Why is this word allowed on the boards?

[Hamlet]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78287


I am as big an advocate of free speech as anyone else, but there is no way a hateful, misogynistic, degrading, and offensive word should ever be allowed on the boards.

[zev_steinhardt]

Coldfire was good enough to change it for us.

Zev Steinhardt

[Hamlet]

Thank goodness

[AHunter3]

Let us consider the following thread titles ALSO from MPSIMS, shall we? --


Flaming Meteorite Cock, OR Two Habaneros are definitely enough (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=62587)

Chill out, Gov. Dickwad -OR- I don't wanna 'nother movie star politician! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=62731)

"http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23974"]The ultimate 'dick flicks'

Dick Haiku (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=15985)

So the OP of the thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78287) can't refer to her own girly bits with a word equivalent in specificity and common usage to "dick" and "cock" because it is somehow more offensive?

As has been pointed out in the thread itself, the part she shaves ain't a vagina.

Let me see if I get this right--the girls are to refer to theirs decorously as "mons veneris" or "pudenda" or perhaps as "hoo hah" or "down there", while we guys can speak of our cocks and dicks, is that the deal?

[absoul]

I am as big an advocate of free speech as anyone else, but there is no way a hateful, misogynistic, degrading, and offensive word should ever be allowed on the boards.

My icky-whicky wants to tickle your doodly doo.

[TubaDiva]

Originally posted by Hamlet
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78287

I am as big an advocate of free speech as anyone else, but there is no way a hateful, misogynistic, degrading, and offensive word should ever be allowed on the boards.

I have changed the offensive word to "pudendum."

And I note that while it's not my favorite word -- and I have gone on the record as saying so -- the word itself is not offensive but the use to which it is put has made it so.

I also note that this choice is not much better, as it is shame based, but perhaps it's easier on the ear than the four-letter epithet.

For those that do not have a dictionary, here's the Merriam-Webster definition:

pu*den*dum (noun), plural -da

[New Latin, singular of Latin pudenda, from neuter plural of pudendus, gerundive of pudere to be ashamed]

First appeared 1634

: the external genital organs of a human being and esp. of a woman -- usu. used in pl.

-- pu*den*dal (adjective)

How's that?

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[matt_mcl]

AHunter, excellent point.

Out of curiosity, supposing I wished to start a thread asking for opinions about the book Cunt: A Declaration of Independence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580050158/qid=995352024/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-3553327-0100949), by Inga Muscio. (I read this book at a friend's house and found it fascinating). What exactly would I be permitted to entitle the thread?

[Andy]

I think a rather uncomfortable (for me) precedent has been set here.
Perhaps we ought to start substituting G_d for God to keep some of the religious set happy. What about ther word 'black'? Some are comfortable with this word to describe a certain ethnic group (in their eyes), others less so. Can it be deleted or replaced at the whim of one offended poster?

I do realise that the word we're considering here is particularly offensive to many people, but there could be no end to this.

I'm not disagreeing with the OP just for arguments sake, but wondering if we've considered the implications.

[Mersavets]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I am as big an advocate of free speech as anyone else, but there is no way a hateful, misogynistic, degrading, and offensive word should ever be allowed on the boards. [/B]
That strikes me as a total con tradiction. You are nowhere near as much of an advocate of free speech as me if you advocate the censorship of particular words. And I regard myself as a moderate. At least I believe there should be limits to what people can say, publish or broadcast wher eas othe rs would say that no idea or information should be suppressed. 

[jaimest]

So do diffrent fora have different rules concerning language?
I mean the BBQ Pit seems to be pretty much uncensored, but if someone used salty language in a more civilized spot, such as this forum, could they be banned? Or excommunicated???

[TubaDiva]

Who the hell wants to know?

It's all in context, or at least it should be.

What might be an appropriate word choice in the Pit (where sometimes people do use four-letter words, often in the heat of anger or other high feelings) is not so for some of the other forums, like, say, in this forum (where by nature the tone tends to be milder).

Why the fuck would you need to be otherwise? :)

your humble TubaDiva
Adminstrator
who hopes you get the point here.

[AHunter3]

if someone used salty language in a more civilized spot, such as this forum, could they be banned? Or excommunicated???

