In this thread, Malleus, Incus, Stapes! posts a question in GQ regarding genitalia. Shodan posts a link that answers that question. The link includes visual aids. Malleus, Incus, Stapes! is somewhat surprised that the internet actually contains… pictures. The word on the street is that the internet has those.
It was a medical picture. I posted the wikipedia link (which I found more graphic) to prove a point, and that’s wiki-freakin-pedia. Do we have to run away from vaginas? Really?
You didn’t even look at the damn thing, yet you give me a warning for pointing out that you, in fact, didn’t even look at the damn thing.
I want you to rescind the warning and give me an apology.
A moderator doesn’t need to LOOK at a link to see for him/herself that it’s not workplace safe. We can (and often do) rely on what we’re told.
It doesn’t matter whether it was a medical picture. A website with the word “SEX” in large red flashing letters (even with no pictures at all) would be “Not safe for workplace.” Our goal is workplace-safe, which means not to be embarrassed at your workplace if your boss walks by while you’re looking at something.
And please note, A Monkey with a Gun, that we’re not “running away” from anything. The url is still there, it’s just no longer a link. That means that if you want to go see it, you may; but we’re avoiding anyone accidentally clicking on it and being embarrassed. Malleus &c apparently clicked on the link in a public place, assuming it was workplace safe, and was embarrassed that it wasn’t. She is quite correct in her reaction, and Shodan should have known not to post a direct link.
Colibri’s actions were absolutely correct, and any other mod would have done the same. Your comments [about the internet having pictures,or the link not being porn] are not relevant.
How can you police when you don’t even know what your policing?
The formal warning that Colibri gave me was not correct. How is a question about genitalia “work place safe” to begin with? Shodan’s link said “sex reassignment surgery”. How in the hell is that not labeled NSFW? I posted wiki links to penis and vagina. I got a warning for that, but I labeled them “penis” and “vagina”. To me, it seems like if someone doesn’t want to have their computer at work show a picture of a vagina, they shouldn’t click on a link that says in the link name that it’s a vagina. It’s already labeled NSFW.
After review, the call on the field is confirmed. The OP’s first response in the linked thread contains more snark than is usually tolerated in GQ. Add in mouthing off to a mod and willfully posting NSFW links, and yep, that’s a paddling…er…warning.
A free tip: if a moderator says “don’t do this,” it’s a bad idea to immediately go and do it. If you disagree with the call, you can discuss it in ATMB. Colibri broke a link and said “don’t post pictures that aren’t work safe” and you then posted two such pictures and picked an argument. You’re surprised you got a warning for that?
Colibri didn’t say anything about porn either. “NSFW” doesn’t mean porn, it means the link includes images you might not want a supervisor or coworkers to see. The caption on the first picture was "Photo of the details of the genitalia of a TS woman (with her legs spread in stirrups and her labia partially opened) after undergoing vaginoplasty (SRS) and labiaplasty performed by Eugene Schrang, M.D. of Neenah, WI. "
There’s a difference between writing about sex-change surgery and actually having a huge color photo of a vagina pop up on the screen. Text? Unless someone’s looking over your shoulder, no one knows or cares what the words say. And if they do look, the context clearly shows that it’s in a medical context.
A huge floating vulva? That’s highly noticable, and the first thought of people seeing it probably won’t be, “Oh, she’s doing medical research.” See the what I’m saying?
That’s not the issue. There have been threads that linked to porn in the past and that was perfectly acceptable, as have been links to seriously TMI medical stuff. The two-click rule has nothing to do with censorship.
Half my point is “what did you honestly expect?” You look up your question on Wikipedia, you get a picture included. You look it up on Encyclopedia Brittanica, you’re also going to get a picture. You look it up on the AMA’s website, and you’re going to get a picture there as well. If you were worried about not safe for work why did you ask a question that is NSFW to begin with? The people at your religious library can just as easily read over your shoulder too.
My point is that if the thread itself is obviously not safe for work, and the links contained are labeled with names that are obviously not safe for work, no one should be surprised that a link that says “sex reassignment” is going to show “sex reassignment”
And tacoloco, I did post the wiki links ON PURPOSE because I’m questioning the mods. It just seems to me that if someone posts a question that is obviously not safe for work, the responders shouldn’t be warned for posting stuff that they clearly indicate is not safe for work.
I got a formal warning for linking to Wikipedia for chrissakes. Wikipedia!
One thing that amuses me, though, is that Collibri removed my link for “vagina” but he left the one for “penis”. They both got pictures. Draw your own conclusions from that one. Personally, I don’t think the mods have a consistent policy.
The issue has already been well covered by Dex and Marley, but here’s my own response.
Malleus, Incus, Stapes indicated to me that Shodan had posted a link to an image of genitalia. On that basis I issued a moderator note, not an official warning. Shodan has been around long enough to be familiar with the NSFW rule. If it had turned out on further review that it had not been such a link, I would have been happy to rescind the note and apologize to Shodan. However, I have not received any indication so far it is not such a link.
After my note, you deliberately posted links to images of a penis and a vagina. Despite being at work, I (very carefully) clicked on the first link and confirmed it was the kind of image I had instructed not to be linked to. After that I issued my warning to you.
It was absolutely correct for posting not safe for work images. You also deserved additional warnings for not following moderator instructions, and for disputing a moderator decision outside ATMB. Consider that you got off lightly.
We’re not talking about questions, we’re talking about images. Images on your computer screen are much more noticeable to passersby than text.
It is not sufficient just to indicate that a link is NSFW in the post. As the rule linked to by Dex indicates, any link that is NSFW should not be direct, that is, it should not be possible to get to the NSFW content by simply clicking on the link. The link should be disabled, or only link to NSFW content by an intermediate SFW page. The objective is to keep users from clicking on NSFW content accidentally.
As has already been pointed out, the rule has nothing to do with porn. It is merely a courtesy to other posters, so they do not embarrass themselves in front of their boss or co-workers. It applies to any image that could be questionable in a work environment, from sexy lingerie ads, to medical images, to pictures of bloody accidents, not just porn.
The warning was completely justified, and will stand.
No, the offenses were in posts #9 and #10 of the original thread. If you had had a question about my moderation, and had brought it to ATMB without deliberately posting NSFW links in the original thread, you would not have received a warning. Note that I have only issued a single warning; I was just pointing out that you had multiple rule violations in the original thread besides the most egregious one.
Thanks, I’ll consider the source. For some reason, people ticketed for speeding never seem to think the highway patrol is doing a good job.