Where is the "graphic sexual content"?

[Morgenstern]

@TriPolar

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.

Here’s the reason. As simple as possible.
Skald was told **NOT **to do something 2 times. By a mod.
Skald did it for a 3rd time.
Skald got warned.

Clearer?

[Morgenstern]

double post

[TriPolar]

@Morgenstern

Here’s the reason. As simple as possible.
Skald was told **NOT **to do something 2 times. By a mod.
Skald did it for a 3rd time.
Skald got warned.

Clearer?

I was given the reason in post #2. You really should try to keep up with the discussion.

[raventhief]

@TriPolar

I was given the reason in post #2. You really should try to keep up with the discussion.

So what’s the discussion then? You disagree with the mod ruling?

[Morgenstern]

@TriPolar

I was given the reason in post #2. You really should try to keep up with the discussion.

Well, you did make the comment, …This thread is about why ITD modded Skald, and it turns out that is about a pointless but accurate disclaimer in an OP,….

That made me think you were still confused about the 2 mod notes he ignored.
Or is it okay to do that?

[MrDibble]

@Acsenray

He’s not complying with what? Are his graphic sexual posts not adequately labeled as such? If they are, then just forget about the rest. At this point, you’re just enforcing rules for enforcement’s sake. “He’s resisting arrest! He’s resisting arrest!” You want him not only to comply with a substantive rule, but also do it with a smile.

The disclaimers when there’s no sexual content are, essentially, Skald passive-aggressively complaining about the moderation of the board. How many of those threads were made in ATMB, the *only *forum appropriate for complaining about the moderation?

Oh, none of them? Case closed.

[TriPolar]

@raventhief

So what’s the discussion then? You disagree with the mod ruling?

I had no idea this nonsense was going on when I saw that warning. It didn’t make any sense at all in reading the thread outside of the context of a controversy not included in it. Left Hand gave me enough information to know there was more to the story. This thread was not about failure to include proper disclaimers, no such thing occurred in the thread that it is about. The OP was a legitimate question on why a warning was given, a warning that the mod admitted was unclear. I am disappointed that a mod can decide to ban the use of innocuous and harmless phrases in a thread, it is an arbitrary decision. If you could read the thread in question without the coloring of the controversy involving threads of an entirely different nature you would see that the result is bizarre. I am also disappointed in some of the Dopers who cannot tell the difference between two entirely opposite concepts, the failure to include a necessary disclaimer and the inclusion of an unnecessary disclaimer, the latter essentially being pointless nonsensical text that is not in violation of any rule other than a mod deciding to make up a rule for reasons that I won’t characterize because I don’t care what they are. No one who was not involved in the prior controversy would see any problem at all with the pointless disclaimer or any other non sequitur that violates no rule inserted into an OP. This baseless and artificially derived rule is even more embarrassing to the board than the usual batshit nonsense drama that goes on here. And this thread has been hijacked by those who want to go back to the prior controversy and continue airing their grievances about it.

[TriPolar]

@Morgenstern

Well, you did make the comment, …This thread is about why ITD modded Skald, and it turns out that is about a pointless but accurate disclaimer in an OP,….

That made me think you were still confused about the 2 mod notes he ignored.
Or is it okay to do that?

Those mod notes were not in the thread in question of referenced in it. My question was answered about that. It is quite clear why the mods justified this warning. It is still unclear what the basis of the first two notes was. I can take a guess, but using my guesses as to the motivations for those notes is just as unfair as guessing the reason why Skald has included pointless disclaimers in threads.

[Morgenstern]

@TriPolar

Those mod notes were not in the thread in question of referenced in it. My question was answered about that. It is quite clear why the mods justified this warning. It is still unclear what the basis of the first two notes was. I can take a guess, but using my guesses as to the motivations for those notes is just as unfair as guessing the reason why Skald has included pointless disclaimers in threads.

Which he was told not to do.
This isn’t anti-Skald, it’s anti-gotcha.

