Where is the "graphic sexual content"?

About This Message Board
81

Maybe Skald needs to put a disclaimer into his thread titles: “Warning - may contain sarcastic disclaimers”. Then those that are triggered by sarcastic disclaimers will know to stay out of the thread. Acsenray is entirely correct - it isn’t enough that he is complying. He thinks differently about it, and that is driving people crazy.

What purpose is served by warning him for putting too many disclaimers into his posts? How does it hurt the boards if he does this? Does it drive people away? Does it offend you?

Cripes. OK, you got your trigger warnings because heaven forfend someone should mention porn in a silly hypothetical. Now you are all triggered because he is mentioning that he isn’t mentioning it.

If you can’t bear it, put him on Ignore and you won’t take the risk that you might see something that offends your feelings.

He’s doing what the mods said. If the problem is that he is not being submissive enough, get the hell over yourself.

Regards,
Shodan

82

So mocking people who have spent weeks and pages and pages criticizing his behavior and accusing him of “triggering”, whatever that is, mocking these folks is now against the rules? We’re going to be so PC pretty soon that there won’t be any point in coming here. No mocking? Sad.

83

I’ll just leave it at that. “Regards”, to you, too.

84

Actually, he’s doing SPECIFICALLY what the mods told him not to do. 2 mod notes in 2 different threads.

85

Actually he is trending jerk. Repeated failure to heed moderator instructions is being a jerk, even if the instructions aren’t in perfect sync with perfect justice. Non-jerks understand this.

Moderation of this issue has been fantastic, in my view. I oppose Skald’s banning at this point. Give him a warning now. See what happens. It’s his railroad.

See post 8. Dialing down the rhetoric, repeated usage of false disclaimers causes them to be ignored. False disclaimers don’t serve any ignorance fighting purpose. I agree with the mods, that Skald deserves 2 strikes though, which he has received.

So far, we have a standard application of SDMB procedures. Again, nice work mods.

See above. If Skald doesn’t like the current application of longstanding rules, he should make his case in an ATMB thread. If it’s not worth doing that, well he’s had his opportunity to make his objections known, and he has made them.

I understand that the current bar involves, “…hypotheticals include graphic or demeaning sexual activity, especially if the thread titles or description doesn’t make it clear that’s where the threads are going.” (Post 5). That’s easy to follow. It doesn’t involve a more difficult “May offend” criteria, which Skald has repeatedly implied he is struggling under.

And c’mon Skald: you’re a wordsmith. If you can’t aknowledge that offense is an issue, along with every other sort of reader response, it’s time to turn in your writer’s license. I wouldn’t hold most posters to this standard (and mods shouldn’t hold any poster to this standard) but again: c’mon…

Jeez!

I would support the opening of an ATMB thread on this topic, and the banning/editing of the N and C words in thread titles. Mod edits provided free of charge, usually with only a mod note in cases where the poster isn’t otherwise problematic. IMHO only.

Finally, I sincerely hope that Skald straightens up and flies true, because I believe he offers worthwhile content to this message board. He is a valued poster, but we have lost valued posters before.

86

Shodan, kayt, Acsenray, whoever else, listen the fuck up. There’s a difference between being offended by something, and by being made uncomfortable by a poster who clearly gets his rocks off by including degradation of women in some form or another in enough posts to have grounds to enforce a new rule. We want no part of Skald’s sexual gratification and do not want it forced on us. If you can’t see that’s the real issue and choose to think it’s just a bunch of SJW, libtard, extreme feminism nonsense, you’re either willfully blind, beyond naive, or you get off on the misogyny as well. I’ll leave it to you all to decide which you are.

87

Well said, expecto. Joey P. isn’t the only one who should go make himself some popcorn.

88

Moderator Note

Dial it way back. This is not the forum for personal attacks.

89

It would be a sad day on this message board if temperate mockery was discouraged. Conservatives are on the receiving end of it all the time. The Perfect Master utilizes it as a rhetorical tool with some frequency.

Fighting ignorance involves among other things the understanding of differing perspectives. Some don’t like the equivalent of having to scrape dog turd off their shoes, following an accidental encounter on a residential sidewalk. Others don’t like having their entirely innocent if bawdy expression regulated. Still others believe they can fairly make cynical conclusions about another poster’s motivations, without having to substantiate their claims in any sort of detail. There are other perspectives, of course: I left out my understanding of yours.

The twin goals of this message board are fighting ignorance and making wisecracks. Wisecracks are distinguished from trolling in that humorists desire that their audience enjoy their shtick, as opposed to for example finding it annoying and wholly lacking in illuminating qualities.

90

Aye… he has made his point. Duly noted how he feels about it, time to move on. He has substance and really, at the point in his life where he ostensibly is, should he really want to go down in flames over this, rather than use that substance to shine?

91

Moderator fail.

92

I just can’t believe you moderators volunteer for this.

It would take a substantial pile of cash for me to deal with this over and over and OVER again.

Thanks for the great modding in this, because I don’t remember if I said it before.

93

Get over it yourself. Who would’ve thunk someone would be grossed out by coming upon a very graphic description of incestuous orgies and facials. Yeah, that’s not a big deal at all. :rolleyes:

I don’t appreciate having to just run into that while I’m sitting here eating a sandwich or something like that. Duh, common sense?

Nobody said you weren’t. Likewise, we’re allowed to point out why we feel you’re wrong.

