# Limiting/flagging/forbidding post with content offensive to other members. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 26, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854 "2018-05-26T13:27:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/1 "2018-05-26T13:27:02Z")
I didn’t want to post another thread because I’m certainly the wrong one to define the issues behind this. I’m afraid that those who can define and explain this feel their voices won’t be heard, so why bother. It’s not necessary to mention any posters by name. This is about a particular issue, not the people that might be involved. Unless you don’t have the internet, you probably know where this thread is headed anyway. Yes there’s a backstory, but I think board policy, not board members, should be the focus. Should threads that enter rhe realm of things such as bondage, sexual perversion, humiliation, or abuse, or fantasize about the same, be treated differently? Should these threads; Be banned in total? Be limited by using the mod power to topic ban posters with a propensity to post such threads? Be required to carry a NSFW heading with an appropriate message, such as “NSFW, Bondage and rape discussed?” (NSFW is understood as _open at your own risk_) By requiring all sexually explicit parts be put behind spoiler tags? By requiring thread titles to define questionable content in their title? Be allowed. I’m sure I’ve missed options or suggestions. Hopefully those who have interest in the outcome will offer opinions and suggestions. Hopefully others will listen. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/2 "2018-05-26T14:09:30Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Unless you don’t have the internet, you probably know where this thread is headed anyway. With you so far, I know what you mean. > [@](#): > > Should threads that enter rhe realm of things such as bondage, sexual perversion, humiliation, or abuse, or fantasize about the same, be treated differently? I take that back, I had no idea where this was headed. I think you zigged when I zagged. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/3 "2018-05-26T18:10:17Z")
In general, NSFW warnings are a good idea. Everything else should be on a case-by-case basis, since adult topics should be discussed and definitely not banned or limited. I’m assuming this is a personal beef with a poster, despite all caveats in the OP. I’ve been totally successful in avoiding any knowledge of whatever your issue is, which means it’s completely possible to use the Dope heavily and not ever be troubled by the issue. Why the rest of us should be subject to your personal hang-ups is not at all clear from your OP. Make a real case if you want us to resort to drastic measures on a board that is designed for adult discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/4 "2018-05-26T18:22:39Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > … > > Why the rest of us should be subject to your personal hang-ups is not at all clear from your OP. Make a real case if you want us to resort to drastic measures on a board that is designed for adult discussions. So you’re fine dismissing this. Personal beef? What if 2 people complained, 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7. All women, all venting legitimate concerns about the same dismissiveness you’re showing about this? You missed that I guess. See the Skald pit thread. Perhaps questions instead of assumptions would be better on your part. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/5 "2018-05-26T18:34:25Z")
I can’t recall seeing any threads that talked about … things such as bondage, sexual perversion, humiliation, or abuse, or fantasize about the same, be treated differently? Recently. Maybe never. So this feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. I guess i did see a thread where a guy talked about his (very conventional) masturbation technique. That could have used a nsfw flag. Oh, and a long time ago there was the guy who wanted advice on finding a woman who would let him eat her shit. That wasn’t actually very graphic, until he described paying someone to do it. That last part could have benefitted from nsfw flags, but anyone concerned would presumably have ignored that thread long before it got to that point. So, um, I guess I do like nsfw flags, but since there are no images here, it doesn’t feel urgent. I’d rather get rid of the ads that make noise. That’s truly nsfw. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/6 "2018-05-26T18:36:58Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > By requiring all sexually explicit parts be put behind spoiler tags? Given that TPTB are on record as not wanting the Dope becoming a quasi-Penthouse forum, I’m fine with not allowing any sexually explicit parts. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/7 "2018-05-26T19:07:59Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > With you so far, I know what you mean. > > I take that back, I had no idea where this was headed. I think you zigged when I zagged. To avoid 50,000,000 other questions about the OP’s opening post: A number of posters (many of them woman) are unhappy with Skald’s hypotheticals, which, they say feature anti-female humiliation/rape porn and more importantly, suprise humiliation/rape porn (so the title is like “Who’s cuter, bunnies or puppies” and content being “Jessican and Megan are kidnapped and raped. Who would help them more? Pet rabbits or kittens?”). There is a 700 page pit thread about it right now. As an aside, Evil Captor was given a topic ban on female abuse/rape porn. If Skald is doing this as frequently as the pit thread suggests, wouldn’t a similar topic ban be appropriate? Skald could still post his hypotheticals for his devoted fans, just not the “Surprise! Rape porn!” ones. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/8 "2018-05-26T19:12:22Z")
It’ a fuzzy line, and I’m not sure how it could possibly be otherwise. On the one hand, material that’s offensive to a wide swath of the membership is a problem, especially in a thread that’s not about whatever that material is. On the other hand, we do sometimes have mature, reasoned discussions here of things that many find offensive. And there’s no subject so innocuous that you can’t find anyone who’s offended by it. I realize that nobody’s very fond of fuzzy-line rules, but sometimes they’re inevitable. Human moderators wouldn’t be needed if they weren’t. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/9 "2018-05-26T19:23:47Z")
