Posting pictures of retch-inducing auto accidents where people are torn in half is not “obscene”, either, by the limited definition of the depiction of prurient sexuality. Neither is posting pictures of Holocaust victims, or the walking burn victims of the Hindenberg, or Japanese women stepping on puppies, or non-erotic furry art, or one of Botticelli’s nudes. It isn’t technically “obscene” to post pictures of someone’s messy gallbladder surgery, or a website that plays a stunningly loud noise, or someone with a gross physical deformity. It isn’t “obscene” to post pictures of huge spiders, depictions of the health benefits of drinking urine, or the horrific results of someone’s failed breast implants.
In my humble non-moderator opinion, you should know better than those things. It is still not a good idea and it certainly isn’t polite to post those things without a warning that the link is of a potentially squicky picture that will make people freak the fuck out, “obscenity” or not.
I don’t think it’s obscene, no, but neither do I think it’s the sort of thing that should be posted without a clear warning. I also prefer warnings on pictures of abscesses, MRSA infections and that Italian cheese being talked about in Cafe Society this morning.
There’s just no way you made it out of preschool without learning that poop is “yucky”. Not labeling yucky links is jerkish, in my book.
Although I don’t think you should be banninated for it, I do think a warning is appropriate.
I think I just had an acid flashback to Gravity’s Rainbow.
Poop is something I don’t need to see, but it seems a bit of an overstatement to label it some kind of moral offense. Of course, I feel the same way about the exposed female breast despite the fact that the entire Republic National Convention would have a collective stroke at so much as the sight of a flash of nipple and what horrible scarring that will do to “the children” and “family values”.
What actually happened was that Cisco was told he has garnered several warnings in a short period of time, and that if it continued he would be suspended. He was not told he’d be banned for posting that link. Most of the time we warn people they’re at risk for suspension before we suspend them, and it’s generally done in private. It’d still be private if Cisco hadn’t chosen to make it public.
It’s apparent that we are allowed to discuss it in writing, because this kind of talk is rampant on the SMDB. Linking to a news picture should have a warning. News can be offensive and trigger a gag reflex. I don’t have a problem with it if the link contains a not safe for work warning. People do poop.
Well, in that case…people like him have trained me not to click on any link, ever, without checking what it leads to.
I suppose I should thank him, but I never like to thank people for lowering my level of trust. Just like I don’t need to thank the first person who robs a house in a neighborhood and causes everyone to lock their doors for the first time.
No, it just seemed to me that the OP was using a very limited definition of his own. I didn’t research the legal definition.
So — and I’m not asking for insight into a mod ruling here, I’m just interpreting for myself — he’s passive-aggressively trying to change the rules rather than apologize for being wrong. Sad.
He’s not really trying to change the rule, he’s just calling fluiddruid (or the mods in general) stupid for the way she/we interpreted the phrase “shocking or offensive.” Thing is, she was right: poop itself is about as normal as it gets, but most people don’t want to see pictures of people crapping themselves, and they should only have to see those pictures if they choose to- meaning links to something like that should be identified clearly.
ETA: Nobody’s asked for an apology or pennance from Cisco.
Before the clock had even struck noon today, I had dealt with four kinds of poop (and two kinds of vomit! Whee!). Poop does not phase me.
That said, I see where you’re coming from, Cisco, but a warning of the link’s contents would have been polite, if nothing else. It is potentially NSFW, regardless of whether it is actually shocking or offensive. We all kind of had this discussion awhile back, didn’t we, when a non-obscene gay site was noted as NSFW. I think this is one of those sorts of things, not necessarily shocking or offensive, but in need of a bit of warning anyway, out of respect for other posters, not because there is some rule.
