I think you have a very unusual interpretation of the word “joke”, then, and I doubt the moderators share it. (and to some extent, “serious”.) But as you say, I missed a lot of what led up to this, and may not get the nuances.
The rule as it’s written encompasses sexual references, sexual comments, and sexual jokes that might be posted in sexual threads, non-sexual threads, and “serious” sexual threads.
For the sake of not having to write all that out in every sentence that refers to the rule I took some liberty with the terms “serious” and “joke”. It seemed sufficient to just say ‘jokes’ to reference any violation of the rule.
In discussing my interpretation of what constitutes a “serious” sexual thread, my take is that if the subject is not grave or somber, the participants are themselves making lighthearted commentary and the overall mood of the thread is happy, festive or celebratory, it isn’t a “serious” sexual thread as that term applies to the rule.
Crazyhorse, I think you’re being a rules literalist in your own way. Rules are often not well written. The mods have an idea in mind of the kind of thing they want to prohibit, and they try to put it into words when they write the rule, but they often fail to do it accurately. Then, in practice, they find that some things clearly fit their mental model, but don’t fit the text of the rule.
Here is how I would attempt sum up the kinds of behavior that seem to make people’s gorges rise and have led to the creation of this rule:
-
Male posters injecting crude sexual humor into discussions of topics that are potentially painful or upsetting for female posters. Example: making booby jokes in a thread where women are talking about their breast cancer experiences.
-
Male posters suggesting that they are aroused by the thought of female posters’ bodies, in a context where female posters were not expecting that sort of attention. Example: asking for pics when a woman is talking about her favorite bra and how comfortably it fits.
-
Male posters implying that female posters’ bodies are to be evaluated according to men’s taste, when female posters were discussing their bodies in some other context. Example: Urbanredneck’s cup-size joke.
If I were writing the rules, those are the three behaviors I would forbid. I think that I’ve done a better job of specifying what the mods were getting at than the actual rule does. I would lobby for these definitions to replace the existing rule. (I suppose you could alter them to be gender-neutral if you wanted to.)
Here’s my attempt at gender-neutralizing those:
-
Posters injecting crude sexual humor into discussions of topics that are potentially painful or upsetting. Example: making booby jokes in a thread where women are talking about their breast cancer experiences, or package jokes in a thread where a man asks for opinions on his potentially alarming rash…
-
Posters suggesting that they are aroused by the thought of other posters’ bodies, in a context where that sort of attention would not be expected. Example: asking for pics when a woman is talking about her favorite bra and how comfortably it fits.
-
Male posters implying that female posters’ bodies are to be evaluated according to men’s taste, when female posters were discussing their bodies in some other context.
Hmm, I will have to think about the third. I don’t think that ever happens to men. Maybe, possibly, in a gay context? More later.
Or we could have a rule like “Don’t be a jerk” and, oh wait, we do. If the mods weren’t interpreting these behaviors as jerkish before they could also not interpret these rules to everyone’s satisfaction either.
But it became a big drama and this is one of those subjects that invokes those words that are poison to any corporate entity - sexual harassment. So TPTB felt they needed to make a special case rule and show a swift and decisive response to the complaints they received. And so, boobygate ensued.
The mods have to have a more precise working definition of jerkishness if we are to have any degree of consistency in moderation.
And posters need more explicit guidance in areas where different people have very different ideas of what constitutes jerkdom. References to another person’s body, especially positive references (“hey, I wasn’t too see photos, you turn me on”) are definitely in that ambiguous area where somewhat explicit guidance is helpful.
In this thread so far, with the painstakingly explicit rule as it stands now, one mod said rule 3 was broken and another said the moderation was actually for hijacking but if he had to pick one it would have been rule 2. TroutMan pointed out that rule 1 was broken either way. I mentioned a clear cut and impossible to misinterpret rule violation made by another poster in the same thread and it received no comment whatsoever.
We can’t even agree on definitions for “serious” or “joke” as they are used in the rules that exist now.
No matter what the rule is or how it is written, it will still be subject to interpretation by the mods on a case by case basis. Even in the existing rule we have now it is written “these types of posts *may *be moderated” to leave a little wiggle room.
“Don’t be a jerk” is about as effective as it gets. It leaves the mods ample room to squash inappropriate behavior without stifling the freewheeling board culture and it avoids situations where a group of adults all presumably over 30 or older are discussing when it’s OK to make booby jokes.
In other words, your problem with the current rules is that they give people like you too many grounds to complain about the moderating?
I never complained about the moderating. I wouldn’t go to bat to fight against a mod note even if I didn’t agree with it. I argued that the thread was sexual, and not “seriously” sexual, and the conversation branched from there.
Whereas i would argue that it was both a serious topic (not a joke, and also a topic that gets close to body image, something that makes many women uncomfortable) and also non-sexual (the topic was clothing) even if some participants made some lighthearted comments about sex. None of which was remotely a joke.
And participants joshing a little about the relation between the topic and sex is similar to Maggie joking about the names of the cancer drugs she is taking. It neither changes the topic nor turns it into a joke topic.
