Moderation of inappropriate sexual commentary

[Shodan]

@Tequila_Party

I’d argue that the topic was indeed a serious one.

She had a Pope hat on, and a cross shaved into her pubic hair. This sounds like a serious topic to you?

Just like people claim you can’t have serious discussions in the BBQ pit, you can have a serious discussion from a topic that originally starts as less than serious.

So, no jokes on topics that might turn serious.

Regards,
Shodan

[Acsenray]

@twickster

I’m in agreement with Ellen on this. I wrote a mod note in the bottomless pope thread, and I’m okay with having written that note, which was to the effect that a woman appearing bottomless in public for whatever reason doesn’t mean that “I want to spank/fuck/lick/tickle/whatever her” is an appropriate response. At the time, while the guidelines were still under the process of formation, the mod note was not out of line – esp. since it was a mod note and not a warning.

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.

1. what about the first prong of the three-pronged test? It was not a comment against a member of the board. I am under the impression that all three prongs must be met in order to warrant moderation

2. the CMU’s student’s protest was a sexually themed protest. As I said before, I think it was a clever, funny etc. protest, bit it was at least in part about sex. To deny that is baffling. And the resulting thread was not a serious non-sexual thread.

[JackieLikesVariety]

this is an EXCELLENT post by Ellen and I am very glad to see the mods making this change.

@Anaamika

I like this as a start. It’s a work in progress. You can’t wave a magic wand and make it all OK. But for the posters who are vehemently protesting, just try and walk a mile in our shoes for a bit, eh? Why don’t you sit back and see what happenes before we stress about every single thing?

It might be nice if this was one of the few mature places on the Internet where women could feel just a tiny bit more welcome and part of the crowd and not walking vaginas.

very much this

Right, you’d rather force change than to use the sensible and much easier option. Gotcha.

nonesense, by your logic nothing should be moderated since we could always just put posters on ignore.

I must have missed all those times in the election forum where us men were trying to have a serious discussion on Obama’s and Romney’s views on tax policy and those women kept posting stuff about which of them they’d like to fuck.

let’s all just re-read that, shall we?

so, the board staff tries to use the existing rules about hijacking, insults, and don’t be a jerk to become a bit more strict on the issue of sexism and/or misogyny, and they get hammered by ATMB protests about “changing the rules” and “not announcing the rules changes”.

So they sit down to craft a statement of intent so they can provide new guidelines on this closer scrutiny, and they get hammered that the existing rules were sufficient.

exactly.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Acsenray

1. what about the first prong of the three-pronged test? It was not a comment against a member of the board. I am under the impression that all three prongs must be met in order to warrant moderation

Pretty sure this is wrong–see my first post in the thread and the response to it.

[Steophan]

@Shodan

Running around with no pants, in public, having shaved your pubis to attract attention to it, and handing out condoms, is “not inherently sexual”?

I honestly did not want to do this, but can you give some kind of definition by which we can decide what situations are sexual, and what are not? Public nudity, pubic hair, and condoms are apparently not it.

Regards,
Shodan

Of course it’s inherently sexual, that was the whole point of her protest. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Sex, and sexual attraction, are not dirty, inappropriate things that necessarily need to be hidden, and that’s why the rule about not bringing sexual content into threads is so fucking stupid.

Look, saying I want to fuck you is neither an insult nor a threat. That doesn’t mean it’s always - or even often - appropriate, but it’s no inherently worse than saying I want to talk to you, or I want to show you my stamp collection. The prudishness on display here is frankly disturbing.

If comments or jokes are off topic, or insulting to posters here, or threatening, then it’s fine to mod them. If it’s simply because some people - or even most people - find them unpleasant and don’t want to read them, it isn’t.

[Marley23]

@Acsenray

1. what about the first prong of the three-pronged test? It was not a comment against a member of the board. I am under the impression that all three prongs must be met in order to warrant moderation

It doesn’t have to meet all three. If the post doesn’t meet any of those criteria it’s very unlikely it will be modded. I’d say ‘won’t be modded,’ but people here can be very creative.

[Red_Barchetta]

@DiosaBellissima

Wait. According to a good number of posters

Let me stop you right there, as you’re now treating everyone as a collective unit. How about you stick to what I’ve actually said, which is nothing of the sort.

@DiosaBellissima

in this thread, the vast majority of the board has no problem with these kind of jokes and thinks they are super fun.

Yup, never said that.

