Wow, you are clearly not reading the words I’m writing and have created an identity for me completely out of your own imagination. So, really, I have nothing to say to any of this.
Sigh.
The resurrection of the 2012 pit thread involved this attack, alleging that one thread represented part of a disturbing pattern by Skald. A total of one post outlined this pattern in any sort of detail: it was replied to here by LHOD. Nobody really addressed the substance of LHOD’s differing interpretation; there wasn’t any serious textual analysis, though there was a lot of accusation.
That said, there was another offending thread offered up which led to broad consensus regarding content advisories. It was this one, eventually referred to time and time again. So that’s the thread you requested. Singular, not plural. ETA: That said, there were IMHO legit claims that a number of posters were offended by Skald threads, taken as a whole. But offense is a different category of objection than characterization of Skald’s motivations.
The pit thread was started in 2012 about a different issue with Skald, and was bumped on page 3 and from there started a discussion about the current issue. Read from page 3 on if you want to get current.
Absolutely untrue. I seriously cannot believe people are still trying to defend Skald after this whole thing and his reaction to it. Also, you forgot to mention the behavior described in this post. But no, there’s no pattern here. None whatsoever.
Offense or worse. See: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20980097&postcount=391
ETA: Yes, that’s another relevant post that I should have worked in somehow. It was an accusation of bad off board behavior made in 2011. I never did the digging necessary to evaluate the legitimacy of the underlying complaint. It was alluded to by BigT, however.
I’ll repeat. A total of one post outlined this pattern in any sort of detail with textual substantiation.
I have now read every single post in every single thread on this subject, except for the ones I didn’t read after I got bored, which was the vast majority of them. Thread titles should not be misleading when the OP contains potentially offensive material. Ok, that one is easy. After that it is a waste of time to discuss. There’s nothing wrong with pointless disclaimers about content that doesn’t exist. It harms no one. If mods can order a poster not to do that they can order a poster to not write anything. There’s no basis for it in the rules. Grow up. I sincerely regret opening this thread. I had no idea there was this kind of idiotic childish behavior going on from everyone involved.
Oh my god it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, except more painful. Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that if Skald wished to address this issue in good faith, either defending his posting practice or addressing the criticism, he’s had ample time and opportunity to do so: the fact that he’s chosen instead to be petulant and passive-aggressive in unrelated threads speaks a lot to his contemptuous, entitled attitude to this board and its members, particularly women members. Unfortunately, some posters here seem to wish a cult of celebrity where a poster can be held to a different standard of behaviour, no matter how contemptible, as long as he is popular. All Skald has been asked to do is show respect and courtesy to others by adhering to existing board rules.
Man at the doctors office: “It hurts when I do this.”
Do you remember how the doctor responds?
He probably said something about some people not being worth the effort?
Doctor: “Then don’t do that”
Blame the victim for the crime.
I dunno, if there was a pattern of people banging their heads into the same obstacle, I might look at either labeling it as a hazard, installing better lighting, or seeing if the obstacle could be put somewhere else. I think management here are trying to work with the first two options, but some hazards are particularly stubborn. Anyway, it’s not like it’s a load-bearing wall.
Actually, THIS is the one that really got people upset – tell me if you don’t understand why people were a wee bit disgusted.
Later, in the Pit thread, someone gave some links to some of his other disturbing posts.
We’ve been over this a million times in the other threads. If you can’t be bothered to read them, your opinion is uninformed and not really worth sharing.
All he had to do was put (NSFW) in the title. That’s IT. And maybe, “Just a heads up – this is really graphic and violent, just so you know.” I don’t see how that’s a big deal. But dude’s fan club was all up in arms. Forgive me if I don’t like all of a sudden stumbling into a post about castration and cannibalism right after eating lunch.
I don’t need to read an endless litany of whining to provide an informed opinion. As a matter of fact my opinion is more informed on a factual basis then all the emotional responses from people who are butthurt over something they don’t need to look at. Labeling NSFW type threads is necessary and a valid complaint when it’s not done. Banning pointless disclaimers is as pointless as the disclaimers.
In irrc a Jasper Carrot sketch the man mimes a series of odd movements ‘Well don’t do that’ says the doctor. ‘How else am I going to put on my trousers?’ replies the man.
Women (and a few men, as well) protest about graphic description of abuse/incest/humiliation porn, from a poster who has a history of seeking out female posters to ask them their feelings on gang rape, and it’s described as “whining”. Wow. I mean seriously, wow. Misogyny is definitely alive and well on this board.
This isn’t a requirement for a trigger warning. I’m opposed to trigger warnings in general. This is a requirement for descriptive thread titles, and a requirement to follow mod instructions. Nearly everyone can do this.
Even if we were to say include disclaimers when they are needed as you suggest, then doing so when they are not needed would run against the purpose of that instruction. The entire point of a disclaimer, or a clear thread title, is to inform a reader about the subject they are reading. Superfluous disclaimers negate that purpose.
Mocking the other posters who are the detractors is perfectly within the rules, in the appropriate forum (Pit). Not following mod instructions is not within the rules in any forum. The instructions are very clear and easy to follow. Not doing so is indistinguishable from being intentional.
As an aside, I think it’s important to separate the instruction from the specific poster. This isn’t about Skald per se, though of course that is a catalyst. I recently reviewed the history of all warnings across the history of the board. Remember those old links that would be a normal-ish video, then all the sudden some scary looking face would appear at super loud volume? They were referred to as “jack in the box” links. When people did that, they got warnings. They got warnings because that’s jerkish - to trick people. That’s why we require descriptive thread titles - we want people to know what they are reading about. Ultimately hidden scat porn, jack in the box links, unclear thread titles, and superfluous disclaimers go against that idea.
I want to thank the mods for their good work here - it may not pay but it should not be thankless.
THANK YOU! 