clear this is a "family board". What that means, has depended on all sorts of factors, since as I said, that's enormously vague.

We only have what the moderation tells us to serve as a guide. As it stands, it apparently wasn't worth the bother to say it in the thread that got locked.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by subego 

We only have what the moderation tells us to serve as a guide. As it stands, it apparently wasn't worth the bother to say it in the thread that got locked.

I don't disagree.

Patience.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I don't disagree.

Patience.

I have no problem with patience, and wouldn't even look harshly upon some changes.

What I have a problem with is you blaming the users.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Scantily clad women, with guidelines for posting that have been made clear repeatedly, is not dissimilar from topics about Kinky and/or group sex?

I'm with turtle: I fail to see the difference.

If anything, I find the barrage of objectified photoshopped anorexia quite a bit more distasteful than people actually talking about personal experiences (no, I'm not some weird feminist; fakery just turns me off.

The only thing that bothered me about the locked thread was Shaddim's soliciting others' stories and even chiding them on lack of honesty while himself supplying nothing but his usual coquetry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If anything, I find the barrage of objectified photoshopped anorexia quite a bit more distasteful than people actually talking about personal experiences

Amen to that, but I'm a weird feminist.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, I fail to see the difference. For me, both are permissible for the kind of "family forum" that 'NN is.
-t

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I'm with turtle: I fail to see the difference.

If anything, I find the barrage of objectified photoshopped anorexia quite a bit more distasteful than people actually talking about personal experiences (no, I'm not some weird feminist; fakery just turns me off.

The only thing that bothered me about the locked thread was Shaddim's soliciting others' stories and even chiding them on lack of honesty while himself supplying nothing but his usual coquetry.

The "babes" thread is maintained to content that could be found at a relatively conservative magazine stand. Discussion of "are you kinky" and solicitation of what can only be interpreted as very odd sexual experiences is hardly what could be found at such a magazine stand.

Of course there is a lot of interpretation required to determine whether something should be left in the "babes" thread, and we work very hard at keeping to a particular set of standards. It's what we (don't) get paid for.

I agree that a lot of the pictures in the "babes" thread aren't particularly attractive, and for more than the "idealization" that goes on with PhotoShop or the excessive number of undernourished models involved. On the other hand, I completely agree with Spheric Harlot's analysis of Shaddim's thread; it was not even an honestly "free and frank discussion," despite Shaddim's poking at posters about their level of candor. Which was one reason I fully supported closing that thread. There were a number of others.

Originally Posted by subego 

No shit?

In my nine years I've been here, that would have been edited out for most of them.

The point is things change. In all my time here it's always been clear this is a "family board". What that means, has depended on all sorts of factors, since as I said, that's enormously vague.

We only have what the moderation tells us to serve as a guide. As it stands, it apparently wasn't worth the bother to say it in the thread that got locked.

The definition of a "family board" as it applies to MacNN is up to the management. We on the staff work hard to ensure that we meet the standards management sets. We do not "edit out" ideas we disagree with simply because we disagree with them. In fact, we all work hard at making sure ideas are safe to share. Hateful speech is fair game for editing, though.

We maintain the vagueness you note for the very reason you use: things change. That doesn't only mean that mores change. It means that the same phrase can mean one thing in one context, and another completely different thing in a different context. We on staff have discussed the level of specificity in our rules, and we all agree that keeping rules general makes things better for everybody. At the moment, I'm leaving your intentional vulgarity in place, not because I think it's appropriate, but because it serves to point out that, in THIS context at least, the vulgarity has a particular meaning. I'll point out that some forums elsewhere have filters that look for and block specific sequences of characters-not just words. On those forums, a number of words, such as "harass" and "compass" would be censored (often with hilarious results!) because of a particular 3 character sequence they share. That's just dumb, but it's an example of how really specific rules work.

Should we have something specific about the subject Shaddim posted on? Maybe. How about: "Do not post anything you would not want your mother, boss, significant other(s), children, etc. to know YOU PERSONALLY stated in public. That might still not be specific enough for Shaddim or some other members, but I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb."

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We do not "edit out" ideas we disagree with simply because we disagree with them.