[Guinastasia]

@TriPolar

I had no idea this nonsense was going on when I saw that warning. It didn’t make any sense at all in reading the thread outside of the context of a controversy not included in it. Left Hand gave me enough information to know there was more to the story. This thread was not about failure to include proper disclaimers, no such thing occurred in the thread that it is about. The OP was a legitimate question on why a warning was given, a warning that the mod admitted was unclear. I am disappointed that a mod can decide to ban the use of innocuous and harmless phrases in a thread, it is an arbitrary decision. If you could read the thread in question without the coloring of the controversy involving threads of an entirely different nature you would see that the result is bizarre. I am also disappointed in some of the Dopers who cannot tell the difference between two entirely opposite concepts, the failure to include a necessary disclaimer and the inclusion of an unnecessary disclaimer, the latter essentially being pointless nonsensical text that is not in violation of any rule other than a mod deciding to make up a rule for reasons that I won’t characterize because I don’t care what they are. No one who was not involved in the prior controversy would see any problem at all with the pointless disclaimer or any other non sequitur that violates no rule inserted into an OP. This baseless and artificially derived rule is even more embarrassing to the board than the usual batshit nonsense drama that goes on here. And this thread has been hijacked by those who want to go back to the prior controversy and continue airing their grievances about it.

This is it. I’m done. It’s been explained to you, and others, why it’s a problem, repeatedly. You either don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Guinastasia

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.

First attempt to actually address LHoD’s argument. Thank you.

For the first half, I’d say most of the outrage was focused on one particular thread posted by Skald. And, again, there was lots of support for content advisories.

For the 2nd half, one thread does not make a pattern. And people tend to react defensively, especially when there are bogus attacks. So while I find your scenario frankly plausible, I don’t think it’s strong evidence, since there’s another banal explanation that can explain the observed facts.

People generally get defensive when attacked, right? And a lot of the original attacks in my view were poorly sourced.

But serious thanks at least for trying to sketch a plausible scenario. Because frankly I’ve been pretty disgusted by the posts in the locked pit thread that didn’t bother to address LHoD’s point but nonetheless enthusiastically pitted Skald with accusations. In terms of motivation I say, “Bullying”.

But again, there was a legit point about content advisories which I supported in the teeth of complaints that I was missing the point.

@TriPolar

No one who was not involved in the prior controversy would see any problem at all with the pointless disclaimer or any other non sequitur that violates no rule inserted into an OP.

Um, no. Disagree. Promoting clarity about what the thread is about is a legit and not at all new issue. After a certain point, promotion of free expression and fair debate must reflect the reality that attention is a scare resource. Diluting content advisories to the point where they become ignorable boilerplate defeats the purpose.

[TriPolar]

@Measure_for_Measure

But again, there was a legit point about content advisories which I supported in the teeth of complaints that I was missing the point. Um, no. Disagree. Promoting clarity about what the thread is about is a legit and not at all new issue. After a certain point, promotion of free expression and fair debate must reflect the reality that attention is a scare resource. Diluting content advisories to the point where they become ignorable boilerplate defeats the purpose.

First, they are ignorable boilerplate already. You can pay attention to them or not.

Secondly, there is nothing unclear about the disclaimer in that thread.

[Penfeather]

@Measure_for_Measure

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.

I’m outski.

[MrDibble]

@Measure_for_Measure

I’d say most of the outrage was focused on one particular thread posted by Skald.

You’d “say”, even though multiple people (mostly women) said it wasn’t just the one thread? I’m sure there’s a word for this…tip of my tongue…

[Drunky_Smurf]

I find it disturbing how so many women, including a Mod, come in to a thread and say how a thing creeps them out. And then a bunch of men tell them they are wrong and that they shouldn’t have their own life experiences and feelings, and then the women say, “Fuck this. I’m out.”

And how waaaaay too many men sit back and say nothing.

What?

Do all you “men” hate your mothers and sisters and wives and daughters and 50% of all humans?

[Pantastic]

I’ve defended Skald’s hypotheticals before, for example when someone claimed that a post that involved nothing about sex and a post where he said he wouldn’t vote for a politician who covered up a rape were him posting lurid rape fantasies, but if I was a mod I’d probably just ban him for the passive-aggressive bullshit being discussed here. It honestly amazes me how much nonsense the mods are willing to tolerate on this board, and how many times they’ll engage in long threads like this.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Penfeather

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.

