There is another thread open in MPSIMS where:
People have been posting single links to pictures of attractive women (and sometimes men)
Many of the posts have little or no commentary other than the “Here’s the link” variety
Many other posts are just comments of the “Wow she’s hot!!” variety.
Most horrifyingly…the pictures in the links show people who are not clothed in Burkas.
I think a mod should hurry over there to close this clearly NSFW thread.
[QUOTE=Darryl Lict]
Try entering “cheerleader boots” in YouTube. It will be the first hit. Yeah, it is some cute girl, but why Little Nemo felt compelled to post it completely escapes me.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure this would make a boot fetishist cream. Anybody else, not so much.
There should have been a NSABF warning – not safe around boot fetishists.
Jigga wha wha? Warnings are cumulative and can eventually lead to bannings, yes?
Not to mention they should be proceeded by an actual warnable infraction. Otherwise they are pretty meaningless.
Closing the thread was lame. Giving him a Mod Warning for not sharing your puritanical mindset is fucking ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I find it odd that there are no restrictions on language in thread titles (motherfucker, cocksucker, cunt, etc.) but a cheerleader changing shoes is NSFW.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if I use “New Posts” I’m subjected to language like “cuntscab” but an innocuous video, clearly marked, is NSFW?
[QUOTE=InLucemEdita]
There is another thread open in MPSIMS where:
People have been posting single links to pictures of attractive women (and sometimes men)
Many of the posts have little or no commentary other than the “Here’s the link” variety
Many other posts are just comments of the “Wow she’s hot!!” variety.
[/QUOTE]
My own humble opinion about this: What you describe here is fine. But for each of those posts to be its own separate OP would not. Maybe I’m just afraid of the SDMB degerating into a bunch of “Hey, look at this sexy/funny/cutesy picture/video I just found on teh internets!” OPs.
I don’t disagree about closing it for lack of content. We’ve had many minimal threads closed with the injunction to try again, with content. I just think NSFW is not being applied appropriately when imaginatively obscene thread titles are okay but innocuous videos are not.
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
My own humble opinion about this: What you describe here is fine. But for each of those posts to be its own separate OP would not. Maybe I’m just afraid of the SDMB degerating into a bunch of “Hey, look at this sexy/funny/cutesy picture/video I just found on teh internets!” OPs.
[/QUOTE]
I see your point.
Posts like the one that was closed/warned really don’t have much significant purpose, and they certainly don’t have much thought put into them. If posts like these were to infect the SDMB it would - without question IMO - degrade the quality of the board.
Perhaps, in an effort to stem the tide of such destruction TPTB could create a separate forum as an outlet where such pointless, mindless posts could be dumped, while still restricting other forums to appropriate topics/posts?
Oh…wait…
I recall a thread not too long ago about boobs that had broken links and NSFW warnings in it, and viola! Pictures of boobs! And the thread remained open!
Why was that one OK and this one not?
BTW, it generated a lot of heated discussion.
And I’m going to hell for actually viewing them at work…
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
Yep. I can’t speak for the other mods, but my thinking is that if you’re not invested enough in your OP to contribute anything more than a link, then you won’t mind us clearing out the lazy OPs so that other threads, with ongoing dicussions, have a chance at the front page. This isn’t to say that the link wasn’t interesting to you or other people, but we don’t want the forums overrun by threads with titles such as “Hey, look at this!” and then a link with no other text. Digg is a better place for posts like that.
[/QUOTE]
Yes…by all means…please clean out the lazy OPs…
Here’s one with only one sentence of 4 words…close it please…warning at your discretion.
This one only has the link, a bit of cut and paste and a 7 word sentence. Pretty lazy don’t you think. Better shut this down before it gets out of hand.
One link, one sentence. Wow. This is really getting out of hand. Shut 'er down, boys!
Three sentences here. Although one is the link. Is that lazy or did it cross the line to concise?
Tuckerfan is a repeat offender. Please warn him sternly about the laziness policy. At the SDMB we work hard on our OPs or they get slapped down.
Link. then a copy and paste. Then a four word sentence. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
But why haven’t any of these been closed to make room for the Mod Approved Interesting-And-Safe-For-Work threads?
Wow. Here’s another link with a single, 4 word, sentence. How are these all slipping through your clutches, Mods?
PROTECT US!!! PROTECT US!!!
Those links are all from the top 36 in MPSIMS right now.
There are several more with barely any more content.
So why again was the cheerleader post closed/warned?
NSFW? How do you figure?
Not enough content? Since when?
