I was about to sign on to Dead Badger’s proposed rule myself, and I think this post by Ed offers a perfectly fair solution – assuming that the list of words replaces, rather than supplements, the “abuse vs. insult” or “sexual vs. non-sexual” distinctions that have been made so far.
This is good news; I think it will bring some much-needed clarity. I should say, please don’t be surprised when people still have issues (myself probably included) - the list itself will obviously be a matter of contention, but at least it’s a common point of reference. Not to belabor the point, but I really do recommend keeping it to the really offensive stuff - I think the “dick” and “asshole” territory we’re presently mired in is pretty woolly, and I sincerely hope you reconsider at least some of the words you’ve currently ruled out.
I’ll echo what Giraffe said - I think that while I can see the rationale behind banning truly horrible words, the whole terminology question itself is a bit of a red herring, and that putting effort into what defines a hateful post will bring the most benefit. I don’t want to see staff abused any more than you (I fully support the “complaints in ATMB” rule, for example), nor do I really want to see truly despicable things levelled at users. But if this really was the goal of the new rules, then I think it’s been a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As my semi-joking post above shows, the SD front page is pretty unremittingly sexual - I don’t think it’s mere crudity that’s the problem here, so isolating what the real issue is deserves a bit more thought.
Well, yes, I agree with the latter; I envisaged that post violating it. I think this is a pretty easy standard to enforce, given that interpretation, and I don’t think many posts in the Pit would fall foul of it; very few people put no content in their posts besides epithets. I think even in the Pit it’s perfectly possible to put at least some meat on the bones, and that this is a reasonable standard to expect. It still allows people freedom to vent their anger with intractable wallies, while eliminating pure back-and-forth insult trading. It also makes no vague judgment about the quality of insults; only their gratuitousness.
Anyway, even if I still disagree with some of the premises behind the current changes, I appreciate your post as a definite move towards a workable moderation policy, and I hope others are similarly encouraged.
I definitely am.
If nothing else, I got to write about being “mired in dick and asshole territory” with a completely straight face. This can only be a good thing.
No, wait, that’s not what I meant…
Absolutely!
I was trying to explain this place to my intern today, and decided to just run through the list of Cecil columns from the main page - and well, there you go - I tried to tell her it wasn’t all sex stuff, but your own page proved me wrong. And how ironic that it’s the sexual nature of the word that gets your attention. Or is it the slang term? Dickhead not ok, but penis breath is?
I don’t think it even counted against the first X-Men movie’s (PG-13) curse word count…
Oh, absolutely. I think this will greatly simplify matters for everyone.
This is certainly open for discussion.
I gotta tell you, I’ve been getting some static about the home page, most of it ribbing during conference calls, but it definitely got noticed within the company. Thing was, we’re cycling through TSD classics again, which originally came out of the TSD books, and we happen to be going through the sex chapter of Book 1 right now. Agreed on your general point.
Well, let’s take this one step at a time. I agree about gratuitousness, but as you can see from the discussion up till now, it’s one of those things that’s in the eye of the beholder.
Good, glad to hear it. Appreciate your efforts in arriving at a reasonable solution.
So, given that “jerk” is just the short version of “jerk off” a euphemism for masturbation, a sexual act.
Does the primary [del]directive[/del] rule of this board not violate the new rules itself?
CMC fnord!
I’d note too that these euphemisms for sexual acts and body parts are changed when they’re used to insult. Calling someone a “pussy” isn’t calling them a vagina, the word doesn’t mean just that anymore.
Same with “dick”, “cunt”, “asshole”, etc.
“Fuck” is an exception here, “Go fuck yourself” is still pretty sexual, “You stupid fuck” isn’t (“You stupid sexual intercourse”? Does that make any sense?).
You’ve got to be kidding. Really, you do. A company that owns and operates a number of alternative newspapers is giving you shit for mature sexual content?
Good luck, Ed. Seriously, my sympathies. You and Savage.
Tell them to go get a job at the Rocky Mountain News
If the local rag is any indication, “alternative” isn’t very alternative anymore.
They have a link to Savage Love on the front page. And, oddly enough, in the adult classifieds, I spotted this: CLAUDIA! A MUST SEE Great Rates! $100 FOR 15 MIN
Any company that willingly and happily runs such ads has no business worrying about what shows up in the Straight Dope anymore than they should worry about Dan Savage.