First, when I wrote “Y’all are crazy,” those are probably the three dumbest words I ever wrote on the Straight Dope. I’ve apologized before, but I’ll apologize again–and this time, reading what you wrote here, I’ll apologize to you for it. I had indeed come across your list as part of an explanation for Skald’s intentions, and interpreted it that way, not as just a list of mentions of the word “rape” or corollaries. But that’s no excuse, and I have no excuse. Sorry.

I do take issue with some of the things you included. One scenario involves an attempt to guilt someone into sex–an attempt that can be rebuffed by the victim with no consequence greater than maybe feeling guilty (or maybe not, because it’s super creepy to guilt someone into sex).

Saying that trying to guilt someone into sex is rape is…well, it’s a questionable claim. If someone wants to convince me that that’s correctly called rape, I’m all ears. I’ve always just called it super creepy and awful, but not all super creepy and awful things are rape.

@Guinastasia

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.

My analogy was 100% about Stephen King’s writing. Your argument with the analogy is 100% about reading Stephen King.

I’m sure this sounds like nitpickery. Bear with me.

I’m still, after all this time, unconvinced about what folks say about Skald’s intentions. The analogy to King is a big piece of why: I read these hypotheticals as an attempt at writing in the vein of genre fiction, including genre fiction tropes.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD RESPOND TO THEM AS TO GENRE FICTION. To the extent that, as you say, the content is sprung upon you, they’ve failed in their attempts to be genre fiction, where such tropes are to be expected.

But again, I used the analogy to explain my understanding of Skald’s intentions, not my understanding of folks’ reactions.

Finally, thanks to the mods for being on this; I think the content advisories (or whatever you want to call them) are a great idea, as is preventing them from being used for passive-aggressive snarking at people.

[Dead_Cat]

Let me preface this post by declaring that I am a man, and I don’t really give a shit about Skald one way or the other.

1. TriPolar is right that the original warning by ITD could have been clearer. Now it’s been explained to me, I see what it was intended to mean, but the more natural reading of it for those who didn’t know the backstory (like TriPolar and I) was that it was for failing to warn about explicit content in that thread. OK, whatever - move on.
2. I agree with those who have said the moderation of this board is generally excellent and we don’t say it enough - thanks, mods.
3. What I still don’t get (and I don’t think this can really be considered a hijack given the way the thread has gone) is why people are still whining about Skald’s behaviour. Even if he is getting off on making others uncomfortable, if that bothers you, just put him on ignore and that is literally the end of the problem. It’s not like in real life where if someone behaves inappropriately, the proper authorities need to be informed in order to put a stop to the behaviour. In this case, the power is literally in your hands. Especially given the fact that the authorities here (i.e. the mods) are dealing with the issue in any case. I’m not denying anyone the right to their feelings, just getting frustrated about people going on and on about it when there is a very simple way to deal it. I don’t appreciate the implication that I support misogyny and abuse by not speaking out against some virtual persona who may or may not be a misogynist IRL.

[MrDibble]

@Dead_Cat

Even if he is getting off on making others uncomfortable, if that bothers you, just put him on ignore and that is literally the end of the problem.

You could make exactly the same argument about any troll, spammer or similar. Why do the mods delete spam? Why do they ban trolls? We could just not open their posts, or put them on ignore, right?

Short answer is - why should ordinary posters be the ones to do anything, and not the jerks?

[Shodan]

@expectopatronum

Shodan, kayt, Acsenray, whoever else, listen the fuck up.

I’m all ears.

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.

You are correct, to some degree, about the difference between being offended by a mention of porn or rape, and being offended by something else.

We want no part of Skald’s sexual gratification and do not want it forced on us.

Since that is not happening, you have no problem. Skald isn’t springing any surprise mentions of porn or rape on you, so you won’t be triggered. That issue has been resolved.

Now we are talking about an issue which, as you say, is different. Apparently posters are being triggered by being warned that they won’t be triggered and won’t be used by anyone’s alleged sexuality.

So you are now being offended by not being offended. I am not sure that can be resolved. Therefore my recommendation to the mods and to the other posters reporting is to recognize that you got what you wanted, and to let the damn thing drop.

Regards,
Shodan