How do you explain this?
“People, most of whom happened to be women.” You are discriminating on the basis of sex.
Yeah, I’m done. Feel free to believe what you wish.
Ooh, ooh! Announcing spoilers in Cafe Society thread titles. Buncha fragile men being triggered by being told that Deadpool 2 contains dick jokes, gotta have their safe spaces like a buncha wimps. Hand me the sal volatile ere I swoon.
…nope. I think you’ve got the “very definition of sexism” wrong. Making rules because people are offended is not sexism. In this particular case a majority of the people “offended” were woman: but if the majority of people “offended” just happened to have been men that wouldn’t have changed anything at all.
If anybody wants an analogy to this latest permutation, there was a ban on linking to unlabeled shock videos instituted a long time ago, before the term Rickrolling was even invented.
This followed complaints to the moderators; I’m guessing most of the complainers happened to be men given the demographics of this website.
Much later, spoiler boxes were introduced.
No, it’s not. Not at all. The genesis of the rule is independent of the application of the rule. The rule is gender neutral, ergo not sexist.
And point of information - it’s not a new rule, but an expansion and clarification of existing rules. Principally the rule for descriptive thread titles and a supporting role for not being a jerk. I think it’s jerky to try and rickroll people with explicit sexual material. And since my judgment in this carries quite a bit of weight (an equal amount with respect to all moderators), there we are.
@MfM - the warning in the past was for 'jack in the box links.
The problem seems to be handled well. Thank you mods.
So much for the goatse-roll I was going to work into a “cute animal pics” thread.
That one never loses its charm. Maybe a goatse with “Never gonna give you up” playing in the background. 2 for 1. 
The pushback began when you suggested we just ignore skeevy content. And in response to virgin shaming, you started fat shaming.
From free to cite otherwise.
The ignore tool and the report tool exist and were obviously under utilized. Change came, and a good change I may add, when Morgenstern posted a reasonable thread in the appropriate forum AND due to the rules of the forum discussion was not derailed with personal attacks. That’s how things get done. Yet… for some unfathomanble reason the Pit was the forum of choice and every suggestion that got met with vitriol there for some unfathomable reason was met with near universal acclaim here.:dubious:
And yes, when I was attacked in the Pit, I responded in kind.
Much kudos to the mods for a reasonable solution.
Funny how your previous message made it sound as if you were just innocently proposing nsfw tags and were so unfairly attacked. That’s not what happened.
Being told to just ignore it was not likely to be meet with acclaim either here or in the Pit, and that what your first 2 of 3 posts were.
I think I’ve pre-sponded adequately in post 183.
RTFirefly’s post 183 is worth reading I say.
Now that the mods have spoken, there’s the issue of best practice to consider.
Short stories are too long for this message board. We’re limited to vignettes. Slipping in something that’s surprisingly graphic takes the reader out of the story, even if the reader is not inordinately offended. That’s bad writing.
There’s a lot of bad writing on this message board, some of it penned by myself. But in terms of best practice, it is best avoided.
Yes yes, this is not the primary issue, or even a secondary one. But we are on page 6 after all.
That seems to be his concern, yes.
I had no idea that reporting and acting on offensive behaviour was fundamentally sexist, but if so, maybe we need more sexism. And more racism.
Skald started a thread with a (somewhat petulant) note:
True enough, there was no sex or rape in the OP.
Later, though, in order to win an argument, you with the face responds (to me):
When I suggest that bringing sexual abuse into the scenario violates the OP, she responds:
Does this sort of introduction of vicious racial slurs and what appears to be innuendo about sexual violence into threads where it didn’t previously exist seem copacetic?
For me, this sort of thing is–well, a little gross.
Yes, but it has nothing to do with hypotheticals. There was no unexpected graphic sexual violence or degradation being introduced in the first post from ywtf that you’re referring to, which is what this thread is about. The mere presence of innuendo of sexual misconduct is not what the issue is.
The second post, which uses the slur, is an issue, but as far as I can see it was never reported, and would be an issue regardless of what thread it was posted in. Just because a post you find objectionable shows up in a Skald hypothetical thread doesn’t make it relevant here.
I’m going to assume you don’t mean to play a false equivalent gotcha game, but it feels a little bit like that.
I’m super late to the party (actually managed to get my nose out of the screen this holiday weekend), but I just wanted to give my gratitude to the folks who stepped up and brought this issue to light, the ones who didn’t back down on their complaints, and the mods who took action and made a positive change.
I want to say it was because of the awesome ladies who are on the board but I know there are a lot of great dudes here too. Thumbs up to all!
He actually started 3 different threads with the same note you describe as “somewhat petulant”, two of which were instalocked. That 100% proves that Skald is aware of the complaints about him and is unwilling to apologize, and doesn’t even see why it’s a problem to begin with. That is something I find far more unsettling than the exchange you reference here. Let’s not try to rules lawyer this thing to death, please. If you with the face had a history of dropping racial slurs into posts with no warning, I might see the comparison, but so far as I know that’s not the case.
Can I ask why it’s an issue? It’s clear from the context that I didn’t direct the term at any poster but was rather offering it up as an extension to the hypothetical; the dang thing is put in quotes for a reason. Other recent Skald threads show similar usage. See here and here.
I’m vexed at the idea that I somehow crossed a line. LHoD first wrongly accused me of adulterating the thread with sexual abuse in spite of my efforts to be as non-graphic as I could possibly be, and now he’s acting offended at the mere notion that hypothetical characters could speak in racist ways?
I understand the challenge you’re under as a moderator, but I think there is little defense for even issuing me a non-warning finger wag in that thread.