Excoriated.

[Hamlet]

Thank you TubaDiva. Your replacement word is fine.

Thank you also to all you posters for helping me refine my OP. I posted it in this forum because the use of the word was extremely offensive, and I posted in a hurried, angry manner. Let me rephrase:

My new title would be:

"Why is this word allowed in this post, on the boards?"

Mersavets, you are absolutely right, I am obviously not as big of an advocate of free speech as everyone else. I actually think speech should be suppressed occasionally, so for that aside, I was wrong. There is always someone who is more of an advocate for free speech than I.

AHunter3,

The post to which I was referring to was written by a troll whose purpose was only to use the word in question. If you think someone whose name is solarphallusman is actually a woman who has a serious concern about her pubic hair, then I would humbly suggest you recheck your common sense. So it is not some person referring to "her own girly parts" it's a juvenile-minded idiot out to see his words on the computer screen. I would analogize it to a poster with the name KKKCracker posting the term N*****.

Mattmcl,

As TubaDiva so kindly pointed out, it's not the word itself, it's the context. Is there, in the realm of possibility, a use for the word that is not offensive...heck yeah, but again, that was not the case here. Hence the change in my title.

Andy,

I have no problem with the slipperly slope of censorship. Could I post a story involving the rape of a 4 year old girl, and describe how she enjoyed it? I certainly hope not. There is censorship that does and should happen, and I would include the use of that word by that poster as extremely offensive.

I have spoken

[andros]

I find the slippery slope argument to be ridiculous anyway. This is not a new precedent. It is incumbent upon the administration and moderation of the Board to make it an inviting place to as many people as possible. This doesn't mean becoming needlessly "PC" or whitewashed, it simply means applying some standards of decorum.

And yes, those standards are inherently arbitrary. Cope.

[tiny ham]

Hamlet, while Solarphallusman may very well have posted the hooha waxing thread as a joke, I think you're reaching a little far in classifying him/her as a troll.

A quick 30 second search of SPM in the past sixty days yielded no indications of troll behavior in my mind, and besides, if you suspect a troll you should notify Tuba, not "out" them in ATMB.

jarbaby

[Hamlet]

mea culpa

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by AHunter3
So the OP of the thread ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78287 ) can't refer to her own girly bits with a word equivalent in specificity and common usage to "dick" and "cock" because it is somehow more offensive?
That's exactly right.
Look at these defintions in the Merriam-Webster® Collegiate® Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/): cock (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cock) - dick (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dick) - cunt (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cunt)

You will notice that the word "cunt" is the only one that is described in one of its definitions as usually disparaging. So it seems reasonable to treat that word differently than "dick" or "cock".

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
Out of curiosity, supposing I wished to start a thread asking for opinions about the book Cunt: A Declaration of Independence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580050158/qid=995352024/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-3553327-0100949), by Inga Muscio. (I read this book at a friend's house and found it fascinating). What exactly would I be permitted to entitle the thread?

These are obviously all judgment calls. I personally see a difference between (for example) an IMHO thread entitled
"Are all women cunts?" (inappropriate) vs. "What did you think of the novel 'Cunt: A Declaration of Independence'?" (appropriate). Is the difference unclear to you? In any case, I would recomment that if you're not sure if a particular word is appropriate, use alternate wording. That should be no hardship for the crowd that hangs out at the SDMB.

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Originally posted by AHunter3
So the OP of the thread ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78287 ) can't refer to her own girly bits with a word equivalent in specificity and common usage to "dick" and "cock" because it is somehow more offensive?
That's exactly right.
Look at these defintions in the Merriam-Webster® Collegiate® Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/): cock (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cock) - dick (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dick) - cunt (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cunt)

You will notice that the word "cunt" is the only one that is described in one of its definitions as usually disparaging. So it seems reasonable to treat that word differently than "dick" or "cock".

But the definition to which you linked does not say that the word is disparaging when used to refer to the pudenda (although it does say "usually obscene"), which is exactly the context to which AHunter was referring. Because a word is disparaging in one context does not mean it is disparaging in all contexts.

[kabbes]

Damn, pld beat me to it.