@DiosaBellissima

It has been argued here and elsewhere that a vocal minority of uptight feminists are trying to whine their way into changing the over-arching board structure.

Whether this is true or not as no bearing on the amount of people making the comments in question.

@DiosaBellissima

Make up your mind. Either it’s most everybody or it’s not.

It seems you’re the one who’s confused here.

[twickster]

@Acsenray

1. what about the first prong of the three-pronged test? It was not a comment against a member of the board. I am under the impression that all three prongs must be met in order to warrant moderation

2. the CMU’s student’s protest was a sexually themed protest. As I said before, I think it was a clever, funny etc. protest, bit it was at least in part about sex. To deny that is baffling. And the resulting thread was not a serious non-sexual thread.

1. Your impression is wrong. if all three answers are “no,” there will be no moderation. If one or more is yes, the comment may be subject to moderator action.

2. The woman may have been protesting about issues concerning sex, but that doesn’t mean “I’d like to spank her” is an appropriate response.

And now – I’ve got work to do. I’m not going to be responding to additional “yeah buts” for the next couple of hours. I’ll check back in this evening.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Steophan

Look, saying I want to fuck you is neither an insult nor a threat. That doesn’t mean it’s always - or even often - appropriate, but it’s no inherently worse than saying I want to talk to you, or I want to show you my stamp collection. The prudishness on display here is frankly disturbing.

Seriously? Sure, it’s not inherently worse, but it’s appropriate in a much narrower range of circumstances, very few of which include talking to strangers, especially compared to the things you’re comparing it to.

If it’s simply because some people - or even most people - find them unpleasant and don’t want to read them, it isn’t.

Why not?

@twickster

2. The woman may have been protesting about issues concerning sex, but that doesn’t mean “I’d like to spank her” is an appropriate response.

I think that the third criterion may not be phrased exactly right. The woman was joking about sex, but she was doing it with a serious point. Some jokes about her might be fair game, e.g., coarse descriptions of her fashion choices. But what’s gross is the idea that her silly protest opens her up to explicit descriptions of sex acts performed on her.

I’m not sure how that criterion ought to be expressed, but it should be clear that we don’t need to read the leering jokey fantasies of posters even when they’re about someone who makes a humorous statement involving sex.

[Senegoid]

@Shodan

I honestly did not want to do this, but can you give some kind of definition by which we can decide what situations are sexual, and what are not? Public nudity, pubic hair, and condoms are apparently not it.

Regards,
Shodan

It means that Dopers will now have to be verrrry careful what they write in threads about gardening. Flowers, after all, are plants’ sex organs. Threads containing any discussions of such must be evaluated carefully to decide if they are serious discussions in which case, no jokes about the hummingbirds and bees may be permitted.

Elsewhere, in a talk I heard once, this was pointed out. When you admire the beauty of chrysanthemums or stoop to sniff the sweet scent of roses or honeysuckles, you’re admiring and sniffing their sex organs!

The mods will be watching any such discussions very closely!

ETA: And don’t even think about asking for anthurium pix!

[Tequila_Party]

@Red_Barchetta

Half the board? Really? :dubious:

You mean like the stupid joke I was responding to? Obviously.

@Jack_Batty

It seems you don’t have so much of a problem with “sexist humor” as you do with hackneyed jokes. In that case, I’ve got more sour news for you. If we cut out all the hackneyed jokes at this board, the web-traffic would be decimated.

Sorry if you’ve heard that one before.

No, I’d do probably the same thing as the cashier. Roll my eyes and wonder why anyone would bother with such a lame attempt at a joke. But the reason for addressing it was to point out how it adds to the culture some are protesting (and that there are now rules against) and detracts from the experience of others, and to ask why, in the context of my example, anyone would want to trudge ahead with such dreck if it meets that criteria. Maybe I’m crazy, but when I crack a joke, I’d like for people to genuinely think I’m witty, not be unimpressed with my tone deafness. YMMV.

@Shodan

She had a Pope hat on, and a cross shaved into her pubic hair. This sounds like a serious topic to you?
So, no jokes on topics that might turn serious.

Regards,
Shodan

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy used to moonlight as a clown at kids parties. Would the broken down components (clowning, parties) negate the seriousness of the subject matter?

[Acsenray]

@twickster

1. Your impression is wrong. if all three answers are “no,” there will be no moderation. If one or more is yes, the comment may be subject to moderator action.