Have you been accused of such?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We maintain the vagueness you note for the very reason you use: things change. That doesn't only mean that mores change. It means that the same phrase can mean one thing in one context, and another completely different thing in a different context. We on staff have discussed the level of specificity in our rules, and we all agree that keeping rules general makes things better for everybody.

I am in complete agreement. However, if the moderation has failed to express that vague rule in what it feels are the appropriate contexts (as was stated above) it is mistaken to blame the users for somehow not holding up their side of the bargain.

If you have a vague rule, it will be followed to your satisfaction only if you enforce it to your satisfaction. Full stop.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

At the moment, I'm leaving your intentional vulgarity in, not because I think it's appropriate, but because it serves to point out that, in THIS context at least, the vulgarity has a particular meaning. I'll point out that some forums elsewhere have filters that look for and block specific sequences of characters-not just words.

I think you mean forums like this forum.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On those forums, a number of words, such as "harass" and "compass" would be censored (often with hilarious results!) because of a particular 3 character sequence they share. That's just dumb, but it's an example of how really specific rules work.

That's not how it went down.

For as long as I can recall, the word I used above was not edited out if it you added any characters to it. That's been changed to allow it in and of itself.



If I didn't already know you were a straight shooter, it'd be hard to convince me I wasn't just fed a pile of cow patties and expected to shut up and swallow it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

Have you been accused of such?



I am in complete agreement. However, if the moderation has failed to express that vague rule in what it feels are the appropriate contexts (as was stated above) it is mistaken to blame the users for somehow not holding up their side of the bargain.

If you have a vague rule, it will be followed to your satisfaction only if you enforce it to your satisfaction. Full stop.



I think you mean forums like this forum.



That's not how it went down.

For as long as I can recall, the word I used above was not edited out if it you added any characters to it. That's been changed to allow it in and of itself.



If I didn't already know you were a straight shooter, it'd be hard to convince me I wasn't just fed a pile of cow patties and expected to shut up and swallow it.

There have been accusations in the past that the staff edit out things they disagree with, so I put that in simply to dismiss it.

We do not "blame users" for anything-though we have obviously somewhat inflated our expectation for how adult to expect some users to behave. Case in point: Cash...

Anyway, we do have filters that block some specific words, though the list has been pared down rather radically. On the other hand, you'll note that I mentioned "hilarious results" in conjunction with mentioning specific character sequences-the forums I referred to substitute text (rather than "starring out") for the "offensive words." In the examples I gave, "compass" would have been changed to "compbottom." Not here. For the few words we continue to block, the system simply replaces the letters with asterisks... And I mention this whole thing in reference to the use of a vulgar word for excrement, and the statement that it "would have been edited out."

We maintain relatively flexible rules to maintain the maximum amount of freedom of expression within the bounds of civility. This calls for a lot of judgment calls and sometimes a lot of discussion among the staff. I have NEVER intended to tell anyone to "shut up and color." I despise such ideas. But it's really rather hard to condense several hours of intense discussion among the staff over a couple of days about what should and should not be the content of our forums into a coherent post. And I'm not saying my post was particularly coherent.

What I wanted to express was that we are trying vigorously to maintain an open platform for discussions and at the same time maintain sufficient civility to keep the management on our side and the membership from feeling as if bullies and goons are allowed to prey on them. This often requires less than explicit "bright line" definitions of exactly what is and is not permitted. Our philosophy is that we allow as much freedom as possible, and depend on the members to behave appropriately. Only when it is clear that appropriateness is not being observed do we take action. That, in this case, is the problem; we had to see whether the thread in question was actually intended to do what it said rather than be the basis of some long winded joke or satire, then we had to determine what to do and how to do it.

However, by taking action on this particular thread (and you'll notice it was closed, not deleted...) we have hopefully demonstrated that, though we will not draw some arbitrary line and point to it, this thread was an example of exceeding the appropriateness tolerance of the forums.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The "babes" thread is maintained to content that could be found at a relatively conservative magazine stand. Discussion of "are you kinky" and solicitation of what can only be interpreted as very odd sexual experiences is hardly what could be found at such a magazine stand.

