200k, 10… They’re only numbers. 
I’m still curious to know what the threshold is to give in to the minority here. .10% of posters that respond? 1%, 5%, 10% or 25%? If not a percentage, then how many emails will it take to give in to the minority?
No shit. If the PTB actually consider a change, I would hope they give us some numbers.
How about 51%? :dubious:
Heh, that would suck.
Why should he grow up? A lot of us object to this fucking ridiculous idea. If your eyeballs melt just because you see some goddamn gratuitous motherfucking profanity on your shitty ass monitor, maybe you should just piss off and stay the hell away from the Internet altogether.
:dubious: yourself.
You’re assuming that it’s going to take a majority rule to implement the G-rated titles. As I understand what’s going on, is that the admin is going to take all complaints from the minority about it and make a decision. Which according to C K, it’s assumed that the vast majority do not want a change. Which means that the decision will be based on a number of less the 49% by default, which means no minority or majority will make or break the decision, but will be based on the perception of the adminstration of what constitutes a distraction by the number of email complaints by the minority. My question is, what is this number?
I have a feeling that if only 25% of active members complained, that would be enough for the admin of this board to make that change, not 51%. Just wondering where this # really lies in the decision to make thread titles G-rated.
Ah, for the good old days, when people were dropping f-bombs all over the place in public discourse! :dubious:
As I understand what’s going on, the admin don’t want to have to do anything, and are hoping for evidence that nobody much cares so that they don’t have to. If hardly anybody complains now, they can dismiss any future complaints about strong language in thread titles. If, on the other hand, there are a substantial number of people who want thread titles censored (and I don’t think they’ve decided at this point what that number is), they’ll have to decide where to go from there—but they hope it doesn’t come to that.
That’s just my guess, which could be wrong, but it seems to be backed up by C K Dexter Haven’s last post in the ATMB thread.
So those of you who are whining about being repressed: Fucko Off.
Woohoo! I’m not responding like a motherfuck!
'Cept that’s where all the pedophiles hang out. 
Great, he can rock two bushes with one bird, or something.
Please do not not answer more than once-it skews the results.
Thank you.
Except that the Dope isn’t the Internet altogether; it’s a small oasis of reason in a steaming cesspool of idiocy. If your own eyeballs can’t withstand adults talking about an issue that matters to them, then maybe you should move on to one of the many indistinguishable message boards populated by thirteen-year-olds celebrating the opportunity to type bad words.
Yep , we need a white bread world. Extinguish all differences and have the majority run it all. Except the majority swears yet still manages to be offended by the swearing of others. Sheer hypocrisy. TV s and computers have switches . Turn off or turn away.
There are no non-swearers in foxholes.
Especially the “turn away” part. If I’m at work, and I open The Pit during a break, I am not offended by the language in the thread titles. If you work with me and are offended by them, I have some advice: STOP LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER, ASSHAT!!!
I am amazed that someone in the administration of this board is even considering such a thing!
Ya think? :dubious:
And who fucking cares if a “significant number” want change? In 1964, a “significant number” of people in the South believed in segregation, fer chrissakes! That didn’t make it right!
And you say it will only affect the titles, not the content. Sorry, Dex , that doesn’t wash. The members of this board, for the most part, do a pretty good job policing ourselves on the other forums–to even consider this action in any way is insulting and offensive.
To those in favor of it: You say, “Grow up!”. You say, “protect the children”. You say, “NSFW”.
I say “Go shit in your hat!”
Thudlow expressed it perfectly: it is neither a poll nor a vote, it’s more like a petition. We believe that the vast majority want no change; however, we want to have some feeling for how many people do want change: if we’re talking three, then it’s not an issue. If we’re talking a significant number, then the actual count doesn’t matter. Moderators will discuss the issue and make a decision based on a number of factors.
This is the standard decision-making process, pretty much, for any change. The moderators discuss, and usually solicit opinions. In this case, I wanted to solicit opinions BEFORE asking the moderators: if there were only half a dozen “yes” votes, then I wasn’t going to bother the moderators with a useless discussion.
