Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary

About This Message Board
1

Just as many of you have been discussing this topic, so has the moderation staff been attempting to hash it out behind the scenes. As on the board, there are differing viewpoints among the staff and administrators. And as we see in the wider board community — as well as in society at large — there is a good deal of misunderstanding of others’ viewpoints, hurt feelings, and rash statements made in the heat of debate.

We agree that there have been comments permitted to stand with no moderation that should not have been allowed. And too, we do not think that a total crackdown or any potentially offensive comment is the way to serve the entire community. And we acknowledge that if we are going to expand or change the rules we need to let you all know, clearly, what these changes are.

In one of the ATMB threads of the past week, poster Little Nemo made a list that we liked, a sort of Supreme Court checklist.

**Here, then, are the guidelines we will use when determining whether a post with sexual references needs review and might be subject to moderation:

  1. Is it directed at another poster on this board?
  2. Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?
  3. Is it a sexual joke in a thread on a serious sexual topic?**

I have said this to the moderating staff and to everyone here on this board: this is not an easy issue. Sexism, just like racism, is unfortunately alive and well. With these new rules, we are extending the ban on jerkish or off-topic comments to those which sexually denigrate people.

As always we will do our best to explain how moderating decisions are reached if there are questions, but we don’t wish to entertain an excessive number of “what if” type questions that attempt to split hairs and “discover” just what comment will be tolerated over others. As with all moderation here, these decisions will be made within the context of a particular thread and in the precise circumstances which surround a unique comment.

Moderators are chosen for their judgment; that was made very clear to me when I was accepted as a member of the staff. That doesn’t mean I (or any of us) are perfect and that we won’t make mistakes. Our goal is to help make this community a place where thoughtful discussion, fun discussion, and even outraged discussion can take place.

Think about what you post. If you’re writing it to either score points in a battle, or up your cred as an acknowledged board wit — consider that the wider target of your point might view it differently than you. Think about if you’re contributing to ongoing dialog or to ongoing dissension. Think about what brought most of us to this board: the desire for an exchange of ideas among other intelligent people whose backgrounds may be different from our own. Please bear that in mind when articulating your thoughts.

This is the consensus of the moderating staff.

2

Rule #1 states “Is it directed at another poster on this board?”.

As a member of a group, a poster may feel insulted if the entire group is insulted.

Let’s say a Lindsay Lohan news story comes up where she is busted for DUI again. If I made a joke about “Meh. Women are poor drivers anyway…”, are you saying I won’t be modded?

3

This would apply, no?

4

This looks good. I want to emphasize (and to clarify for my own sake) that the key word above is “might”. That is, a sexual reference directed at another poster might be subject to moderation, but it might not be. Same with #2 and #3.

In other words, if I’m reading what you’re saying correctly, there’s no bright line, but there’s a bright edge to the fuzzy area. Someone who wants to avoid moderation for this issue may do so by the trivially simple measure of ensuring that the checklist is answered with three "no"s for each of their posts. If someone doesn’t do so, they accept the risk that their comment will be moderated.

Is that right?

5

I think that is a fair approach to the situation that will make a tremendous positive change for the board. Thanks, mods.

6

I thought the issue was with sexism, not with sexist comments.

If I’m reading the list right, I can make comments that men are more aggressive, women are more emotional, and then make a dongle joke and only the third would be moderation eligible?

7

We don’t need no moderation
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm on the Straight Dope?
Hey! Mods! Leave those kids alone!
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.

8

**

**It would appear, therefore, that the mod note(s) in the thread about the pantsless woman were inappropriate and misguided.

Because [ol][li]None of the jokes in question were aimed at any other Doper []The thread in question did have a sexual topic, and []The sexual topic was not a serious one.[/ol] 1 is, I believe, beyond question. Since the woman was pantsless (and had designs shaved into her pubic hair) and was handing out condoms, I expect 2 is equally well-established - condoms are nearly always used for sexual purposes. And I suspect the Pope hat as well as the pantslessness made the sexual topic less than serious. [/li]
Accordingly, can we agree that the pantsless woman thread, at least, is not an example of misogynist humor, and that therefore is not something we need to avoid in future?