Seriously Glenn? Haven't you ever seen/read Cosmo? Open it and you can read candid discussions regarding just about any type of kinky subject you can imagine. It's basically Playboy or Penthouse without foul language. Any kid with $7 can walk up and buy it. Personally, if you can have bare-assed chicks, and girls barely covering their privates with their hands, in a thread (and there are some) you should be able to have a frank discussion about sex as long as there isn't profanity. I can say, however, that Lateralus was polite and indicated that my threads weren't MacNN material, so I'll simply refrain from posting others in the future. As for my flirtatious ways, that's just the way I am. Although, given the reaction to the thread, I'm sure that if I'd actually come out and said what I had done that was so kinky, I would have gotten banned or at the very least an infraction.

So, if a person wants to know, PM me and I'll tell you.

Now I'm afraid that if I'd said that I'd had bum sex with my then-girlfriend, in a coffin, while we drank each others' blood I'd probably get banned, so I won't. I was 21, and it was on Halloween night after the RHPS. She used a coffin as a coffee table in her apt.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There have been accusations in the past that the staff edit out things they disagree with, so I put that in simply to dismiss it.

Just to be clear though, never from me.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

We do not "blame users" for anything-though we have obviously somewhat inflated our expectation for how adult to expect some users to behave.

I'm willing to squint and read this as charitably as you seem to be. How is "a failing on the part of many long time members to adhere to that which they already know" not blaming the users?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And I mention this whole thing in reference to the use of a vulgar word for excrement, and the statement that it "would have been edited out."

I understood. What I'm saying here is that the system had always been built to take care of that. If you talked about shitake mushrooms (or the cow patty term for that matter) it wasn't edited out, but if you typed what I did upthread (alone, with no other letters) it would have been edited out. This changed.

To be fair, you don't sling that term around like I do, so I can see why you might not be on bleeding edge of the MacNN censor.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I have NEVER intended to tell anyone to "shut up and color." I despise such ideas.

I believe you, and want to note the qualifier I put on that statement lest it gets lost in all the excitement.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This often requires less than explicit "bright line" definitions of exactly what is and is not permitted.

I agree wholeheartedly with this policy.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

That, in this case, is the problem; we had to see whether the thread in question was actually intended to do what it said rather than be the basis of some long winded joke or satire, then we had to determine what to do and how to do it.

From a user perspective, I see no problem here. You do difficult, unappreciated work, which takes time and effort to do well. Not going off half-cocked under those conditions is a virtue in my book.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

However, by taking action on this particular thread (and you'll notice it was closed, not deleted...) we have hopefully demonstrated that, though we will not draw some arbitrary line and point to it, this thread was an example of exceeding the appropriateness tolerance of the forums.

Without going into my opinion on whether it's even possible to have anything but an arbitrary line about something like this, I think the only issue with the way it was locked was the silence.

To be honest though, maybe silence was better than the hostility displayed in your example note.

[Spheric Harlot]

"bullshit" got starred out for a long time, as well, and "shiitake" are spelled with two i's.

[subego]

TBH, I couldn't think of any non-explitive word which includes it other than the common misspelling. As for BS, that very well have been the case. I may not have noticed because it used to be trivially easy to bypass the censor.

[brassplayersrock²]

shît Yep shít

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Seriously Glenn? Haven't you ever seen/read Cosmo? Open it and you can read candid discussions regarding just about any type of kinky subject you can imagine. It's basically Playboy or Penthouse without foul language.

The Fifty Ways to Please Your Man article in every issue of Cosmo is going to be far more explicit than the few responses that had been posted.

Also, I'm ticked that I never got the chance to say, "I have pop pop in the attic."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"bullshit" got starred out for a long time, as well, and "shiitake" are spelled with two i's.

While we're on expletives and censoring, I swear at some point last year douche bag as a single word got blacklisted. Which I find a little confusing.

[Spheric Harlot]

That became redundant once Rob was banned.

It's now rarely used as a direct insult, rather than a descriptor for politicians or *********s.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm just not sure I'd classify it as a curse word. An offensive insult, yes, but a curse?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The Fifty Ways to Please Your Man article in every issue of Cosmo is going to be far more explicit than the few responses that had been posted.

When I lived in an apartment where all the housemates had girlfriends I found myself addicted to reading Cosmo. Sure it's mostly inane drivel, but damn is it sleazy.