In this case, we’ve already got enough “yes” votes that I think the Moderators need to discuss. Hence, I’m killing the Announcement: it’s served its purpose.
Moderator decisions are never based on popular vote (well, hardly ever), for several reasons:
(1) there’s no fair way to hold a vote: some people only read the boards during the week, some only on weekends, some may be on vacation, etc. Logistics alone would be mind-bogglijng.
(2) we’ve got several posters who hold unpopular opinions; popularity is not a criteria for what they are allowed to post or not allowed to post.
(2) good governance means some protection for the minorities. Simple majority vote that tramples on the rights of the minority would not be good.*
(3) Our notion of “workplace safe” for links was put in place because a minority of members were uncomfortable with flashing sex. We also have a restriction against gratuitous use of bad language, to discourage a post in which every other word is “fuck.”** The issue of thread titles is (arguably) in the same category.
We are trying to build community here, and that means some individual compromises for the sake of the group. So, we have some members saying that the word “Fuck” appearing in bold letters, surrounded by whitespace, as a title is a problem (and more noticable that “fuck” appearing in the text of the thread.) There are other members for whom it’s not an issue. One group is going to have to compromise for the sake of what’s best for the community as a whole. So far, it’s been group A.
Clearer?
*[sub]Personal aside: When I was in Bahrain last year, I actually heard a speech in which democracy was denounced as an inferior form of government because the majority ruled with no consideration for the rights of the minorities. The guy went on to say that Theocracy is the only good form of government, because God is the only just ruler. [/sub]
**[sub]This is pretty much literal truth: we decided that we don’t care about “bad language” on the whole, but that overuse was a hinderance to communication, and a turn-off to potential new members.[/sub]
Of course, “significant number” is a completely arbitrary judgement, based on no popular criteria. This all sounds very logical, but I already have my mode of expression dictated to me when I’m at work, when I’m around children, when I’m around my girlfriend’s parents, when I’m dealing with customers, basically almost every minute of every fucking day I don’t spend alone or asleep. I started this thread because by not asking for replies, it looked like the Mods were stacking the deck on this issue; saying the course of action is determined by some random “significant number” doesn’t dispell that impression.
I’m sure there is no malicious intent on anyone’s part. But I didn’t pay to join the SDMB in order to follow more rules; I come here because there are FEWER rules than elsewhere. As I have noted in other threads, this forum was a lot more fun and free-wheeling back in the day when it was free and pretty unregulated. I realize there are good reasons why it can’t be that way any more, but the subject at had just seemed like a step too far. Nobody is FORCED to come to this Board. As many others have said, why should this Board change to suit some random number of members, when so many of us come here to enjoy it the way it is?
As for individual compromises for the sake of the group, wasn’t the BBQ Pit created as part of the SDMB for this very reason? We are already segregating the harshest posts for THIS part of the Board. What next?
You are not alone. Quite a few of us think that having everything you post fueled by an alcoholic cloud of stupidity is annoying.
(That is what you meant, right?)
.
As it should be.
Look, Dex , so far we’ve built, for the most part, a damn good community. Up until now, the use of “colorful” language in the title of Pit threads has not been a problem, judging from the number of members who post here. I also haven’t seen anyone post an objection to said language. You know, something like, “I Pit the Profane Thread Titles in this Cockie-Doodie Forum!” 
Which begs the question: what has changed? Why now?
What next indeed? When the Mods have their discussion over this issue, they might want to ask whether this particular slippery slope is one they truly want to traverse–and where this “compromise” will lead next.
A great man once said, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
If it were as imple as just not looking in the pit, I’d agree, but the top thread is listed in the main forum view. I think most grownups can handle seeing it, but there have been occasions when I’ve refrained from introducing people to the SDMB, not because I think they’re too delicate to read the word ‘fuck’ in appropriate context, but because of the first impression they might get if the main page shows a thread title like, well, like this one.
Anyone who thinks I’m being oversensitive can just fuck off.