It was 4:30 in the morning and I was up with a sore throat and cough. I’m lucky any of it was readable!
And yes, both that comment and the one to the OP were just the gentlest of nudges to make sure this thread doesn’t devolve into personal sniping. 
The problem with that is that people have sometimes said really awful things right to my face. Apparently, they were comfortable with being really rude, obnoxious, or hurtful.
I thought we agreed you were our team’s dedicated jungler. 
If they tiptoe to the line, then by definition, they are in compliance. The benefits of bright line rules are clear. If I see a sign on the interstate that says Speed Limit 70, then I know that if I am travelling at 70mph or below, then I am in compliance; at 71 or above, I risk getting cited. Easy peasy. If I am going 70mph nobody suggests that I am flirting with the rule and just edging the point of lawlessness, cruelly tempting the police.
The standard you propose is just a meaningless collection of words with no discernible direction. Who are the “women members” that we are talking about? They are not a monolithic entity. Some don’t necessarily mind comments about attractiveness and others are hypersensitive, while most are somewhere in between. Which ones set the standard? What is the standard?
It seems that even if we cannot have a bright line rule, we should have a meaningful one. As HurricaneDitka points out with the examples, there is no rhyme or reason as to why some statements are moderated and others are not. We can talk about KellyAnne Conway’s appearance, but not some random woman seated in the audience at the Kavanaugh hearing. The objection there was that the woman in the audience was a successful career woman in Washington and should not be objectified by a remark about her appearance. Well, isn’t that also true about KellyAnne Conway??
The “policy” seems to be that whatever a particular moderator personally thinks is objectionable is moderated in a subjective and standardless fashion. I agree with HurricaneDitka that we need a written policy with some substance.
How about “don’t be a jerk?”
Why should we have to go further than that? Don’t be a dick. It’s easy.
Yeah, a bunch of people wanting to know exactly where that line is so they can dance on it would be about as pleasant as a school bus filled with children pulling that “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” crap.
Writing is inherently a nuanced activity, there’s no mathematical bright line. Everyone knows this. To demand an explicit rubric is to abandon consideration of intent by furnishing a specific criterion that will be easily circumvented, which really seems like the goal here.
Here’s a proposal for the edgelords, why don’t you come up with a definition of misogyny that you feel is appropriate? It would be helpful to have a starting point.
A better analogy is that of a baker who wants to know the maximum amount of objectionable materials permitted by the FDA so he can pack his blintzes and bear claws with as many rat turds as possible without getting shut down.
At the same time you know to drive safely even though the reckless driving law just says “drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” You aren’t going to go up to the judge and say “Well the law didn’t specifically say not to slam on my brakes and ran times and swerve back and forth.”
UltraVires, I suggest you (re-)read what IvoryTowerDenizen said about the problem with the original thread.
It seems rather clear to me where the line is by looking at these two threads. Respectful talk about attraction? Fine. “Locker room” hurr-de-hurr jokes that objectify women and tell us about your genitals? Not so fine.
If the rule is “Don’t be an asshole”, which do you think would be a better situation?
- Posters not wanting to be assholes, or
- Posters asking “Exactly how much of an asshole can I be and get away with it?”
Cite.
Was aceplace57’s OP sexual? Sure seems that way to me, so ISTM that these rules should apply.
So,
- is No - the model isn’t a poster, she is a model.
- is No, because she is a model precisely because she is sexually attractive, and her attractiveness is the basis for the OP.
- is also No, unless jokes about ED or the sexual attractiveness of models are inherently serious.
To be fair, the other referenced thread is also three No’s.
So the SDMB hosts an ad that is supposed to attract attention by presenting a model who is pretty and has large breasts. At least one Doper pays attention. And he gets Warned because the ad the SDMB hosted did what it was supposed to do when the SDMB hosted it, and mentioned it in a way that does not break any of the alleged rules. The SDMB hosts click bait, one member falls for the click bait, and he gets Warned for doing what those who own the SDMB wanted him to do.
And people wonder why the rules are hard to figure out.
Regards,
Shodan
Just because a minority can’t(or doesn’t want to) figure out the rules is no reason to change or dump them. They seem to work just fine for the rest of us.
I hadn’t seen the Conway thread before reading this one, but frankly I found it rather tasteless. Would I have reported it? Probably not; I read lots of things on this board that I find tasteless that are likely within the rules. But neither would I have started a query regarding the consistency of moderation of such threads without bringing it to the attention of the mods first. Never assume a mod has read a post or thread in detail without it being specifically flagged for their attention; we crank out a helluva lot of material in any given day.
Conversely, I have on rare occasion reported posts that didn’t offend me at all but which I thought clearly violated board rules (sometimes correctly, sometimes erroneously). My sensitivity for offense is not the bright line (such as it exists) for determining rule violations.
That said, I’m all for clarity of guidance even with the understanding that a bright line isn’t always in the best interest of the board (e.g. to avoid “I’m not touching you!” style bullshit). If there is enough of an “anti-misogyny policy” to refer to it as such, it is always helpful to make sure that there is at least some explanation of what lies within it, even if it isn’t a comprehensive good/bad list. Otherwise, just moderate it under the “don’t be a jerk” rule as per usual.
I thought it was exactly the other way around.
People wonder how some posters can ask for bright-line rules when obviously there are millions of individual cases in which the thread or a post needs serious scrutiny and judgement for mods to come to an answer. An answer, which like many formal judicial rulings, will be disputed by some nonetheless.
How some posters can look at cases like this and demand hard rules to follow is perhaps the one question the Dope will never be able to answer.
And wade into the waters of misandry? I think we’re in deep enough already.
You attended the U.S. Naval Academy? 
The guidelines you listed are for posts dropped into other threads. IvoryTowerDenizen said she felt the ED ad model thread ventured into Penthouse forum territory which is another rule. A thread on "Who has the most squeezable tits in Hollywood " would also pass the guidelines you went over. Would you be confused or disappointed if a thread like that was closed?
Being a jerk is always being a jerk. Like that “fair sex” crack – that is definitely being a jerk, and that you act surprised that it is, is a great example of just how much being a jerk is embedded in some men’s DNA, to the point that nothing, no nothing, will penetrate their jerkishness. They’ll be saying in a perplexedly innocent voice, “gosh, I didn’t know THAT was being a jerk TOO!” until they die of natural causes or someone bludgeons them to death.
However, I agree that a lot of jerkishness, if directed at women, is let slide by (probably) male moderators.
Can’t. Given the density of some poster’s heads, the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Bludgeons would be all over anybody who tried this.