I think a lesbian saying the same things would have gotten the same response. And a guy making a serious comment about how he and his girlfriend dealt with bras during sex would have been completely fine.
I want to be clear that I, personally, was not offended by anything in the thread (even the cup-size joke). I come from a much rougher corner of the internet, and everything in that thread seemed good-natured to me. This is one reason that “don’t be a jerk” isn’t adequate guidance. Appropriate interactions vary by situation. There are things that would be flattering from a stranger in a club that would be rude and disturbing from my co-worker. Part of “being a jerk” is knowing and ignoring the community standards, but someone needs to articulate what those standards are.
Here, I can see the line being drawn, and don’t think it is particularly obscure or fuzzy, as these things go. (And these things do tend to have fuzzy lines.) And as a woman, I kinda like the line, as I think it has been presented.
Anyhow, thanks for reading.
Willfully not-knowing, not caring enough to pick up on the standards, is also being a jerk. The mods have here chosen to endorse fairly clear guidelines, for all but the most stubbornly obtuse. But a non-jerk would have been sensitive to the tide of feeling before that anyway.
There is also a contingent of people who disagree with you, and think posts violate the letter and spirit of the rule, and report them.
I don’t think hyperparsing the word “serious” is required. Just because women are discussing their bodies in a lighthearted and euphamistic manner, that is not an invitation for men to post how excited the thread is making them, how turned on they are, or to make any random booby joke they know.
So you agree those three posts in that thread were jerkish? No? Then aren’t we back to discussing when it’s okay to make booby jokes?
Suggestion: if you’re having problem knowing the line, consider not posting in a thread addressed to “Women”.
I think in the case of boobygate, enough jerkish behavior was going on that guidance was needed.
Oh sure. I have no problem with more explicit and forceful moderation of said jerks. I wish the approach could be extended to tackle jerks of the racist varieties with which the SDMB is also supplied.
I didn’t say it was an invitation for men to post how turned on they are. I said it was a signal that the thread was not “serious” sexual. I hyperparse the word because it is injected into the rule on the subject very deliberately as a distinction to be made. To me, this is to indicate that a lighthearted sexual thread wouldn’t be modded as strictly as a “serious” sexual thread would be in matters of drive by sex humor.
No I don’t think they rose to the level of jerkish in this specific context, but I’m not a mod. One rose to the level of too stupid to be written, one rose to the level of being possibly perceived as a little creepy to the one person it was directed toward but she has chimed in to say it didn’t bother her.
I would think for something like this, what was probably warranted was a mod note to get the thread back on track and prevent those comments from hijacking the thread or rising to a level of jerkishness if they continued. And that is what happened. But the note wasn’t based on the boobygate rule. The exact same mod action and same end result could have been achieved whether it was based on don’t be a jerk, no hijacking, or boobygate. It is a redundant layer of complication. I trust the moderators to stop jerkish behavior when it happens. If mods weren’t modding to anyone’s satisfaction pre-boobygate they could still choose not to mod posts today post-boobygate.
As a woman, I found 2 of the 3 remarks fairly tame and innocuous. And overall, I found the mod NOTE to be entirely appropriate.
Turning a (serious/lighthearted/neutral) discussion into an opportunity to overtly sexualize the discussion is …well, I found it distasteful. The mod in question stepped in, made sure it was known that certain directions were not to be tolerated, and the discussion survived. I don’t see a problem.
My problem is why the ban on levity in this topic. It was not about body image, it was about wearing bras. Of the three posts listed, only one (the bra-sizing guide) would be considered offensive to a majority of people. And you didn’t answer my question of if my comment should be modded so please do so if the line is so obvious.
Or let’s look at Cal Mecham’s post that got modded. One poster commented that she doesn’t like to wear a bra because of how her nipples look under the bra. I happen to think that Mrs Cad (and most women) would look better braless under their shirt. Moddable? Probably given the reaction to CM but the reason I feel that way has nothing to do with pokey nipples but rather these tshirt bras that every woman seems to be wearing are IMO very unattractive. There are bra lines because of the cup and just look … idk unnatural? The old style where the cups were fabric with a little give and not 1/4 inch stiff material just seems to blend into the outfit better. So given that, if I had posted “Women look better without bras on.” in response to that post would it have been modded? SHOULD it be modded as an offensive joke?
A post does not need to be “offensive” in order to be inappropriate for the topic with the potential to derail it. So in answer to your hypothetical, yes, I probably would have modded you for that.
I think Doctor Jackson is correct in that I could have been more explanatory and less grumpy in the note that I posted. I was frustrated because I felt like the first two posts I noted opened the door for the third, and there was no need for the thread to go down that road.
And Crazyhorse, I see that you’ve now raised an issue with the lack of moderation on a single post three different times in this thread (though you’ve never reported the post in question). I disagree with you on all four counts. With regard to the accusation of junior moderating, I don’t consider an observation of prior moderating to be junior moderating. The other three comments, in my view, did not reach a level of personal insult that required moderation. If you want to raise that any further, please start another ATMB thread. The issues you raise in that post don’t really have anything to do with the discussion here.