I'll merely note that there is a difference between the word "cunt" used as an epithet (something I've waxed at length against in the past - it is particularly unacceptable for many social reasons) and the word "cunt" to describe the female genitalia, a usage which I think should be reclaimed. Certainly it is the word the kabbess and I use as a matter of course.

pan

[TubaDiva]

A slight hijack here . . .

the Victorians used a variant of the term affectionately, romantically, as "cunny." I've always thought that was sweet. In that sort of context, there's no harm and some beauty in the C word.

your humble TubaDiva
No, I don't own a pornograph, why do you ask?

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by pldennison
But the definition to which you linked does not say that the word is disparaging when used to refer to the pudenda (although it does say "usually obscene"), which is exactly the context to which AHunter was referring. Because a word is disparaging in one context does not mean it is disparaging in all contexts.

I realize that pldennnison. As you say, however, the word "cunt" is qualified as usually obscene, whereas "dick" and "cock" are not (instead the dictionary describes them as vulgar), so even in the meaning used in the thread, there is a difference in degree between the word used for the female genitalia and the ones cited as an example for the male organ.

Getting back to the subject at hand, here's my way of thinking. To describe a certain object (be it a human body part or something else), I have the choice between two words: word A is commonly considered unobjectionable; word B can be interpreted as being disparaging, and in the context is considered obscene. Which word would I, Arnold Winkelried, choose to use on a public message board? I would use word A. Would I, Arnold Winkelried, think it unreasonable to ask people, in a public forum where posters are expected to eschew insults, to refrain from using word B, and instead use word A? I would not think it unreasonable. Would I object if someone changed word B to word A? No.

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-17-2001 at 05:25 PM]

[stofsky]

Gonna get all semiotic on ya ass!

Isn't the power of a word in the listener rather than the speaker? I used the "C" word as an example of this in my frosh English classes, meaning that if I say the word in casual conversation with no disparaging intent (Nah, I didn't fuck her up the ass, I just fucked her cunt), then the only offensiveness is in the prejudice of the receiver of the sound.

But it's only a sound. If you allow it to have power over you, then you're giving that power away. Remember, it's only a sound! Aren't we all unignorant enough to keep that in mind? Haven't we all read our Eco?

[Arnold Winkelried]

The power of a word is in a listener, but it also helps reveal the intent of the speaker. If I went to a message board and saw thread titles of the type
"Cornholing - how do I do it?"
"Who wants some pussy now?"
"Are unshaved clits better?"
"Nigger women vs. gooks - who fucks best?"
etc...

I would think that the people frequenting that message board are a bunch of boorish idiots, and I wouldn't go back. So trying to maintain some standards
a) helps attract the kind of posters we like to see at the SDMB, and
b) helps turn away the kind of posters we don't like to see here.

It's all part of our public relations efforts.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Note - the above are examples of things not to do. Now that I've posted that, I'm having second thoughts, so I'll ask TubaDiva to review my wording. :o

[TubaDiva]

Now Arnold, that's just offensive.

your humble TubaDiva
but you did make your point.

[AHunter3]

Arnold Winklereid:

"Are unshaved clits better?"

Uh oh, someone ELSE need an anatomy lesson, methinks! Either that or you've known some...unusually...uh...

:O

anyway, I don't think I would've used that one as an example!

[tiny ham]

Mr W.! Good lord. I'm flushing over here.

Such language from such a pristine mod!

woo, somebody catch me.

jarbaby

[JeffB]

Originally posted by AHunter3
Let me see if I get this right--the girls are to refer to theirs decorously as "mons veneris" or "pudenda" or perhaps as "hoo hah" or "down there", while we guys can speak of our cocks and dicks, is that the deal?

I thought the correct term was "cha-cha" as in "So, who put his hoo-hoo dilly in your cha-cha?"

[JeffB]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
Mr W.! Good lord. I'm flushing over here.

Such language from such a pristine mod!

woo, somebody catch me.

jarbaby

I never thought I'd see the day...

[MaceMan]

Although I have no problem with toning down language on the boards, I do think that some of those who are so "offended" by this word should ask themselves why, and perhaps go see a local showing of the Vagina Monologues. Is it wrong for women to use slang to refer to their own bodies? It seems to me that the "offense" this word elicits when used in this context, is primarily that our traditionally puritanical, patriarchal society expects women to be dainty, never vulgar, nonsexual virgins afraid of enjoying or acknowledging their own bodies. Thus, a crude and strong word like that encroaches on masculine territory and offends those uncomfortable with sexual themes.

