This is not a challenge, but just a simple question.
Why was this thread closed?
Admittedly i was getting over-zealous and there were some tasteless jokes, but i don’t really see why it had to be closed since there wasn’t anything too extreme.
I just want to know, in better detail, why that thread was closed.
BTW, when i said
I didn’t mean, “You are officially BANNED from all of my threads! I suggest you start running now, since the mods should be getting here any second now!”. I realize i don’t own the threads i make. I know she could post in my thread if she wanted to, but i was asking her not to, as a favor. It was not an order, but a request.
I just hope this doesn’t become a shit flinging contest between people who love the mods, and people who don’t…
Oh good, I was going to start up a thread on this very topic.
First off, Coldfire, I believe I was quite “polite” throughout the thread and I don’t appreciate being lumped in with Pump-Action Gerbil and his ilk.
Second, I am at a loss as to why the informational link I provided to an international sex workers information clearing house was removed. Yes, I saw your note about full-frontal nudity, and yes, I understand that you are all gods and goddesses and I am merely the scum you wipe from your shoes, but the idea of removing a link because there is nudity at the other end is ridiculous. Neither you nor the Chicago Reader is responsible for what’s at the other end of any link that gets posted here, and it’s not like the site was some hardcore pornfest. To then take it a step further and claim that not only a link that results in nudity but nudity on any page it links to is unacceptable is not only bizarre, it’s completely unworkable. Fucking GOOGLE provides access to links with nudity; planning on removing every link to Google that’s been posted here? Maybe you might want to weigh the merits of the link in its entirety instead of kneejerkily removing it the second you see breasts.
There is a difference between being one click away from a problematic/objectionable material (as defined by the Chicago Reader) like your link…and being 2 or 3 clicks away…like the Google site is.
The SDMB (and other boards like Fathom) have always asked us to not have nudity directly linked within a post (I suppose, with a few exceptions like info on breast self examination sites maybe…). A link to Google is not a direct link.
You’ve been here for a year and a half and this is news to you?
First of all, it is the policy and I follow it, but I find it amusing and highly hypocritical that the Reader has such a strong policy on this here when their advertising bread and butter in the paper is adds for porn shops, adult services, gay dating services and the like, easilly 30-40 pages of these adds in each issue. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot, oh wait, you’re both the same person.
It’s like the SDMB is the Reader putting on airs when the minister comes over.
WierdDave the ‘no one click rule’ about porn, nudity is an exceptionally good rule IMHO, and has been amply discussed at length here. It has little to do with censorship and much to do with a couple of other factors:
Some folks post from public, work related or otherwise restricted access. A direct click to a nude/porn site can get some one in serious trouble IRL. And, as was the case here, the person posting the link did not provide any warning about same.
I have seen mods take out any number of direct click links (not just porn), but those multiple pop ups and other problematical sites, and I, for one, am very pleased that they do so, not just for my own sake, but for others.
There are minors on this site (quite a few registered minors under 18).
Oh, I understand it and follow it, my take on these has always been :
#1 Then don’t surf at work if you’re not supposed to, or get a job for a less tight ass employeer.
#2 The paper is available to anyone in the Chicago area who cares to pick one up, adult, child or alien.
Don’t mind me, I just have a real thing with people expecting to be babysat. You click on a link, you take your chances. YOU are the one who clicked, nobody clicked for you.
The difference is that in a general sense people know what they’re getting when they pick up a copy of the Reader. One is not quite so sure what’s going to pop-up when a link is clicked on.
er… I’m here to remind everyone that the deleted link wasn’t the topic at hand. Unless, of course, my whole thread was closed because of that link… (which i never got to see)
however. may I just point out to WD, was that specifically nude or porn sites themselves may be prohibited on certain sites, or just a bad idea (My SIl probably wouldn’t appreciate it if her 10 year old was wandering in the room), not just ‘don’t surf at work’ (many places will allow surfing but not allow porn). the 2 click rule allows folks to have some sense that they’re going elsewhere. Yea, each poster can refuse to click on stuff here at all. Or, we can all nicely abide by certain self regulating positions (such as 'don’t do direct links to porn/nudity sites etc.). Seems the folks at the SDMB have opted for that position.
back to the OP.
the entire issue of prostitution brings out strong feelings all over the map. Do a search on Great Debates for more examples of the widely divergent opinions here on the subject.
And of course, you can feel free to email the mod personally if you had further questions or wished specific clarifications.
non-native, I believe the main reason your thread was closed was because there were three things happening it:
-Debate was getting heated and personal, and veering away from the overriding point of the thread, which was whether or not you should feel bad. Instead, it was turning into another prostitution debate, and a mean one at that.
-Pump-Action Gerbil’s dumb-ass comment got people riled up, because it was a horrible remark to make
-Otto’s link, which clearly broke the rules of the board because it linked to a site with full frontal nudity and didn’t give any warning at all.
Basically, any three of these warning signs could have, and most likely would have, degenerated further and further until there would be a flame-war going on. Rather than risk people getting really pissed at each other, or move it to the Pit, which eats up bandwith, Coldfire closed the thread. It was more of a preventive measure than anything.