If X-rated posts and thread titles are a recurring problem then having the requirement that the topic creator put some form of notice on the thread title that the content within may be extraordinarily offensive is not a bad idea. My thought is, if people have a habit of misleading titles and then graphic sexual or sadistic content the current tool of ignoring that poster could be utilized. If a poster randomly puts extraordinarily offensive content in completely unrelated threads that is already against the current board rules and can be reported and moderated. It’s so rare outside the Pit that I run into a post that really has me puzzled as to what it’s doing in the thread that it’s in and thus I don’t know if new rules, that can never be sufficiently detailed to begin with to satisfy all edge or corner cases, are needed. I think Chronos is correct. The inevitable fuzzy rules and moderation should keep a problem under control. The question I have is, were the posts and threads that were problematic reported as such? Have the tools that currently exist that each user has available been fully utilized? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/10 "2018-05-26T19:26:50Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > To avoid 50,000,000 other questions about the OP’s opening post: > > A number of posters (many of them woman) are unhappy with Skald’s hypotheticals, which, they say feature anti-female humiliation/rape porn and more importantly, suprise humiliation/rape porn (so the title is like “Who’s cuter, bunnies or puppies” and content being “Jessican and Megan are kidnapped and raped. Who would help them more? Pet rabbits or kittens?”). There is a 700 page pit thread about it right now. > > As an aside, Evil Captor was given a topic ban on female abuse/rape porn. If Skald is doing this as frequently as the pit thread suggests, wouldn’t a similar topic ban be appropriate? Skald could still post his hypotheticals for his devoted fans, just not the “Surprise! Rape porn!” ones. Ahhh, got it. I don’t typically read the Skald threads, that’s why I missed it. Having said that, it’s an interesting question then. I understand topic bans, but at the same time there’s no reason why anyone that doesn’t like his threads can’t just put him on ignore or not open the threads. ISTM topic bans usually happen when someone posts in existing threads and steers them towards their pet topic. In that case, I have no issue with it, when you’re ruining/derailing/threadshitting in 3 or 4 or 10 threads a day. ---
**Author:** ![Helena330](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/helena330/32/531_2.png) [@Helena330](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helena330)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/11 "2018-05-26T19:45:05Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Ahhh, got it. I don’t typically read the Skald threads, that’s why I missed it. > Having said that, it’s an interesting question then. I understand topic bans, but at the same time there’s no reason why anyone that doesn’t like his threads can’t just put him on ignore or not open the threads. > > ISTM topic bans usually happen when someone posts in existing threads and steers them towards their pet topic. In that case, I have no issue with it, when you’re ruining/derailing/threadshitting in 3 or 4 or 10 threads a day. Some of us aren’t about to ignore the degradation of women. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/12 "2018-05-26T19:54:16Z")
> [@Helena330](#): > > Some of us aren’t about to ignore the degradation of women. So what is it then? Is it that the content should be flagged so it’s not viewed by people who don’t want to view it or is it that the content should be prohibited from existing? Because in the grand scheme of things energy spent fighting to censor content that maybe 20 people choose to see or see accidentally seems to be misspent when we have tremendously popular and truly misogynistic rap, music, books, movies, comics, etc to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/13 "2018-05-26T19:55:17Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > Ahhh, got it. I don’t typically read the Skald threads, that’s why I missed it. > Having said that, it’s an interesting question then. I understand topic bans, but at the same time there’s no reason why anyone that doesn’t like his threads can’t just put him on ignore or not open the threads. I personally think it’s the stealth titles. Stuff like “Friend A asks you to persuadeFriend B not to break their engagement. Do you try?” as the title, only to find out, halfway through the thread, incest/rape porn (example below in spoiler box) [spoiler] But in fact, what she did was a great deal rougher \< than the normal porn she told her financee about\* \>. In particular, she shot a gonzo scene in which she not only was verbally and physically abused by the director and male models on camera, but also confessed to having been molested by a funny uncle when she was much younger. Eliciting this confession from her — and making her call her mail co-stars "Uncle " while she cried— was the highlight of the scene. - Note the stuff in the brackets is mine. [/spoiler] And there have been worse Skald threads as well as completely innocuous ones. The trick is that the reader never knows which he/she’ll be getting because the disgusting ones are labeled the same the normal ones. I’d personally favor an Evil Captor topic ban for him, but at least making him put NSFW or “Gross, skeevy incest-rape porn shit” or something in the title would be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/14 "2018-05-26T19:59:59Z")
Oh. I haven’t read any of those threads. Misleading titles seem like a problem. Not having read the content, I don’t have an opinion as to whether it goes to far to be allowed at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/15 "2018-05-26T20:05:26Z")
One example is in my spoiler box above. I don’t know what percent of his threads do this, but there’s enough that a lot of women Dopers are #MeToo-ing how uncomfortable those threads make them. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/16 "2018-05-26T20:18:23Z")