I wouldn't use that word myself, but don't see how it is any more offensive than the masculine equivalents when it is not being used to degrade or objectify someone.

Also, doesn't the word vulva refer to that region? it is not offensive and is certainly better understood than "pudendum."

[KellyM]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Coldfire was good enough to change it for us.

And incorrectly, at that. Frankly, if you have to wax (or shave) your vagina, you really need to consider suing the surgeon who did your sex change operation. That's the only way I can think of, besides a tumor of some sort, for there ever to be hair growing out of one's vagina.

[samclem]

Also, doesn't the word vulva refer to that region? it is not offensive and is certainly better understood than "pudendum."

Except you never see newbies talking about those great Swedish "pudenda." Or what year/model are you driving. :D

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by KellyM
Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Coldfire was good enough to change it for us.

And incorrectly, at that. Frankly, if you have to wax (or shave) your vagina, you really need to consider suing the surgeon who did your sex change operation. That's the only way I can think of, besides a tumor of some sort, for there ever to be hair growing out of one's vagina.
Well, shit. Do you honestly think they teach words like pudendum in Dutch high school English? I was looking for a nice cover-all term that didn't offend. Vagina it was, after a good three seconds of thought.

Now, will all you cunts get back to work already? ;)

[Arnold Winkelried]

AHunter3 - Believe it or not, but I used my "shaved" example to show that the posters at my hypothetical message board were not too bright, in addition to being vulgar.

jarbabyj - Didn't your mother tell you to watch out for the quiet ones?

MaceMan - I made my personal judgement by looking up the word in the dictionary. But your topic may be of interest in Great Debates.

Coldfire - methinks you need to suggest an addition to the dutch high school curriculum.

[AHunter3]

What MaceMan said. My political sentiments exactly.

PS: Coldy, your anatomical faux pas is no worse than Arnold Winklereid's. [Are unshaved clits better?]

::shudders at the thought of someone having to shave one::

[AHunter3]

Arnold, I posted that last one and then went out for coffee and only on return noticed you'd slipped a post in while I was writing mine.

So you are of course saying that as long as the posters at a hypothetical message board are none too bright, they should refrain from being vulgar?

[Arnold Winkelried]

AHunter3, I am saying that I personally would not be interested in hanging out at a message board with an unintelligent membership that uses obscene or offensive language. I am also saying that the words used by a person can give an indication of the intelligence and/or prejudices of that person.

[SPOOFE]

Can't we just call it "The Gates To Paradise" and move on?

[kabbes]

"The Gates Of Paradise!

...but only for three weeks in four"

ahem

pan

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
AHunter3, I am saying that I personally would not be interested in hanging out at a message board with an unintelligent membership that uses obscene or offensive language. I am also saying that the words used by a person can give an indication of the intelligence and/or prejudices of that person.

From today in MPSIMS:

My open zipper, Crunchy's balls and his big wet ass. (kinda long) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78581)

i'll give a blowjob to the first doper who brings me soup... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78579)

Not that I find these particularly offensive, but it isn't as if MPSIMS is the Pit, and it seems as if the standard is, well, not so standard. I mean, are these kinds of thread titles taboo in that forum, or aren't they?

[Hibbins]

I am also saying that the words used by a person can give an indication of the intelligence and/or prejudices of that person.

Arnold Winkelried, are you saying that you judge (draw conclusions about) people based upon a single characteristic? ;)

[TubaDiva]

Originally posted by pldennison
[QUOTE]From today in MPSIMS:

My open zipper, Crunchy's balls and his big wet ass. (kinda long) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78581)

i'll give a blowjob to the first doper who brings me soup... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=78579)

Not that I find these particularly offensive, but it isn't as if MPSIMS is the Pit, and it seems as if the standard is, well, not so standard. I mean, are these kinds of thread titles taboo in that forum, or aren't they?

I find it offensive . . . crass and banal, too.

C'mon, guys, can't we do better than this? BE better than this?

