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.
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.
Almost any topic can be made into a serious discussion. Therefore, we cannot make jokes about anything. Is that where you want to go?
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 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.
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.
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.)
[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.
I am afraid you are quite mistaken. Jokes of a sexual nature are very much the issue in the thread I am discussing.
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.
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?
Condescending Robot got warnedabout this line of attack, but yet it continues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