[besson3c]

What is the point of censoring certain words when it is usually clear what those words are that are being censored?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

When I lived in an apartment where all the housemates had girlfriends I found myself addicted to reading Cosmo. Sure it's mostly inane drivel, but damn is it sleazy.

Sure is. We have a subscription and I find myself reading it sometimes because it's always on the coffee table. Not long ago they had the article about how different foods and beverages improve the taste of a man's "fluid". Well, it wasn't very long before I found our fridge packed with pineapple juice and mangoes, and all the soft drinks had been thrown out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is the point of censoring certain words when it is usually clear what those words are that are being censored?

It does seem a bit silly if I can make you think the word.

On the other hand, censoring a word such such as "n-i-g-g-e-r", just confuses communication.

Anyone who uses it as an epithet deserves a banning, not a few asterisks. For anyone wishing to have a serious conversation about the implications of that epithet, they have a useless artificial barrier.

So here we have a policy which has close to zero effect on the behavior it's intended to curb, while at the same time it restricts serious conversation.

[Spheric Harlot]

There's another issue: search engines.

MacNN features prominently on search result pages. I certainly wouldn't want my site to show up on spot three when somebody searched for n****r.

[besson3c]

At this point, if you are a parent, relying on censors like that to feel comforted that your child can use the internet and places like this freely is a losing battle. Even if none of us were to discuss adult subject matter, there is still the fact that we treat kids such as Macgeek very poorly in here which is far more harmful to them than them coming across a word or subject matter they've no doubt already discovered 092342083948 times.

If you are a parent, you need to monitor your kid's internet usage and the interaction they have, period.

Besides, most kids are probably all on Facebook anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's another issue: search engines.

MacNN features prominently on search result pages. I certainly wouldn't want my site to show up on spot three when somebody searched for n****r.

I think the chances of that are so remote that it is silly to even consider, with all due respect.

[The Final Dakar]

I imagine this isn't about protection and more about image. Many people are turned off by excessive swearing. No need to have someone leave never to come back because they ran into the wrong thread first.

Then again, is the admin admitting to different enforcement levels for the technical fora vs. the social ones?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I imagine this isn't about protection and more about image. Many people are turned off by excessive swearing. No need to have someone leave never to come back because they ran into the wrong thread first.

Then again, is the admin admitting to different enforcement levels for the technical fora vs. the social ones?

Many people are turned off by the PWL asshattery, the level of civility in general, the way new members are treated at times, the rule enforcement, lack of enforcement, moderation, lack of moderation, the subject matter, bias, etc.

I think turning people off is inevitable if these people are turnoff-able. I think this place is going to be what it is, and there is little point in trying to micromanage that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Many people are turned off by the PWL asshattery, the level of civility in general, the way new members are treated at times, the rule enforcement, lack of enforcement, moderation, lack of moderation, the subject matter, bias, etc.

Any surprise it's been the target of a few "flush it down" threads in the past?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think turning people off is inevitable if these people are turnoff-able. I think this place is going to be what it is, and there is little point in trying to micromanage that.

Let's face it, if they find the PL first they get what they deserve.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There's another issue: search engines.

MacNN features prominently on search result pages. I certainly wouldn't want my site to show up on spot three when somebody searched for n****r.

This has some theoretical merit, but:

1) I don't care how much Google juice MacNN has, there have to be so many sites which have a higher page rank WRT that word, I can't see this being an issue.

2) That's not a normal search term. Anyone who searches for that has an agenda. For someone who has a "good" agenda, there's the aforementioned bushels of lower hanging fruit. Likewise, a moments perusal would show them the discussion is serious. For someone with a "bad" agenda, bring it. I'm sure the hammer will make an extra-satisfying squish.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Any surprise it's been the target of a few "flush it down" threads in the past?

Let's face it, if they find the PL first they get what they deserve.

There is no one thing or person that would be accurate to assign blame to. All of these things in my last post are not necessarily examples of things that I'm vying to change here. I used to, but I've come to accept that this is just what happens on the internet.

I don't mind the censors and whatever rules exist to try to make this place family friendly (I rather enjoy my fence censor), but I just think that all of this is also pretty pointless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

This has some theoretical merit, but:

1) I don't care how much Google juice MacNN has, there have to be so many sites which have a higher page rank WRT that word, I can't see this being an issue.