I can't get over to MPSIMS right now to check out more lovely titles, but this has got to stop.

Y'all can be more creative and I challenge you to do so.

your humble Tubadiva
Administrator

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by pldennison

From today in MPSIMS:

My open zipper, Crunchy's balls and his big wet ass. (kinda long)

i'll give a blowjob to the first doper who brings me soup...

Not that I find these particularly offensive, but it isn't as if MPSIMS is the Pit, and it seems as if the standard is, well, not so standard. I mean, are these kinds of thread titles taboo in that forum, or aren't they?

I looked up the following words in the Merriam-Webster® Collegiate® Dictionary (to which I provided a link in a previous post): zipper, ball, ass, blowjob. Whereas all of those words, in the definition used in the thread title, were described as "vulgar", none were qualified as "obscene" or "derogatory". Therefore I think that those words are not offensive enough to warrant removal in thread titles in MPSIMS, whereas the removal of the word "cunt", described as obscene and (in another meaning) derogatory, is justifiable.

Thank you for the effort and time you have expended in patrolling the boards looking for thread titles that don't meet the SDMB standards. We are very grateful when posters take a few minutes out of their busy day to help the SDMB staff in their task. If you find any othere occurrences where the moderators or administrators seem lax or inconsistent in the enforcement of the board policies, please do not hesitate to bring it to our attention.

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-19-2001 at 01:22 PM]

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Hibbins
Arnold Winkelried, are you saying that you judge (draw conclusions about) people based upon a single characteristic?

Yes.

Or to be less cryptic, I draw conclusions about people based on all the information available to me. In the case of a message board, sometimes the information available to me is only the language they use.

[pldennison]

I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on you, Arnold, but I am asking if there's a consistently applied standard or not. (Which is what, when situations like this arise on the board, most posters really want to know: Is there a standard, and is it applied consistently?)

If the standard is "Whether or not the Merriam-Webster Dictionary uses 'obscene' or 'derogatory' for one or more definitions of the word in question," fine, then say so.

But I suspect that, applying the old U.S. Supreme Court "community standards" ruler, most posters would place "cunt" in approximately the same neighborhood as "dick," "balls," "cock," "blowjob" and "balls," albeit perhaps not the same house.

If we're going to go with the dictionary standard, I nominate the OED, rather than M-W's online edition.

[Arnold Winkelried]

pldennison, you are not the first poster to ask "do the SDMB staff have an explicitly defined algorithm for determining what behaviours are (dis)allowed at the message board?" The answer to that is no. Obviously, if we did have an algorithm, we could have moderator-bots patrolling the boards and we could spend out day at the beach sipping Mai-Tais (to repeat an analogy I once used in another thread.)

I don't presume to speak for the other moderators in this case, but let me give you an example of how I operate in the forum assigned to me. I read every thread I have time for (which, in my case, is pretty much all of them, since the forum doesn't have a lot of activity) and make a quick judgment as to whether or not the post is acceptable or not. Do my decisions always go the same way? No. I'm surprised anyone would seriously suggest that we would be able to achieve perfect regularity in the rules we apply when moderating. If you know anyone that is 100% consistent when making judgment calls, please introduce me to that person, because I'd love to meet her/him.

In addition, the task is complicated because whenever a staff member reaches a cusp of decision, after muttering "I am only an egg" the moderator attempts to deliver a sentence that is acceptable and grounded in SDMB precedent. The verdict is all the more difficult to reach, knowing that there is a group of bright and argumentative posters (the kind of people we like to have here at the SDMB) ready to dispute every ruling and (in the extreme cases) drag you to the pit in a flurry of insults, which (to be perfectly honest) can eventually become extremely tiresome.

As far as using the OED rather than M-W online: M-W online has the great advantage of being available for free and easily accessible. I can check in my moderator budget to see if the funds allocated this year allow me to purchase the OED, but I'm sure you can guess what the outcome of that inspection will be.

Regarding your statement that "I suspect that most posters would not be much more upset by 'cunt' than by 'balls', 'dick', 'clock', or 'blowjob'", all I can say, in the best SDMB manner, is "what evidence do you have to support that assertion?" As a counter-example, I can see a thread started in ATMB about the word "cunt", but where are the threads complaining about those other terms? And I don't mean the inevitable threads that may be started as a joke in ATMB as soon as this message is posted.

