Could we just please acknowledge that the SDMB is now controlled ny Disney.com?
Anyone who might be in the right mindframe, would KNOW that it was known by all the SD mods that it was NSFW.
You would have to be a total idiot NOT to know that.
Again, you completely miss the point. Even if it had been clearly labelled NSFW, the link would have been against the rules, since it was a direct, clickable link. Any link to NSFW content should be disabled, so people can’t click on it by accident. This is simply a courtesy for other posters who may be posting in a public environment.
This rule is not due to prudery or censorship, since the link is still there. You just have to paste it in your browser and remove the spaces to re-enable it. I’m not sure why this is thought to be oppressive.
For what it is worth, at my place of work, ALL Wikipedia photos are left undisplayed (which is obviously going overboard to “solve” an issue :rolleyes:) in order to avoid having images such as are being described by this thread from showing up. My place of work is a high school, so you can understand the concern. Wikipedia makes no effort to keep its images “family friendly”, so the mere fact that an image shows up in Wiki is meaningless on the issue of whether or not it is NSFW.
For what it is worth, at my place of work, ALL Wikipedia photos are left undisplayed (which is obviously going overboard to “solve” an issue :rolleyes:) in order to avoid having images such as are being described by this thread from showing up. My place of work is a high school, so you can understand the concern. Wikipedia makes no effort to keep its images “family friendly”, so the mere fact that an image shows up in Wiki is meaningless on the issue of whether or not it is NSFW.
FWIW, I apologize - it was a link to a medical site. It was not intended to be salacious. I pasted the link into my post but failed to un-check the “Automatically parse links” button.
In my own defense, if one asks about sex reassignment surgery, one is going to encounter something to make one cringe, even if it is text only.
Nonetheless, my bad. I should have broken the link.
Regards,
Shodan
Usually I stay out of these things, but in this case I agree with the OP: There’s no way a link labelled “Genitals” is going to be safe for non-medical/academic/possibly artistic work, regardless of content.
And further, I think it can be argued that a thread on the technical aspects of gender reassignment is going to be NSFW by default- so there’s the “first click” right there, just by coming into the thread, IMHO.
I’m all in favour of the two-click rule for “general” discussion threads- it’s just good sense. But in a thread that’s obviously NSFW, and in a medical context, then I can see how someone would think it’s ok to directly link to Wikipedia articles relevant to the subject.
So, not that anyone cares, but I too disagree with the issuing of a warning in this particular circumstance.
Whatever the arguments about whether the OP should have expected NSFW responses on such a subject the matter of the warning is entirely separate. Colibri made his ruling, A Monkey With a Gun quite deliberately flouted it because he disagreed with it. He accuses the OP of not expecting the obvious and then shows surprise at his warning? The irony, it burns.
The two click rule is pretty straightforward and there’s no need to add complications. Text on a screen is text on a screen and usually isn’t going to cause a problem by itself. A big picture of genitalia might be visible from yards away and cause a problem with a coworker.
Come on. A Monkey With a Gun didn’t say this was a misunderstanding, because it wasn’t.
As far as “Disneyfying the site” goes… don’t make me laugh. We ask that people not link directly to this kind of stuff (two click rule or unparsing links), or at least give a heads up on the content if they do. It’s not a burdensome rule.
Thank you for the acknowledgement. Since I assumed it was an oversight rather than deliberate, I gave you a “mod note,” rather than a warning, which is basically just a reminder of the rules. That’s generally my practice on NSFW links. A formal warning might be issued in the case that the direct link was deliberate, or for repeated offenses by the same individual.
I would note that “no parse” is not the best way to inactivate a link, since it will be parsed if someone quotes the post. The best practice is to break the link manually by inserting a space.
Shodan’s link was not labelled “genitals,” or in any other way that indicated that the first page featured a full-color close-up photo of female genitalia. It could easily have been text-only, which would have been fine. Since there is an explicit rule against direct NSFW images, posters might have an expectation that they should not be subjected to them regardless of the subject of the thread.
Although A Monkey With a Gun did label his links, he did not link to the Wikipedia articles in order to contribute to the subject of the thread, but in a deliberate attempt to violate the rule that I had already pointed out to Shodan.
I would not have issued a warning if A Monkey With A Gun had inadvertently linked to NSFW images, or if he had brought his complaint to ATMB without deliberately violating the rule, and my specific instructions, in the thread. I don’t see any reason why a warning wouldn’t be merited in this case.
Malleus has already told us what she honestly expected: that the SDMB’s two-click rule would have been followed.
This modding here is very serious business!
Must… resist… urge to write “SEX” in
GIANT
RED
LETTERS
BTW, no flashing text tag here? Why you almost seem like you want the site to be non-annoying! N00bz!
Just re-iterating: the point about “not safe for workplace” rules is to prevent ACCIDENTAL difficulties. If you don’t mind your boss walking by while you’re looking at PLAYBOY pictures, that’s fine by us. What we don’t want is someone accidentally clicking on a site that gets to something that they don’t want on their screen at work.
It’s way too easy, especially when reading quickly, to click on a link unintentionally. We are not trying to pretend the internet is G-rated, we are not trying to make this website G-rated. Far from it. We are trying to protect people from getting into trouble, inadvertently. We are happy with almost any urls (although the Registration Agreement prohibits overt porn) as long as they’re not links.
How about patties?
No porno patties either.
Nor patty cakes.
Well I prefer white meat.
So breasts and thighs are still okay?
Colibri was correct. Now, if he had issued a warning in his first post, then that would be been over-moderating. But he didn’t, he just asked A Monkey With a Gun to not do it again, whereupon A Monkey With a Gun promptly *did it again. *
And, in the 2nd case, it was either arguing with a Mod about a call- properly done ehre, not in context of that thread. Or it was Mod-baiting.
The call was correct, the monkey was wrong. 
Now, certainly, in the first case, **A Monkey With a Gun **could have came here instead of deliberately doing it again, in which case he’d have some sympathy. However, imho, he’d only be fully in the right if he had labeled the link “contains photos of sex organs”.
To correct the details of what happened, Shodan was the one who posted the first link, not Monkey. I reminded Shodan of the rules in a mod note, and broke the link.
A Monkey With A Gun then objected to what I had done in one post, then intentionally posted direct NSFW links in the next post to try to make a point.
It would still be incorrect as long as it was a direct, clickable link, even if it was clearly labelled as being photos of genitalia. The problem we are trying to avoid is someone clicking a NSFW link by accident. So such links should be deactivated, not just labelled.
Not that this issue is subject to consensus, because it’s not, but since I often am vocal in what I consider abuses by moderators I thought I’d chime in on an example where I agree with the mods, out of fairness. This link was definitely NSFW. NSFW is not a censorship issue, it’s a policy to protect everyone here who browses from work from open pages with images we could get into trouble from. This is mere a politeness issue. The link is still there, it merely requires a slight extra effort to click on it. So it’s not censorship, it’s just basic etiquette.
Yes, the link is not at all objectionable, however is is definitely not a link someone at work would want to click on. As far as not clicking on the link before summary judgment, if the link was erased, I’d agree it was premature, but it was only broken, it was still accessible.
Would you really prefer someone open a photo of a vagina, not knowing what they would encounter, accidentally, if a supervisor was looking on?
I don’t know if breaking the link is really needed if a warming of NSFW is issued, but in this case there wasn’t even a warning.