# Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 6, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626 "2013-05-06T15:55:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**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 7, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/401 "2013-05-07T13:14:53Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said that I wasn’t going to go back and reread that thread to see how I would rule, but that it’s possible I would. Again, we’re not going to address hypotheticals, and we’re not going to remoderate old threads under the new guidelines. Twicks, this is a silly position. People are understandably confused about where these new lines will be drawn now that we’ve apparently had a “paradigm shift” and a “We won’t talk about them in advance, we won’t address case studies, you’ll just have to be careful of some invisible line and hope that you don’t cross it.” policy is NOT good managment strategy. Haven’t you ever had to sit through an HR meeting on sexual harassment? They give craploads of hard, concrete examples. They discuss complex situations and grey areas. The SDMB has always refused to do this for completely inexplicable reasons. It’s also not a hypothetical, nor is it “remoderating” to look at an old thread that was moderated before the new (clearer) rules came into play and say “Yeah, before the new rules, that was right, but going forward I’d do this or that differently.” And if the policy is what Ellen implied, that morons who think getting naked in public is somehow a “political statement” are protected from mocking (if they have ovaries), it’s a policy I object to. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/402 "2013-05-07T13:26:50Z")
I have nothing wrong about stopping “titty jokes” in serious threads or where they really don’t seem to even relate to the thread at hand. So, IMO the policy is okay by me as far as the concept goes. The big problem I see here is once the mods decided to crack down it was like they searched for the two WORST possible threads to implement this new view. Which makes a bunch of people worried about WTF can they can or cannot say or where to say it. Which IMO has a rather chilling effect. Its like a town got feed up with DUIs, wreckless driving and the like and decided to crack down. Then the first thing they do is pull over and taze some guy who forgot to use his turn signal in the back of a quite subdivision. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/403 "2013-05-07T13:39:26Z")
One question for the mods. Do the new guidelines for moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary apply to threads in the Pit? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/404 "2013-05-07T13:39:28Z")
> [@Tequila\_Party](#): > > This really isn’t that hard. The point here is that seemingly irreverent parts can be made into a serious discussion. The thread about the Pope half-dresser, who could be looked to as hilarious, had a serious aspect that was being discussed. Almost any topic can be made into a serious discussion. Therefore, we cannot make jokes about anything. Is that where you want to go? > [@twickster](#): > > People are spinning elaborate scenarios about what’s going to happen, what these new guidelines mean. > > Instead of getting all Chicken Little about it, why not see what happens? It’s possible none of these scenarios will come true. We have already seen the new rulings in action, in the pantsless Pope thread. Is the modding in that thread what we can expect in the future? > [@](#): > > Remember, if you choose to post on a moderated board, you have to accept that the moderators have the power to set standards of behavior. No one is doubting that. Remember, if the mods choose to ask the opinions of the membership of a new set of rulings, not all the responses are going to be positive. > [@twickster](#): > > People _haven’t_ been reporting those posts. It is the staff’s hope that now that we’ve clarified what behavior is okay and what isn’t, people _will_ start reporting these posts, knowing that they’re against the “don’t be a jerk” rule. I don’t think it is clear what behavior is okay and what isn’t. Is it appropriate to make sexual jokes that are not aimed at any other Doper, that are in a thread that is sexual and non-serious? Thanks in advance for your clarification. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 7, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/405 "2013-05-07T13:44:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We have already seen the new rulings in action, in the pantsless Pope thread. Is the modding in that thread what we can expect in the future? Per Ellen (in defiance of the SDMB “FUD” traditional moderating–hooray for Ellen) “Yes”. That’s exactly what we’ll see. (Boo on the decision, but yay for at least being clear about it.) \*FUD=“Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt”. IBM’s management policy for years, per it’s employees. Also here, when questions about what’s ok and what’s not are treated to responses like “Just wait and see–we’re not going to give you any in-advance guidance or answer “hypothetical” questions. Heh. Heh. Heh.” (Which has pretty much always been the policy here. Ellen’s response, though disappointing, was a nearly unique outlier of clarity.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/406 "2013-05-07T13:45:47Z")