[pldennison]

Gee, I'm sorry I asked. :rolleyes:

To address a few points:

1. "A consistently applied standard" is not the same thing as "an explicitly defined algorithm." We have (relatively) consistently applied standards in the United States for what constitutes obscenity, but we don't put judgebots on the bench to rule in obscenity cases.

2. I said (emphasis added):

But I suspect that, applying the old U.S. Supreme Court "community standards" ruler, most posters would place "cunt" in approximately the same neighborhood as "dick," "balls," "cock," "blowjob" and "balls," albeit perhaps not the same house.

to which you replied:

Regarding your statement that "I suspect that most posters would not be much more upset by 'cunt' than by 'balls', 'dick', 'clock', or 'blowjob'", all I can say, in the best SDMB manner, is "what evidence do you have to support that assertion?"

Well, my first piece of evidence is that that is not what I said, and I don't even think it's a reasonable intepretation of what I said. If my wording was unclear, I apologize. I was attempting to state that your average (perhaps mythical) "reasonable person" would recognize them all as "words you don't say in front of the kids, or when out in public," whether one in particular occupies an elevated plane of rudeness or not.


3. To your question, "I can see a thread started in ATMB about the word "cunt", but where are the threads complaining about those other terms?" I would respond in a few ways:

--Does a poster have to complain about a word in a thread title before a mod can alter it, or are the mods permitted to exercise their own judgement? I suspect it is the latter. In fact, did Coldfire change it before reading this thread, or after?

--The fact that nobody has complained at "About This Message Board" does not mean nobody has been offended. That's almost laughably weak evidence for a counter-case to the idea that most people consider "cock," "blowjob" and "balls" to be obscene.

--Not to be a post-count snob, but the person who started this thread has all of 112 posts, 4 of them in this thread, and referred in the OP to the word "cunt" being "hateful [and] misogynistic." This implies a particular socio-political objection to the word, one countered easily by matt-mcl's link to a feminist book with that title. Meanwhile, quite a few longtime posters said, "Gee, I don't see the problem at all. Why that word above the others?"

4. In general, I have always supported the mods in their duties, including bannings of popular posters and removal of certain threads. But the application for sympathy/martyrdom/whatever implicit in your third paragraph is, I'm afraid, rejected. Moderating is an unpaid, uncontracted position from which you are free to walk away any time you would like. I don't doubt that it is difficult and/or unrewarding, but you aren't tied to it, either. The membership is always going to question the actions of the moderators, especially when judgement calls seem to be made not just inconsistently, but haphazardly. Nobody expects 100% consistency, but when you have a whole lot of people standing around scratching their heads and asking, "Huh?" then maybe the call was the wrong one. Or the right one for the wrong reason.

[UncleBeer]

Is there a consistently applied standard? If, by that, do you mean we have a list of proscribed words? Nope, not as of this moment. Are we going to compile, and publish, a list of words that will be proscribed henceforward? I certainly hope not. Will we be patrolling more diligently for words used in an offensive manner? Yup.

[TubaDiva]

How about we stop arguing about it and use a little common sense, all the way around.

We depend on our Teeming Millions to do the right thing. When they don't, we step in. Thankfully, it's usually a sometime thing, mostly our folks know how to behave.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[pldennison]

That's cool with me, Tuba -- if anything, I ask these questions in the interest of not seeing yet another Pit thread along the lines of "Why was my thread closed/changed/altered/whatever and these were not?" The better the standard and the more consistently it's followed, the easier it is to avoid those.

As I said, I generally support the mods wholeheartedly (I wouldn't want to do the job); but it's not a secret that, among current, former and banned posters there are questions about consistency in decision-making both on the board as a whole and from forum to forum. Understandably, you rely on the membership to police themselves for the most part, but it's just nice if people don't have to worry about being blindsided.

And it's nothing personal, Arnold -- I'm not questioning you as a person, I'm questioning moderating the SDMB as a process. You certainly aren't required to justify yourself to me or any other poster, but if you take the trouble to do so, and it sounds fishy to me, I can't help but ask more questions.