Regards,
Shodan

9

Oh good, we’re banning jokes now :smack:

These rules will not only not deal with the problem, they attempt to deal with things that aren’t actually a problem. The issue isn’t sexual comments or jokes, it’s sexist ones. There is nothing wrong with sex, and nothing wrong with talking about it. If it’s off-topic for a particular thread, there are already rules to deal with it.

If the mere mention of sex makes someone uncomfortable, they should probably not be on the internet.

10

All feminism all the time. :rolleyes:

What a silly solution looking for a problem. Bad job all around.

11

I suppose I disagree-- I don’t see a naked woman inherently sexual, even if she has highly stylized public hair to make a greater political point. Ultimately, saying, “She was asking for sexual comments by being naked and shaving her pubes a certain way!” is shaky ground for, “Yeah, I’d like to nail HER cross!” comments anyway.

So, I’d say that’s a clear violation of part 2.

I think it’s hilarious that we’ve already got people rolling in to this thread, declaring humor dead. Frankly, I think this is a totally reasonable compromise presented by the mods. My personal opinion is that they would have been justified to go much farther (as they do on other forums, like Something Awful), but again, this is a compromise.

12

Yes, I believe so. It does depend on circumstances, as I tried to make very clear. A comment might be moderated if it’s sexually charged and out of the blue, so to speak. But one which is on topic for the thread, we’d have to weigh how the conversation got there.

My analysis: Say a someone’s dressed up like a baseball as a team mascot and the thread’s about that. Someone says, “I’d hit that!” While this would be horribly inappropriate in a thread where someone is talking about a rape, it would be lighthearted and not offensive there.

13

That’s my interpretation as well.

14

I would like to know if the moderated comments in Skald the Rhymer’s thread, which contained this language in the OP:

would still be moderated under the new rule.

15

Can I suggest this thread be made into a sticky at the top of all forums, at least for a couple weeks?

16

Why would the first two need moderation? A blanket ban on discussion of possible innate differences between the genders seems like an overreaction, don’t you think? And one that could potentially stifle useful debate and discussion? Whereas restricting unsolicited sexual remarks directed at other posters doesn’t seem to have much of a downside and quite a bit of an upside.

Personally, I think this is a very sensible approach and I applaud the mods for adopting it.

17

Is there a larger standard at work such as racial or regional comments? So if I point out to a poster from the South that while most areas have family trees but in the South they have family twigs*# or comment in the immigration reform thread how Latinos are like Nazis since they want more Mexicans to come here illegally and outvote us whites* will these standards you have presented be used to mod those comments as well?

*I don’t subscribe to these ideaa but was trying to come up with purposely inflammatory statements.

#I used this example specifically because of a contraversy sometime ago where a poster made a similar statement towards a Doper from the South and was not modded.

18

i’ve not yet given any deep thought to this deep topic.

many jokes appear in threads as the threads meander. many jokes appear after serious answers are given and then jokes might be offered. jokes might appear with a linkage to culture (movie, tv, literature, song) from some person’s posting. it isn’t anything negative to any person’s posting but maybe they used a phrase that can be linked to a phrase/element in culture which might be humorous to some.

this banter, creating a punch line being given a straight line happens.

19

Who was handing out condoms, for which there are almost no non-sexual uses.

So, she was running around with no pants, had styled her pubic hair to attract attention to her crotch, and was handing out condoms, which are used in sex.

I am at a loss as to how that can be interpreted as a serious or non-sexual topic.

Regards,
Shodan

20

I’m fine with not moderating any of the three, but I’m just trying to figure out exactly what’s going on, since I seem to have missed where the train jumped tracks from sexist to sex related, since the former was what has been buzzing in ATMB.