[QUOTE=ladyfoxfyre] Oh my god. Just stop. Stop. All of you. [/quote] No, I don’t think it is your place to shut down discussion. > [@](#): > > The issue is not, nor was it ever, “jokes”. It was never even “jokes of a sexual nature”. I am afraid you are quite mistaken. Jokes of a sexual nature are very much the issue in the thread I am discussing. > [@](#): > > Including threadshits of a sexual nature and being a jerk of a sexual nature under “items to be moderated” is not a departure from the rules of “don’t threadshit” and “don’t be a jerk”, we just highlighted the fact that they were commonly happening in a manner that was directed at women in the most offensive way possible for the purpose of being offensive toward women and nothing else. Could you please provide your evidence that jokes in the pantsless Pope thread were intended for no other purpose than to offend women? Because I don’t believe you have mind-reading powers. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/407 "2013-05-07T14:07:05Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > I have nothing wrong about stopping “titty jokes” in serious threads or where they really don’t seem to even relate to the thread at hand. So, IMO the policy is okay by me as far as the concept goes. > > The big problem I see here is once the mods decided to crack down it was like they searched for the two WORST possible threads to implement this new view. > > Which makes a bunch of people worried about WTF can they can or cannot say or where to say it. Which IMO has a rather chilling effect. Not only that, but then you’ve got people like DiosaBellissima accusing posters of sexual assault for posting jokes about the pantsless pope woman, sorority email, etc. Wondering if you’re going to get called a rapist or a sexual assailant also has a chilling effect, and it actually seems to violate Guideline #1 (along those lines, if someone were to say “These hysterical women complaining about the dirty jokes are just uptight because they can’t get laid,” I would guess that violates Guideline #1). One minute you could be making a boner joke about someone in the news, and the next you’re being accused of sexual assault. WTF? > [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Here’s the thing: it’s perfectly fine to mock her political statement as stupid (I don’t have a dog in her political fight anyway- so I happen to agree it was stupid “speech”), but it’s a whole other situation to post repeatedly about sexual assault or whatever else just because she’s naked. > [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > If you guys get offended that you can’t joke about sexually assaulting us (unwanted physical attention, etc), then your rights are being violated, etc etc. > [@DiosaBellisima](#): > > That has zero to do with the idea presented that women don’t talk about their reproductive functions in real life, so doing it here is inviting requests to fuck us. Condescending Robot got [warned](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16253882&postcount=153)about this line of attack, but yet it continues. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/408 "2013-05-07T14:12:40Z")
> [@Enginerd](#): > > Search for “boobs” in thread titles for more examples. In GQ, it’s the first response (admittedly not the best example, but c’mon - the first response in GQ?). Okay, that’s obnoxious. That kind of thing should definitely go. > [@Enginerd](#): > > Same thing for a thread about breast reduction surgery. Agreed, inappropriate. > [@Enginerd](#): > > Effects of weight loss on breasts? Post 6. Poor taste. No place for it. > [@Enginerd](#): > > Back pain and discomfort? Post 7… 9… Silly and unnecessary, and definitely the sort of juvenile… > [@Enginerd](#): > > 12 Whoops. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/409 "2013-05-07T14:15:19Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Whoops. Okay, you just made the list, pal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/410 "2013-05-07T14:20:18Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > We have rules against threadshitting and being a jerk. These rules will now be applied to posts like those **Enginerd** found. That’s it. That’s what’s going on. Right. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > One question for the mods. > > Do the new guidelines for moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary apply to threads in the Pit? In the Pit there’s very little moderating for stuff like off-topic posts and inappropriate comments. I wouldn’t expect that to change. I don’t know that there is going to be as much of it in MPSIMS and IMHO as some people are concerned there will be, but that’s a more general impression. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/411 "2013-05-07T14:21:10Z")
Prong #2 of the new “standard” is absurd and is going to lead to even more inconsistent moderation on this board. Prong #1 and #3 are redundant with existing rules. On the bright side, my ignore list is getting a workout. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/412 "2013-05-07T14:22:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We have already seen the new rulings in action, in the pantsless Pope thread. Is the modding in that thread what we can expect in the future? No, that thread took place before the mods had the discussion that led to the new guidelines posted in the OP of this thread – so you haven’t seen the new rules in action. > [@](#): > > Is it appropriate to make sexual jokes that are not aimed at any other Doper, that are in a thread that is sexual and non-serious? Sure. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/413 "2013-05-07T14:28:55Z")