Marley23 is a new mod. It seems clear that he was too quick to bring the hammer down. I cannot believe that he or anyone else truly thinks that thread was inappropriate for the Dope, nor that the OP being closed for lack of content and the OP warned for it is deserved. The other mods are circling the wagons to back him up, per the usual. Why can’t Marley23 admit a rookie error, apologize, and rescind the warning? If Little Nemo wants to open another OP with the link broken and more content in his OP, he should be allowed to. Sometimes people make mistakes. You lose more face when you back pedal with bullshit excuses than you do by just admitting your mistake.
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Is there some reason you can’t just leave it to the membership to decide for themselves which threads will thrive and which will die on the vine? Threads which are of interest to a sufficient number of people will garner a lot of replies and stay on the front page. Those that aren’t, won’t. I don’t feel that it’s your job to tell us what should be interesting to us and what shouldn’t. Howzabout letting us decide what’s appropriate for this board, hmm?
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the entirety of what I wrote:
I think it’s pretty clear from my post that I wasn’t talking about some overarching philosophy of determining what does or does not interest everyone; instead, I was referring to a specific type of thread. Link-only OPs belong at places like Digg and del.lico.us. Since this is a discussion board and not a mere collection of links, we ask that the OP actually contribute more than just a link.
And, InLucemEdita, while you may consider the threads you posted as examples as “lazy,” I see OPs with actual content. It may not be a lot, sure, but at least there’s something. For a discussion board, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the OP at least throw in a sentence or two. Don’t you think there should at least be a minimum of effort?
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
And, InLucemEdita, while you may consider the threads you posted as examples as “lazy,” I see OPs with actual content. It may not be a lot, sure, but at least there’s something. For a discussion board, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the OP at least throw in a sentence or two. Don’t you think there should at least be a minimum of effort?
[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm, Skip.
I don’t think the linked posts are lazy.
I don’t think the cheerleader post was lazy either…you do, remember?
But apparently a link alone is lazy to you. But a link with a four word sentence is “actual content”. Hey, you’re the mod. You get to decide I guess.
Split the hair where-ever you want it.
Conservative Christian America checking in here. I too don’t understand why the thread was closed, other than for “lack of substantial OP with nothing more than a link to a fairly humdrum Youtube video” reasons.
And I’m baffled that Little Nemo thought it was hawt, and worth posting about. An entire Internet full of explicit hamster-squicking porn, and he’s thrilled by the equivalent of a Betty Grable pinup? I guess that’s kinda sweet, actually, in an Andy Hardy Finds Love sort of way…
BTW, clearly she’s wearing cheerleader panties; if it excites you to think you can see her “bidness”, then more power to ya, it’s a free country. 
BTW, BTW, “Cheerleader boobs” does not find it–its title is “Cheerleader takes off her boots and puts on shoes”.
Yeah, I got the sarcasm, InLucemEdita. My point was that since I had originally referred to the link-only OPs as lazy, then the examples you posted didn’t fit the bill. But yeah, a four word sentence is at least an effort. Just a link, though? Not so much.
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
Since this is a discussion board and not a mere collection of links, we ask that the OP actually contribute more than just a link.
[/QUOTE]
Would you issue a warning, as Marley23 did? Would you allow Little Nemo to open a new thread with the link in it, appropriately disclaimered and with a couple of sentences of content?
This is the most ridiculous thread ever.
First, the original thread was about the most pointless thing ever.
Second, the OP got *a warning * for posting a link to something so devilishly unwholesome that high school girls… put it on their college applications?
Seriously, what the fuck?
Yeah, I thought the warning was a bit much, too.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
First, the original thread was about the most pointless thing ever.
[/quote]
It really was completely inane. Unless you’re a foot fetishist. Is that the subtext I’m missing in why the post was so “inappropriate”? If Little Nemo had stated that the link would appeal to foot fetistists in his OP, would it have been allowed because it had some substantive content, or not allowed because it’s inappropriate?
And why can’t mods and admins ever just admit they screwed up and overreacted? It would be so refreshing.
Look at the time the thread was posted and the time of my post and I think you’ll see there was no rush. 
That said, after some more discussion with other Mods: Little Nemo, if you want to open another thread with that link, please do so, adding a not safe for work warning and a bit of actual description in your OP. The warning, which I hadn’t bothered to put on the books in the first place, is off the books.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
That said, after some more discussion with other Mods: Little Nemo, if you want to open another thread with that link, please do so, adding a not safe for work warning and a bit of actual description in your OP. The warning, which I hadn’t bothered to put on the books in the first place, is off the books.
[/QUOTE]
I’m feeling quite refreshed. Good on ya, Marley23.