In that case, I have far more reservations than I initially expressed. I would say that it would be a moderately okay step if all three were required in order to trigger moderation. If the rubric is that any of the three can individually trigger moderation then I think this process has come to a terrible conclusion.

2. The woman may have been protesting about issues concerning sex, but that doesn’t mean “I’d like to spank her” is an appropriate response.

“I’d like to spank her” is neither clever nor funny. And it has almost no logical connection to the story. But it also is pretty tame. It’s rather minimally sexual. That something so small would be seen as deserving of moderation, particularly since it doesn’t actually demean anyone either specifically or generally seems heavy handed.

“I’d like to nail her cross” however is clever and funny and entirely relevant to the story. It’s also a lot more sexual. But it also doesn’t insult anyone.

[Shodan]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Are you still going to say that Shodan claimed she was “asking for it?”

I have no headache with the assertion that the pantsless woman was “asking for it”, providing “it” consists of “people making crude jokes on an anonymous message board that she will never read or hear about”.
[QUOTE=twickster]
The woman may have been protesting about issues concerning sex, but that doesn’t mean “I’d like to spank her” is an appropriate response.
[/QUOTE]
Why is that?

What was inappropriate about it? That it was aimed at another Doper? I think we can agree it was not. That it was non-sexual/not involving issues concerning sex? I think we can agree now that it was. That it was serious? If the woman wanted to be serious, she would have performed her protest in some more serious manner than shaving her pubis and wearing a funny hat instead of pants.

This seems so ludicrous. Obviously it was a sexual situation - she had no pants on, and she was handing out condoms. Obviously this was not a deadly-serious situation requiring grave reflection - she was wearing a fucking Pope hat and she shaved her crotch in little designs.

She was acting in an intentionally ridiculous and provocative manner. So - surprise, surprise - she provoked some ridicule, or at least sexual remarks.

If she didn’t want people remarking on her ass, then put some pants on for God’s sake.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Acsenray

“I’d like to spank her” is neither clever nor funny. And it has almost no logical connection to the story. But it also is pretty tame. It’s rather minimally sexual. That something so small would be seen as deserving of moderation, particularly since it doesn’t actually demean anyone either specifically or generally seems heavy handed.

If heavy-handed means it comes down hard on something minor, and by “hard” you mean “warrants a moderator note for a first offense,” then I’m all about heavy-handed moderation. If it means that it meaningfully restricts conversation, I disagree.

“I’d like to nail her cross” however is clever and funny and entirely relevant to the story. It’s also a lot more sexual. But it also doesn’t insult anyone.

Yeah, and it’s also kind of gross. If you can’t think of a joke to make without being gross, try a different board.

[Guinastasia]

@Oakminster

The point being they were wrong to do the moderating they did in the sorority girl and pantless protestor threads, and they are wrong to come up with this new policy. It’s a solution looking for a problem, with certain mods falling over themselves to out-liberal each other.

Woohoo…look at sensitive and politically correct we are. Watch us pat ourselves on the back. Oh it is so hard to be a mod…poor little us…you posters are sooo mean. :rolleyes:

Remind me, who was the poster who flounced off not once, but twice because he felt his political view was insulted?

[Shodan]

@Tequila_Party

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy used to moonlight as a clown at kids parties. Would the broken down components (clowning, parties) negate the seriousness of the subject matter?

Not unless he killed somebody while performing as a clown.

Are you saying we can never laugh at clowns? Why not?

Regards,
Shodan

[Acsenray]

Heavy-handed to me in that particular case means doing anything at all about it.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yeah, and it’s also kind of gross. If you can’t think of a joke to make without being gross, try a different board.

Are you speaking for the SDMB now? Is this really what this is all about? Gross jokes are not allowed?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Are you saying we can never laugh at clowns? Why not?

Because they’re terrifying and creepy.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Acsenray

Heavy-handed to me in that particular case means doing anything at all about it.

In that case, huzzah for heavy-handedness!

Are you speaking for the SDMB now?

Obviously so; thanks for asking!

Is this really what this is all about? Gross jokes are not allowed?

For this value of “gross,” it looks that way, and I’m pretty cool with that.

[Marley23]

@Guinastasia

Remind me, who was the poster who flounced off not once, but twice because he felt his political view was insulted?

I’ve told a bunch of people to stop doing this. This is nothing except an attack on another poster. I’m issuing a formal warning here.