Heh, yeah, I felt a bit unfair highlighting that one, as it did look like a bit of a statistical anomaly. Still funny, though, given the context. 
It’s interesting you mention getting stick from within the company (albeit relating to the SD homepage rather than the boards). One of the greatest challenges I remember facing at the BBC was that higher-ups would come and look at our boards for five minutes a month, see something they didn’t like (usually a minor tiff) and come down on us mods saying that this sort of thing shouldn’t be visible, as if we could simply excise entirely normal human interactions from an entire community. We had the very devil of a time convincing them that some of this stuff was just the functioning of a healthy internet community. Sometimes what looks irredeemable to the casual eye is just a normal situation working itself out. I had a very long and boring post written out in another thread on this, but I really did hold this place up as an example of how it ought to be done for the BBC bosses. They never took the message, because they never really troubled themselves to wonder what a functioning community looks like in the round. They treated it entirely as an editorial problem, and both mods and users suffered as a result.
Finally, I agree re: gratuitousness being in the eye of the beholder; at a fundamental level all mod standards are a judgement call - the trick is in minimising the judgement required. I do feel though that my definition comes closer to an objectively articulable standard than the “creativity” one. Creativity is almost endlessly debatable, whereas whether one disagrees with the standard or not, it’s pretty plain whether a post is predominantly abuse. It’s also pretty easy to avoid one’s post being modded by this rule, and in doing so one is forced to make non-abusive points, which is the basic goal. This is the trick of good moderation; if it’s done well, people are steered into more interesting conversation without ever realising it.
Nobody inured to Savage would blink twice at Pit threads, even the silly ones where some hapless dolt succumbed to the “…and since it’s The Pit…fuck!” chestnut only to be mocked. Not even classic firestorms like indoor/outdoor cats, circumcision, stupid customers and of course national politics could phase that crowd.
Actually I’m rather more horrified by occasional TMI threads in MPSIMS about alarming bowel movements, volcanic zits, most horrific injuries ever endured and comparing menstrual clots than most cussing.
Though I loathe the word ‘cunt’ and don’t care if it’s used casually elsewhere.
Was this ribbing solely about the home page, or was it about the home page **in conjunction with **your mission to cut down on the potty language?
Just the home page. We have ad guys out making calls, and what I hear is: Christ almighty, Ed, I’m trying to sell your goddamn site and I call it up on the laptop and the whole thing is pigs and six-minute orgasms. And I’m thinking … and I swear to you, this is not the primary motivation, but the thought passes through my mind … please God, don’t let them find the Pit.
They’ve also dropped the graphic ads from the print edition and all the comic strips. Refrigerator Johnny, which once had an entire strip dedicated to the main character jerking off in bed, hasn’t been run in years.
Ed, straight up…I 've been riding your ass as hard as anybody over this thing. If you’re open to suggestions without snark, I offer the following in good faith:
If you pit somebody, you can use any words you want. What you can’t do is make a post that is just an obscene rant. You’ve got to have an actual point, and it needs to be about something the target has actually posted on this board. It can’t be about who they are, or what they believe.
Under this rule:
- Oakminster you ignorant Southern conservative cocksucking fucknugget. I hate you.
This is not acceptable.
- Oakminster, you posted support for the “Black Market” episode of Battlestar Gallactica. You cherry flavored douche, I hope you choke on donkey shit. Everybody knows that episode blows goats. What’s next, ass pimple, you gonna defend Season 5 of Babylon 5? You’re a stupid dripping cuntsore.
This would pass muster.
Yes, the language is intentionally over the top, for illustrative purposes. Neither of these would be considered a quality rant.
This rule make sense to me, as do the examples. Combine that with no profanity in thread titles, and aren’t we 90% there?
My suggestion:
-Calling someone a “cunt” is pretty freakin’ offensive in general; not quite but in the same league as “nigger.” I wouldn’t at all mind seeing it banned as hate speech.
-Otherwise, I really like your idea of banning exceptionally hateful shit; this is an extension of the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and I think its vagueness works in its favor. It’s not contradictory.
-Banning “fuck you” or “fuck off” seems unnecessary, as I’ve argued repeatedly.