Would it be possible to put all the forum rules into one thread or post, rather than having them scattered among the registration agreement, various FAQs, threads like this, and so on?
The SDMB seems like the only message board with a common law-style rules system; partly codified, partly based on earlier precedent.
You are not a real mod. The other question is not your business, and has nothing to do with the discussion.
Regards,
Shodan
Another question for the mods, specifically in reference to the bottomless pope woman.
That thread started with jokes. The first purely serious reply was probably the one by Slypork, at reply #8. Does this mean from that point forward, any jokes in that thread would be in violation of Regulation 2, and therefore moddable? Even the OP has said in this thread that she didn’t mean for that thread to be a serious discussion.
In the future, if we start a new thread about some news story for the purpose of telling jokes about it /ridiculing it, should we put in a disclaimer like the following: “This is intended to be a non-serious thread. If you have serious comments to make about this story, please start a new thread.” Would serious comments then become off-topic, and therefore moddable?
Cite for what? My opinion that the problem here is jokes about sexual assault? Or a cite for the fact that joking about assault doesn’t make you a rapist?
Ultimately, I’m clearly not the only one who found those jokes inappropriate for one reason or another-- it just so happens that I personally take issue with it because I think many of those jokes hinge on the idea of unwanted sexual contact.
I agree. That shit was funny. Hardly offensive.
Never claimed I was-nice attempt to muddy the waters on your part, though.
They why did you bring it up?
I think what is being asked for here is a cite that shows someone joking about sexual assault.
Diosa, I think he’s asking for examples of jokes you think hinge on the idea of unwanted sexual contact.
Also, along with elmwood, I’ve read through this thread to the extent possible and I still can’t figure out exactly what the proposed rules are. Can someone summarize?
Two words: Handshake rape.
When a woman posts a thread about her breasts causing her problem X and male Dopers come in and say they’ll hold up her breasts, exam them, etc. that’s joking about unwanted sexual contact. I mean, unless we assume the OP would WANT them to fondle her breasts, which my default is to assume that no, she wouldn’t want a bunch of strangers off of the internet fondling her breasts.
How is that anything other than a joke about unwanted sexual contact?
Four words: Show the cite, please.
The rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” What Ellen Cherry posted in the OP are the criteria we’ll use in looking at allegedly sexist posts in deciding whether they violate the rule. If the post doesn’t meet any of those points, it won’t get modded.
Really? Shit, I thought that was settled board meme by now.
(by the way, I was kind of joking about that – but in this thread, who fucking knows what’s a joke and what’s not anymore)
Does “sexual contact” equal “sexual assault”, because the latter is the phrase currently being discussed concerning jokes?
The part that says “against your will” is silent.
DiosaBellissima, when people ask for a cite, they are not asking for your reasoning for what you think. They are asking you for a link to a post that you say is an example of someone joking about sexual assault.
Show me a cite of what you consider to be sexual assault in the Pantsless Pope thread.
And really, sexual assault is pretty serious. It’s pretty fucking serious. You sure you want to accuse other posters here of wanting to sexually assault another poster? You seem to be tossing that phrase around rather cavalierly in this thread. I just want you to be able to back up what jokes you consider to be about sexual assault, supporting sexual assault, endorsing sexual assault or expressing a desire to sexually assault. Specifically in the Pantsless Pope thread, since you specifically noted that one.
I just want to know what your idea of sexual assault is, for clarification, with a cite.
This isn’t helpful. Considering how long this thread is already, if people are going to snark or deliberately misunderstand what’s going on, this thread is going to get closed very soon. And no, that’s not a board-wide prohibition on jokes or anything like that. It’s my effort to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread.
So, going forward, how would threads like the pantless pope protestor be modded? It doesn’t fit into any of the criteria. As i said earlier, it doesn’t really bother me and I can put it down to teething pains, but It does seem like an over-reaction.
If the decision is that the jokes in the pantsless Pope thread did violate one of the points, which one was it? If it was a violation of Point #2, how does one tell if a topic is “sexual” or not?
Because as I mentioned earlier, it is not clear how a thread about a pantsless woman, with designs shaved into her pubis, handing out condoms, is not sexual.
It would never occur to me that publicly exposing one’s genitalia, shaved in such a way as to attract attention, and handing out devices which are very clearly used for sex, could be considered anything other than sexual.
Help a Doper out here - how can we tell in advance?
Regards,
Shodan