And I’d say that being “cantankerous” and “petulant” definitely qualifies as being a jerk. How can it not? He’s sulking and acting like a big baby over a perfectly reasonable request.

It’d be like if someone got modded for constantly breaking the “two-click” rule or constantly putting spoilers in “No Spoiler” threads, and then started putting Spoiler Warnings in EVERY SINGLE POST they make.

94

Polite clarification: Being cantankerous and petulant qualifies as being a human. But repeatedly doing that in the face of moderator instructions -after you have made your point multiple times- is definitely trending jerkitude.

95

I don’t object to the ruling, and I even get why someone ignoring instructions might need a Warning.

But you state in the Warning that you don’t understand why Skald is not responding well. And it seems obvious to me, so I wish to explain.

The actual ATMB thread was not too bad. But it was preceded by a Pit thread that had to be closed due to harassment, and some pittings outside the Pit in threads by and about Skald. In those threads, false claims were made, like that Skald always included sexual violence in his hypotheticals, when he in fact rarely does. Or that his hypotheticals always focused on sexual topic, which they didn’t. Or even that he never made his hypotheticals gender neutral, something he is well-known for doing.

The threads also included a post bringing up an issue posted about in 2011 that had already been dealt with back then. Supposedly the problem was about a single thread, but they were bringing up stuff from the long past. That’s like when your spouse brings up 5 years ago when you did something, even though you dealt with it then. I still think such posts are a pretty good indicator that the people involved are choosing to try and harass another poster.

And while I said the ATMB thread was “not too bad,” it did include a bit about Skald masturbating to his threads, which is a shitty accusation to make. And a bunch of people were turning “bad arguments” into “don’t listen to women”–even when the other threads weren’t even primarily by women.

So now, after that, people involved in those threads get a victory. They get the mods to force something on him. And you guys made it specific to him, given that you contacted him directly. And then he’s complied with the orders, but had threads shut down because he was a bit cross about having to do so (and he can’t respond in the ATMB thread, since it was closed down.) And now a Warning where you can’t understand why he might be upset.

I’m not saying his actions are right. Please do not read this as me defending him. He shouldn’t keep doing this. But I 100% understand why he is upset, and I feel I would be upset in his shoes.

Again, I support the moderation decision. It was a good one, that balanced everything. I think Bone was perfectly even handed, and I loved that he even told people to be fair and didn’t let the ATMB thread turn into yet another attack on Skald. I 100% support trigger warnings on threads, so people can avoid them if reading about certain things will cause them mental distress (which is different from “being offended”).

I support all the decisions. But I also understand why Skald would be feeling put upon. I see no sign he intentionally was posting with the intent of hurting anyone. But all those accusations of being a horrible, misogynist sex fiend have a way of making people feel attacked. And to have to hear them spoken aloud, without the ease of just skipping them? Ugh.

I do hope the mods are being as kind as possible in “reaching out” to him. I know that my experience when mods reach out is often less than that. I mean, you guys still do the whole “you should know better” thing, after all.

96

How many mod notes and closed threads before someone could be expected to know better?

97

Cool story bro.

98

Speaking for myself, I don’t want Skald to leave (voluntarily or in-).

That said, the warning was a fair cop. While I didn’t participate in the threads where (in my view) the discussion was about the problems people had with the frequency and inessentiality of his bringing up instances of sex-related ordeals his protagonists had undergone, I harbored the opinion that the complaints were, by and large, coming from an overly fragile emotional worldview.

Similarly, while I didn’t read the resultant mod ruling first-hand, I did find the locked threads Skald had started, and by the time I saw the “disclaimer” the second time, I started saying to myself “Skald really needs to knock it off with this ‘I’m not TOUCHING you!’ schtick.”

So the warning for violating moderator instructions was legitimately handed down. I don’t agree that the mod loop conference came to the correct conclusion, and my impression is that the ruling smacks of pandering, but the rule was put out there, and I hope it will be complied with.

And I hope, with great intensity, that Skald doesn’t just decide to wash his hands of us. I can’t say with any specificity what he value gets from being a Doper, but I DO say that visiting the Board is a richer and more enjoyable experience for me BECAUSE he’s a part of it.

99

Could someone point to the original offending threads?

I mean the ones that caused the moderators to give instructions. Not the ones where he mocks the instructions.

I rarely read Skald’s threads. It isn’t that they offend me, they just don’t interest me. I’ve been looking through a few, and can’t see anything offensive. And the pit thread is years old and complaining about nothing in particular started by a banned person, presumably a sock or troll.

100

Speaking as a poster, the moderators closed two threads before issuing a warning. The next warning or the warning after that might include the statement that posting privileges are under discussion, if it happens within the next 3 months or so.

Full disclosure: the mods are typically stricter than my instincts say they should be. Two warnings in two years for example is considered too many by a hefty margin, whether or not it results in suspensions or banning. The first warning is suppose to be a big wake up call, and mod notes are very much intended to be heeded. The beauty of this system is that it tolerates a wide variety of behaviors, some experimental, but that not following moderator instructions is being a jerk. The board permits some forms of bigotry for example, but bigots usually lack the discipline to follow reasonable instruction. So they end up viewing the other side of the door. The great majority of the banned are not bigots though.

Official statements emphasize that there are no strict rules and context is important. I’ll add that instabans occur for spamming and the like; this reply is intended to be informal, noncomprehensive, and based upon one poster’s observations only.