[Arnold Winkelried]

pldennison: 1. "A consistently applied standard" is not the same thing as "an explicitly defined algorithm."

If you want to use that definition, then yes. Our "consistently applied standard" is that we remove text that is deemed offensive by the moderators.

pldennison: I was attempting to state that your average (perhaps mythical) "reasonable person" would recognize them all as "words you don't say in front of the kids, or when out in public," whether one in particular occupies an elevated plane of rudeness or not.

The SDMB is not intended for children, as a matter of fact if we find out that a poster is a child we ask them to please stop posting at the SDMB. So the child test doesn't really apply. A better test would be "is this word that you don't see in front of adults?" I personally would use the words "balls" or "dick" in public, but I would not use the word cunt.

Does a poster have to complain about a word in a thread title before a mod can alter it, or are the mods permitted to exercise their own judgement?

A poster does not have to complain about a word before we change it. But the complaint may make a difference since we might not notice something if a poster doesn't bring it to our attention.

The fact that nobody has complained at "About This Message Board" does not mean nobody has been offended.

In all my time here as moderator, no one has ever complained about the words "balls", "dick", etc... I would think that is evidence that those words fit the "SDMB community standards".

pldennison: Not to be a post-count snob, but the person who started this thread has all of 112 posts, 4 of them in this thread, and referred in the OP to the word "cunt" being "hateful [and] misogynistic." This implies a particular socio-political objection to the word, one countered easily by matt-mcl's link to a feminist book with that title. Meanwhile, quite a few longtime posters said, "Gee, I don't see the problem at all. Why that word above the others?"

And a (admittedly lesser) number of long-time posters have said that they found the word offensive or that they had no problems with the moderators removing that word. (on this subject, see more below) In any case, arguing the merits of a poster's argument based on post count has always seemed to me to be particularly silly. As far as the word appearing in a title of a feminist book: I was unaware that all feminists were of one mind on which words they consider to be derogatory. At the Los Angeles Gay Pride festival I saw a group of people wearing T-shirts saying "Faggot and proud of it." Does that mean that gay people don't consider the word "faggot" to be offensive?

Nobody expects 100% consistency, but when you have a whole lot of people standing around scratching their heads and asking, "Huh?" then maybe the call was the wrong one. Or the right one for the wrong reason.

The point I am making is that a great number of moderator decisions are accompanied by people "standing around scratching their heads and asking 'Huh?'" At a consumer satisfaction seminar I once attended, I was told that customer feedback is approximately 9 to 1 in favour of customer complaints vs. thank yous, assuming an approval level of around 80%. So I don't necessarily assume that when I see a very small proportion of our member base disagreeing in a thread, the vast majority of the posters at the SDMB are unsatisfied with the decision. As a matter of fact, from reading this thread and the MPSIMS thread, I draw the conclusion that the majority of posters are either content with the decision or don't care, since, as mentioned above, satisfied customers rarely bother to voice their agreement.

In general, I have always supported the mods in their duties, including bannings of popular posters and removal of certain threads. But the application for sympathy/martyrdom/whatever implicit in your third paragraph is, I'm afraid, rejected. ... Moderating is an unpaid, uncontracted position from which you are free to walk away any time you would like.

The obvious parallel to the argument would be "if you don't like the way we moderate at the SDMB, you can go find another message board", but let me say that I dislike both your argument and its parallel. I moderate because I enjoy contributing to the SDMB, even though there are some parts of the moderator job that I enjoy less than others.
As far as your statement that you have always supported the moderators and reject the "plea for sympathy" - I will repeat what I recently said in a BBQ Pit thread. When you say "you support the moderators", I personally can't say that I've ever noticed that to apply to me, or noticed that you've ever said "good job Arnold for doing such-and-such". The only interaction I've had with you on the subject of SDMB moderation is this thread where you disagree with my statements. Which relates again to my argument above - satisfied customers don't bother to voice their approval. Every time a poster decides to publicly state that a certain moderator is misguided, I would suggest that the poster ask him/herself "how many times have I agreed with that moderator's actions and not bothered to say anything?"

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-19-2001 at 05:23 PM]

[UncleBeer]

… use a little common sense, all the way around.
Oh sure, add that requirement now. I don't remember that being on the moderator application. Thanks a lot.