2) That's not a normal search term. Anyone who searches for that has an agenda. For someone who has a "good" agenda, there's the aforementioned bushels of lower hanging fruit. Likewise, a moments perusal would show them the discussion is serious. For someone with a "bad" agenda, bring it. I'm sure the hammer will make an extra-satisfying squish.

If you ever look at web stats via Google Analytics or AWStats or something like that you'll see that people conduct some *really* bizarre searches and somehow these manage to become connected to sites that really have nothing to do with that subject matter. I think there are many reasons including the ones you've provided that make me think that worrying about this sort of thing is probably pointless.

You could also make the the argument that a Google search for "objectifying women" or something like that might turn up the babes thread.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Then again, is the admin admitting to different enforcement levels for the technical fora vs. the social ones?

It's my opinion that this has always been the case. Tomfoolery belongs in the lounge, not in the technical forums.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Seriously Glenn? Haven't you ever seen/read Cosmo? Open it and you can read candid discussions regarding just about any type of kinky subject you can imagine. It's basically Playboy or Penthouse without foul language. Any kid with $7 can walk up and buy it. Personally, if you can have bare-assed chicks, and girls barely covering their privates with their hands, in a thread (and there are some) you should be able to have a frank discussion about sex as long as there isn't profanity. I can say, however, that Lateralus was polite and indicated that my threads weren't MacNN material, so I'll simply refrain from posting others in the future. As for my flirtatious ways, that's just the way I am. Although, given the reaction to the thread, I'm sure that if I'd actually come out and said what I had done that was so kinky, I would have gotten banned or at the very least an infraction.

So, if a person wants to know, PM me and I'll tell you.

Now I'm afraid that if I'd said that I'd had bum sex with my then-girlfriend, in a coffin, while we drank each others' blood I'd probably get banned, so I won't. I was 21, and it was on Halloween night after the RHPS. She used a coffin as a coffee table in her apt.

A "relatively conservative" news stand won't allow anyone who looks underage to merely peruse more adult oriented magazines. I said "on" such news stands specifically to address covers, not "let's all just bring all the kiddies out to read intentionally over-hyped sexual content."

I've already addressed the "picturefest" thread. We work hard to keep its content under control, and there have been plenty of "edge condition" posts that we've removed simply because they seemed to be just a little too explicit.

I appreciate that you felt Lateralus was polite and forthright in his message to you. I think he has demonstrated plenty of thought and careful deliberation on this subject. I know I haven't been nearly as eloquent and clear in my posts in this thread. I don't have any beef with your personal tastes or practices. I simply don't think that this is the place to discuss some things in such a direct manner.

Oh, and the most interesting RHPC experience I had was when the nice state trooper asked the three young people seated in front of me in the theater to accompany him to the lobby when he noted that their bottle of (very cheap) booze has somehow slipped from its hiding spot beneath a seat... No coffins or blood involved, just three moviegoers who found out that this theater was not the place to bring booze.

[MacinTommy]

I feel like I'm in my Constitutional Law class with all this "vagueness" and "interpretation". What happens if it's a family of kinky people that want to join the forum? What's the true definition of family?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by MacinTommy 

What's the true definition of family?

That's irrelevant here. The question is "what's the true definition of "family friendly?" Which is inherently vague.

We want to keep from driving people away because of "overly explicit" threads. We want to keep current members engaged and interested without feeling that they have to constrain themselves beyond where they would in any other public discussion. At the same time, we want to allow every user to feel they can discuss whatever ideas they choose to within the bounds of civility. Civil discussions are crucial to the way our forums run, but civility includes more than just not calling people names or harassing others. Just what else is required for civility is so broad and situational that we must retain the flexibility in our rules.

[Shaddim]

At least I didn't start the "69" thread.

[Spheric Harlot]

besson both started and ended the 69 thread, to his credit.

[besson3c]

Thanks Spheric Harlot!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At least I didn't start the "69" thread.

That's because you're older than 15.

[imitchellg5]

The only thing that I'm 100% on is that this is the worst thread in the history of MacNN on nearly every level.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's because you're older than 15.

This forum is family friendly, which includes 15 year olds, so I felt like it was my duty to reach out to them. We already chased away Macgeek and other young kids, in addition to Abe.