I definitely wouldn’t take it personally, since I don’t think it was particularly directed at you. You remained quite civil through the whole thing. Coldfire’s remark to you seems to have been more of a warning about personal attacks in MPSIMS which applied to everybody in the thread, and I wouldn’t worry bout it too much.
Thanks for the explanation. I can kind of see the reason now… Although i still think the risk of bigger shits hitting the fan isn’t a good enough reason to close threads, I’ll just shut up about it, since it’s not too big of a deal…
OK, I have been looking for this “one-click” rule and I’m not finding it. In fact, after the thread was closed I went looking for any rules and other than the FAQ I couldn’t find them so if someone can link them here I’d appreciate it.
I would however like to point out again that I did not link to a “porn/nudity site.” I linked to a clearinghouse for information on international sex worker organizations. And upon reviewing the link myself (google using “sex workers union” as the search criteria, 4th link down), the “full frontal nudity” isn’t even full frontal nudity. It’s one partially bared breast with full coverage of the other breast and below the waist (ironically, the cover of a journal for sex workers called “Respect!” which includes an article called “Why We Need a Union”). I’ve seen more titilating photos of the cover of Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. And, since what I was told in the closed thread was not to post links to pages with FFN or with any links on them to FFN, it seems the “one-click” rule isn’t really in effect after all.
And not meaning to turn this into a huge thing, I’m really trying to keep this on a “this is for my own edification and the edification of others” level, but “for the sake of the children” cuts very little ice with me. I don’t think adults should be expected to reduce or restrict their exchanges to the level of children because there might be a child somewhere who might see it if they come to a specific website and open a specific thread and click on a specific link.
My apologies for not saying “there might be adult material” in my original post. I guess maybe I thought the description of the link in the post as “some information (looks to be something of a clearinghouse) about international sex workers and their struggle to organize for their rights” should have been sufficient to clue in anyone who might have run across it.
Pump-Action Gerbil’s joke was funny. Both my father and I laughed out loud at it. Sure, if the original post was about the original poster’s 16 year-old sister being forced into a life of prostitution, the joke wouldn’t be appropriate. But it was just non-native bitching about being wheedled into paying for sex and feeling guilty about it. I thought the joke was both on topic and funny.
I think Otto’s link could have just been edited to warn potential clickers.
And as for heated debates; just throw the thread into GD or here.
Survey says…bzzzzzzzzt! Sorry budro, but the fact that two people find a joke funny does not automatically mean that it isn’t in poor taste. non-native was certainly not “whining,” he was showing that thing that people call “compassion,” wherein he showed empathy for the feelings of another human being. He admitted to making a mistake, and was seeking some consolation as he decided to move on. Then Pump-Action Gerbil came in and made a joke about something that is very sick and, sadly, happens to a frighteningly large amount of prostitutes, and was therefore not funny to most people.
Coulda gone either way. Coldfire made the call, and it was his call to make.
Except that the original thread wasn’t meant to be a heated debate. It was started so that people could come in and offer advice to non-native, who was feeling kinda down. Then, people came in and made it into a heated debate, against the OP’s wishes. Rather than waste the bandwith and move the thread, Coldie just decided to close it and let anybody who was interested start an actual debate on the topic in the appropriate forum.
Sorry, but a guy wanting “consolation” after paying a hooker for sex isn’t going to get it from me.
Poster 1: Ohhh, I’m such a bad person I slept with a hooker. Right guys? I feel so bad. Poster 2: Ahh, don’t feel so bad just don’t do it again. And remember, Hookers are people too. Poster 1: Yeah, you’re right. Now I know the true meaning of Christmas.
My ass. It’s a goddamn weird thing to be airing in public, and I think dark humor is a reasonable response. More reasonable then consoling him. The world is shades of grey and hookers exist. People sometimes use them and they sometimes feel bad afterwards. I’ll make fun of them no matter how they feel. Payin’ for sex. Schmucks. I never went to a hooker I paid for.
The joke was no more offensive then the movie “Very Bad Things”. Lighten up. Anything can be laughed at. It’s part of how human’s deal with difficult issues. The joke was general and funny. Keep em comin’ I say. It doesn’t mean these people don’t understand that prostitution is ugly, and alot of women are tragically abused and murdered every year. It doesn’t mean we don’t find these facts repulsive. However, faced with such ugliness, I think a well placed sick joke can do wonders. A laugh is a good thing. There is enough to be mad about. I consider each laugh a treasure, and that shit made quite a few people laugh.
I also think the whole close a thread because it “might” get out of line strategy is questionable (that thread, I understand, was closed for other reasons). Some of the most exciting and useful conversations I’ve ever had are on the edge. I think benefit of the doubt should be given. Perhaps it’s not so easy to watch a certain thread that could get bad, so the Mods just have to close it because of sheer volume. Perhaps this will change once we start paying to post, and some of these fringe conversations can be allowed to develop.