[Arnold Winkelried]

All right TubaDiva, I think you're correct in saying that we've beaten this subject to death. Sorry.

[Coldfire]

Originally posted by pldennison
Does a poster have to complain about a word in a thread title before a mod can alter it, or are the mods permitted to exercise their own judgement? I suspect it is the latter. In fact, did Coldfire change it before reading this thread, or after? A bit late, but still: we're permitted to use our own judgment, and I did. So yes, I did change the thread title before reading the complaint here. Of course, I renamed it incorrectly because of my currently somewhat rusty experience with the female anatomy. ;)

[Tequila Mockingbird]

Since one of my threads was mentioned in here, I just wanted to check in. Yes, I admit I went over the top in naming that thread and in doing so, used poor judgement. I agonized over what to call it, because in all honesty, I wanted it to be read and felt I was almost trying to "compete" with Scylla and Fenris. Though I can only dream of being at that level of writing style and humor So, I went for the shock value to try to draw the TMs in. I understand why it was changed, though at the time I honstly didn't think anyone would be offended by the title. I wasn't pleased with what it had been changed to, so I emailed UncleBeer and requested he change it to something I could live with. Kudos to UB for prompt and friendly service on that one.
Personally, I think the mods and admins do one hell of a great job on this board and though I may not agree with them on every issue, I think they deserve a lot more credit than they are given. I'd like to say thanks for giving up your time and being the people you are. This board is a "live with it or leave" kind of place, and though I think it's difficult for anyone to offend me,(not impossible mind you) I cannot presume everyone holds the same views as I. I hold too many posters in high regard to try to intentionally offend them. I think I can certainly live with the thought of "tone it down" especially given the other option. :)

[Arnold Winkelried]

Thank you Tequila Mockingbird. Your kind words are much appreciated.

For those of you reading the thread, I don't want you to conclude that I'm angry with pldennison. His questions were sensible, though it seems we might not agree on this particular issue. I think his presence adds a lot of value to the Straight Dope Message Board, and he's one of the valuable presences that make this community the place where I choose to spend most of my online time.

[Arnold Winkelried]

So I used the word "value" twice in the same sentence. Sue me.

[dropzone]

Originally posted by TubaDiva
the Victorians used a variant of the term affectionately, romantically, as "cunny."
I obviously know far too little about our humble Tuba since I found this, and some of her other statements in this thread, surprising and charming. Even cute.

[US Torture Victim W Tribe]

{Original post deleted because it seems to be a Call for Action, or possibly lunatic ravings, and therefore totally inappropriate for ATMB. Lynn}

[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 07-21-2001 at 12:46 PM]

[Andy]

US Torture Victim W Tribe:

I'm afraid you completely whooshed me there, but FYI, there's no need to date your post, this happens automatically.

[Milossarian]

And don't forget what happened to Miggs, when he used that word with Clarice ...

[kabbes]

I, myself, cannot.

[wring]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
So I used the word "value" twice in the same sentence. Sue me.

Arnold Winkelried :
Esteemed sir. Be advised that on behalf of my client, (hereinafter referred to as "shewhowillberich"), suit has been filed in the Superior Courts. In committing the grievious offense of utlizing the word "value" twice in the same sentence, you have caused my client (shewhowillberich) great personal harm and damage.

To wit:

1. That shewhowillberich had to read the offending sentence more than once in order to grasp the fact that you, Mr. Winkelreid, did indeed commit such a faux pas.

2. That upon confirmation of the faux pas, that shewhowillberich fell off of her chair in shock that such an offense would be committed by the formerly esteemed Mr. Winkelreid.

3. That shewhowillberich's faith in the future, nay her entire foundation has been rocked with such tremors that I, her esteemed representative have lost all touch with whatever concept I was going to go for in this sentence.


We await your answer.


Screwem F. Theycantakeajoke, Esquire

[Arnold Winkelried]

Thank you wring. My defense team will be in touch. I have hired Lynn Bodoni's cousin Vinnie for the purpose.

[Booker57]

Can't
Understand
Normal
Thinking

This works for me. If it works for you, fine. If not, oh well, how about them Cubs!