Guys, the answer is simple: A system of OP tags would solve this problem! Just have people include either a [sexual] or [non-sexual] as well as either a [serious] or [non-serious] tag in the titles of threads they start and there won’t be any more confusion. Glad I could help. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/414 "2013-05-07T14:29:33Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Not only that, but then you’ve got people like DiosaBellissima accusing posters of sexual assault for posting jokes about the pantsless pope woman, sorority email, etc. See I read those quotes very differently. She’s plainly not accusing anyone of sexual assault for posting jokes: she’s accusing people of posting jokes about sexual assault. That’s a giant difference. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/415 "2013-05-07T14:31:54Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > I think you’ve missed \*my \*point. Read this thread. I’m talking about posts in this thread. That’s my evidence. Accusing men of jacking off while posting comments, accusing men of sexual assaulting women through their posts, calling people they disagree with “obnoxious douchebags,” etc. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > :rolleyes: > > From the very first page. > > > [@](#): > > > > If you guys get offended that you can’t joke about sexually assaulting us (unwanted physical attention, etc), then your rights are being violated, etc etc. :rolleyes: back atcha, Bucky. Joking about sexual assault is not the same thing as sexually assaulting women through their posts. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/416 "2013-05-07T14:40:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > :rolleyes: back atcha, Bucky. Joking about sexual assault is not the same thing as sexually assaulting women through their posts. Do you even remember what the original point was? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/417 "2013-05-07T14:41:56Z")
That **is** a clarification - thanks. Maybe you could add a mod note to the pantsless Pope thread that previous mod notes in the thread should not be interpreted as examples of the new policies. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/418 "2013-05-07T14:47:21Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > No, that thread took place before the mods had the discussion that led to the new guidelines posted in the OP of this thread – so you haven’t seen the new rules in action. Yet we have this in post #131 (bolding mine): > [@twickster](#): > > Would I mod it the same way again? I don’t have time to go back and reread that thread again right now, **but I think that our new #2, “Is it a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic?” might quite possibly lead me to write a mod note again** – nakedness, with or without trimming of one’s hair or donning of a funny hat, is not inherently sexual. In a discussion of the nature of protest, “I want to spank her” could definitely be considered a sexual comment in a thread with a non-sexual topic. I realise that the “don’t be a jerk”/“don’t be misogynist”-variant rule is subjective, but I think folks like a little predictability in their rulesets, and that leads to confusion and concern as expressed in this thread. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/419 "2013-05-07T14:47:46Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > My remark wasn’t addressed to you specifically: it was a general comment. And we’re not going to review previous rulings, since the new guidelines were not in place when those rulings were made. > [@twickster](#): > > No, that thread took place before the mods had the discussion that led to the new guidelines posted in the OP of this thread – so you haven’t seen the new rules in action. > Sure. > [@Shodan](#): > > That **is** a clarification - thanks. Maybe you could add a mod note to the pantsless Pope thread that previous mod notes in the thread should not be interpreted as examples of the new policies. > > Regards, > Shodan It’s baffling that board policy would refuse to comment on whether mod notes in the very threads that have caused the firestorm would be valid under the new regime, but maybe this series of exchanges has managed to finally, painstakingly wheedle out an answer. I’m taking this to mean that the mod notes in the Pantsless Protester and the Cunt-Punting Sorority Sister threads are not the kind of moderation that will be applied in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626/420 "2013-05-07T14:47:53Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Do you even remember what the original point was? I know what Happy’s was, having quoted it. If you’d like to strike off on your own with a different point, or clarify Happy’s, feel free to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-of-inappropriate-sexual-commentary/657626.md?page=22)