Where is the "graphic sexual content"?

[Morgenstern]

You admit deliberately doing something, two times, that you knew was wrong and against mod instructions. Now you do the same thing a third time and you claim it was accidental? I’m having a hard time understanding that mistake.

[TriPolar]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Oy vey. No, it’s not shameful. Someone mocks the rules, they’re told to knock it off, they post again in a manner similar to the manner they were told to knock off, they get a warning. That’s kind of how I want the moderation to run.

Mocking rules may be a god-given right, but this is an atheistic board. If you’re told to knock something off, ya better go ahead and do it.

Please point me to the rule against including accurate disclaimers in a thread.

And as far as your cholesterol analogy, it fails. Grocery products need to include a disclaimer that they do not contain any cholesterol as a result of dishonest campaign against a harmless ingredient in food. Skald now has to fight the perception that all of his threads contain graphic sexual content. And the idea that the inclusion of accurate disclaimers when not necessary will dilute the necessary disclaimers is ridiculous nonsense as well. As i understand it that was the basis for the arbitrary application of moderator instructions, although that was merely an excuse for something else IMNSHO.

[madsircool]

@tnetennba

Haven’t read IT in a while, eh?

Hate to feed the digression but here I go. Gary Jennings. Brilliant historical novelist, good storyteller. But he managed to work a child sex scene into every book, and there was only one where anyone batted an eyelash. Maybe that’s true historically but it felt like he was trying do more than expose the ugly realities of the past. I still read all of his books when I was in my 20s, I probably wouldn’t read them now in a middle-aged state of deepened empathy.

You are taking that single scene in a 1200 out of context. I must admit that I know many will disagree. That scene involved kids of all the same age and wasn’t written in an erotic matter. It was a bonding experience to bring the group together written in an age of far more liberal sexuality. He has never written anything like that since and his last two novels have a decided feminist bent.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@TriPolar

Please point me to the rule against including accurate disclaimers in a thread.

Goddamn, man. Is that really what you got from my post? I mean, take a breath, step away, and come back to the computer. I’m all about communicating honestly with folks, but I’m not feeling here that you’re interested in actual conversation.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I was marking the ruling in the cupcake & superman threads. Not in the thread from yesterday.

But as I said, I am not inclined to argue this issue.

As for this, Skald, I think–and this may be an understatement–that it’d be helpful if you’d explain why you include so many scenes involving sexual violence or coercion or general sexual unpleasantness in your hypotheticals–that’s the content folks are objecting to, and the speculation about your motives could maybe be clarified here.

[TriPolar]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Goddamn, man. Is that really what you got from my post? I mean, take a breath, step away, and come back to the computer. I’m all about communicating honestly with folks, but I’m not feeling here that you’re interested in actual conversation.

Oh sorry, I didn’t realize you were trying to justify the use of arbitrary modding.

[expectopatronum]

@TriPolar

And here I thought it was about fighting ignorance. I never realized censorship and arbitrary application of rules towards that end was part of that effort. This is a shameful incident on the reputation of this board. If Cecil wants to censor graphic sexual material he can do so, and maybe let us know what else should be censored in the name of fighting ignorance.

It’s shameful absolutely, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

What’s shameful is you’re more worried about so called censorship than combating sexism and misogyny on this board. Skald himself has replied and didn’t say word one about the core issue which caused the new rule to be made. No apology, no remorse. And yet his fans still rush to lick his boots and rules lawyer every Skald ruling into oblivion, trying to make the voices of many look like nothing more than trolls, snarkers, haters, whatever you want to call it.

Shameful, indeed.

[AncientHumanoid]

@expectopatronum

It’s shameful absolutely, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

What’s shameful is you’re more worried about so called censorship than combating sexism and misogyny on this board. Skald himself has replied and didn’t say word one about the core issue which caused the new rule to be made. No apology, no remorse. And yet his fans still rush to lick his boots and rules lawyer every Skald ruling into oblivion, trying to make the voices of many look like nothing more than trolls, snarkers, haters, whatever you want to call it.

Shameful, indeed.

+1

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Action

I think the OP has been answered about as well as it can be. At this point, we’re just rehashing the same issues as in the previous closed thread. I don’t see anything productive coming out of continuing this.

If anyone has a compelling reason to re-open this thread, send me a PM.

Thread closed.