“Go stand at the window and stick your tongue out. I’m mad at my neighbor.”
I understand why the mods did what they did, but if I had the coffee cups, I would allow this form of minor “protest.” Plus, it could be helpful in the sense that if a poster worried about another one of this type of thread from that poster, the disclaimer would be helpful in determining whether to read ahead. Just MHO.
Expecto, did you read any of the words in TriPolar’s post, or any of mine? Where are you getting any of this from them? Can you quote any of my words that say any of this?
I’m all for this. I myself have communicated with the mods on more than one occasion when I believed a thread title was I sufficiently descriptive. This is a great rule. I have no argument with it.
The post linked to in the OP says, in summary, “this thread is not about rape or torture.” If that is an accurate description of the thread then I see no problem with it. That in no way defeats or counters or negates a rule on descriptive and accurate thread titles.
I read the original instruction to mean that Skald should not use a generic disclaimer, like "just to warn you, sometimes my threads are about rape or torture, so if you read this there’s a possibility you will see graphic descriptions of those things.
But that’s not what he did in that thread. So even if it’s meant to get a rise out of someone, why take the bait?
I agree. All such things should be properly labeled.
A post that starts with “There is no explicit sexual content in this post” doesn’t do that and it doesn’t interfere with a rule prohibiting that, provides that it’s true.
That should be the only question: is it true? If it’s true, then let it go. If it’s a deception, take action.
Dammit, that was the one I meant to link to in the 2nd paragraph, the one I referenced with the phrase, “Time and time again”. Instead I linked to the April thread, which caused the 2012 Skald pitting to be resurrected. My bad. :smack:
Peter Morris: That’s the key thread in my view, the one above.
But this one I covered with the link to the LHOD post, which admittedly he backpeddled away from insofar as broad brushes are concerned, but whose counter-interpretation was never seriously addressed.
X 1000! Thank you mods!
Yes, I did. You and he both appear to be taking the position that there shouldn’t have been any mod action against Skald and that his recent, pointless disclaimers were legit and not petulant and butthurt, and above all, jerkish. Tripolar referred to the complaints as “whining”. Am I wrong? Is that not your position? If I read something wrong, I’ll retract, but if you’re in support of Skald I stand by what I said.
That isn’t what this thread is about. As a matter of fact it is the total opposite of that. It’s about a thread that specifically does not have graphic sexual content. Start your own thread if you want to go into that and stop hijacking mine.
What counter-interpretation? I was asked to provide cites that Skald’s OPs frequently mentioned rape or sexual abuse, and I did so. If you choose to spin those references as “well, that’s not rape qua rape” or “well, that’s just to establish the character is bad”, that’s up to you, but the fact remains that a lot of Skald’s “hypotheticals” mention rape. Full stop. Deciding how prurient his intentions are in this is left as an exercise to the reader: if you think it’s innocuous, that’s your judgement, but whatever his motivations, a lot of posters prefer not to have their faces rubbed in his predilection. I’m one of them.
so it was explained to you, over and over and over and over again. and you still don’t get it.
ETA that is for tripolar
You hijacked your own thread by characterizing us as “whining”. Own it.
That was in my OP before I had any explanation at all of what that warning was about.
Your post, which consisted of a link list, was referenced by others to indicate Skald’s motivation. You are to be congratulated for substantiating your claims with a link list. Yours was the sole post in the the thread critical of Skald outlining a pattern in any sort of detail. I don’t expect you calculate the share of hypotheticals involving rape, but I would conjecture that is well under a third. (I don’t follow Skald too closely).
Another poster most definitely did not leave speculation regarding motivation as an exercise left to the reader. I am heartened that you view things that way. There are other reasonable positions, though all accusatory ones should involve textual substantiation in my view. LHoD provided another interpretation of Skald’s posts, noting that non-consensual sex is common in mystery fiction, and that Skald’s links referenced were in no way salacious. Nobody responded to LHoD with textual analysis. Not interested.
Upthread, I endorsed content advisories, not for the first time, so we are in agreement about that.
Or you can stop whining. That’s what you are doing. Own it. I am disagreeing with the childish idea that pointless disclaimers can’t be put into OPs. ‘Whining’ is a rather mild way of describing that. And plenty of posters disagreeing with you are whining also.
And in addition, hijacking is taking a thread into a subject not addressed in the OP. This thread is about why ITD modded Skald, and it turns out that is about a pointless but accurate disclaimer in an OP, not your personal problem with the content of any poster’s threads.
I assume based on the history of this nonsense that adults aren’t going to add anything else to this thread so I’m asking mods to close it.
If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. Take your own advice.
Getting back to the topic, these are the arguments that TriPolar has to convincingly address.
Well, I’d say, no, there’s nothing WRONG, per se. And no, it doesn’t technically harm anyone.
It is, however, being a dick. If you have no problem with people acting like dicks hey, whatever. I disagree, and apparently, so do the mods.
You know what? If somebody starts thread after thread which just happen to drop in references after reference to leopard-skin board shorts, then textual analysis be damned, I’m just going to assume that the guy really wants to talk about leopard-skin board shorts.
Just another thank you to the mods for the original decision and for subsequently enforcing the ‘don’t be a jerk’ rule.
I really appreciate efforts made to make the regular day-to-day board experience more welcoming and less mine-fieldy for regulars and newcomers alike.
You are welcome to do that.
But without bringing this back into pit-thread material, LHoD noted that Stephen King writes about murder time and time again. I agree that King wants to write about such topics. I disagree with those who surmise that King himself is inclined towards violence. Or his audience is for that matter. None of Skald’s critics responded to this point by LHoD. No interest.
One major problem with LHoD’s analogy is that when I go to read mystery fiction, or something like Stephen King, watch SVU, etc., I KNOW what I’m getting into. And I’m CHOOSING to do so, on my own. It’s not someone else springing it on me. Like I said, it would be like reading a book about animals and someone included goatse in there.
People aren’t disturbed because he talks about rape a lot. It’s because he’ll just casually drop a graphic description of it unexpectedly into a discussion.
And if he really didn’t intend to do so, you’d think he’d apologize and say gee, I’m sorry about that. I didn’t think about it. But no, he’s pissed that people called him on it, and is now acting like a little kid, which to me says he knew exactly what he was doing.
So the “non-warnings” are just him giving the middle finger to everyone who ruined his fun. At least, that’s the way I see it.