I truly don’t understand why we keep pulling the discussion from what happens here on the Board to what happens with other content sources elsewhere. There are also widely available media sources on white supremacy or many other topics most people here would find beyond the pale. We’re not talking about what we do about those things. We’re talking about what we do if those things are posted here. FWIW, I do think it needs to be on a case by case basis. If people are uncomfortable, they need to report it. Standards are changing, and what was acceptable 10 years ago may simply not be acceptable in public discourse any longer. For example, this recent hypothetical could have been told with exactly the same plot points without the bolded detail (spoilered for length): > [@Friend A asks you to persuadeFriend B not to break their engagement. Do you try?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/friend-a-asks-you-to-persuadefriend-b-not-to-break-their-engagement-do-you-try/813140/1): > > Let’s say you have a pair of friends, Lindsay and Josh, ages 30 & 40, respectively. They are engaged to be married; while you are buddies with both, you became so with each independently of the other. > > You have known Josh for twice as long as you have known Lindsay. You are probably his best friend; please note that I did not say he was YOUR best friend. Josh is sometimes hard to get along with, you see. Oh, he is always there when a friend needs a favor, either practical or emotional; nonetheless, he is somewhat emotionally rigid, which can make him insufferable. You generally like him, but staying around him can be a trial. > > As for Lindsay, you out right love her, and I do not mean in a sexual sense. She is simply a joy: smart, funny, reliable, easy-going, and for the most part sensible. (We will come to a way she was NOT sensible in just a moment.) remaining HER friend has never been a trial at all. You count yourself extremely lucky that she wants to be yours. > > About a month before the wedding, Lindsay comes to you in tears. Josh is extremely upset with her and is considering calling the marriage off. Why? It is that issue she was less than sensible about. You see, when Lindsay was about 18, she had a brief career in pornography. She never told Josh about it; the closest she came to admitting the truth of the matter was to say she had done some nude modeling between high school and college. **But in fact, what she did was a great deal rougher. In particular, she shot a gonzo scene in which she not only was verbally and physically abused by the director and male models on camera, but also confessed to having been molested by a funny uncle when she was much younger. Eliciting this confession from her — and making her call her mail co-stars "Uncle " while she cried— was the highlight of the scene.** > > Lindsey had hoped Josh would not find out about this, but an ex-boyfriend of hers, angry at being rebuffed, sent him a link to the video online, in which Lindsay’s face, along with a very distinctive tech to, was clearly visible. There was no denying that she was the girl in the video, so she told Josh everything, including that she participated of her own free will. (It was her last seen in porn, by the way; soon afterward she went into therapy and became the frankly extraordinary woman she is today.) > > Josh is very angry. He felt that Lindsay had lied to him by describing her work between high school & college merely as modeling, for one thing; for another, he thinks he should have been told about the molestation. He has declared that he no longer trust her and that he doesn’t know whether he can go through with the wedding. > > Now while she is generally quite self-reliant and sensible, Lindsay is crazy in love with Josh. The thought of losing him has her frantic. In the past, you have been able to act as a moderating influence When Josh was being rigid in other ways, so Lindsay hopes you might be able to persuade him not to break things off with her. She requests that you try. > > Are you willing to do what Lindsay ask? If not, why not? If so, what would you say to Josh? When Josh was being rigid in other ways, so Lindsay hopes you might be able to persuade him not to break things off with her. She requests that you try. > > Are you willing to do what Lindsay ask? If not, why not? If so, what would you say to Josh? Could you not just say she had done porn instead of modeling and end up in the same place? As I said, things are changing. If people are willing to submit reports about what is offensive, then we can tackle how to handle this. Take this content out? Require the spoiler tag rule? ETA: I see **Fenris** already included the thread. Apologies for the duplicate. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/17 "2018-05-26T20:21:45Z")
Wow that’s strangely specific. Like WTF, dude specific. Eta: @Fenris ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/18 "2018-05-26T21:01:47Z")
heres the thread that brought all this up BTW [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20983727#post20983727](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20983727#post20983727) ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/19 "2018-05-26T21:21:40Z")
What would disturb me most is if I came here and was never offended at all. It is good to be offended at times, it can make one question one’s beliefs or the beliefs of others. Long may the SDMB continue to offend. It’s the sign of a frank and open board. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854/20 "2018-05-26T21:45:35Z")
I don’t see why this can’t be handled on a case-by-case basis - sort of like **John Clay** was told not to post about his wife anymore. When a range of articulate and apparently sane posters have made it clear that they are uncomfortable with the recurring content\* of of a member’s posts, why can’t the mods say something along the lines of “Skald [or other poster], you may continue to post your hypotheticals, but in each case you must choose: (a) leave out rape and female humiliation; or (b) include a notice in your first sentence that you’re including such material and explain why leaving it out would substantively change the matter you wish to discuss.” I don’t think it’s even a question of the rightness or wrongness of what someone like Skald chooses to post. It’s more about the health and viability of the board. Do TPTB want a thriving, diverse community? If the answer is “yes,” than a few guidelines that don’t hamper free speech but do speak to the concerns of a valid portion of the membership seem appropriate. (\*) And for those who either don’t know about or don’t understand the matter, it’s not the content per se (talking about rape can be a good thing), it’s a posting pattern that gives a distinct impression to a number of people that the poster is getting off on that unsavory content. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-flagging-forbidding-post-with-content-offensive-to-other-members/814854.md?page=2)