Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
What is appropriate content for DonationCoder?
tranglos:
tranglos, is that similar to a feature some other SMF-based forums have, in which you get a "Spoiler" function which shows the text as you hover over it, or perhaps like the one used in phpBB, where you have to select or click in a box containing the text?
Because all the ROT-13 I know is the encryption method, and I don't know how it would be used here, if you could explain it with some detail :)
-Lashiec (January 03, 2008, 10:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Okay, now I'm confused :) I was referring to the feature I used in my post, which lets you hide content. It's much easier to use than Rot-13, of course, but serves the same purpose: you won't be able to see the contect until you decide to physically reveal it.
It may even be "better" (forgive the inverted quotes) than the proposed tagging system, in that a tagged post remains fully readable, while the spoiler feature mechanically hides what might offend.
That said, I don't think server-side technology will solve ideological disputes, which is what we are engaging in here...
ed: typos
Stoic Joker:
Um... Wow!
Frankly, the "examples" of "vulgarity" provided are no where near as racy as a ton of the dialog contained in the old Bugs Bunny cartoon made back in the 40ies to boost the war effort. ...But then again I ran a biker bar for several years, so offending me is (basically) impossible. :)
CodeTRUCKER while the Morality Police dialog was a truly artful dodge ... it still leaves you firmly planted on the moral high-ground. Now... the argument that one's on-line identity can, will, and does overlap into their real-world identity ... would drive the point with a bit more practical "spin". In our new Techno-Savvy world people have quite literally lost out on job opportunities because of (off color)comments made by them, that showed up in background checks during the application process. Kinda makes you think ... don't it. I know I swear less because of it.
Being reasonable for the majority means everybody has to lighten-up a little.
Trying to auto-tag content based on the fast and loose nature of the English language is a nightmare. Feel free to Google "Spam Filters" for details. I administer a corporate exchange server at work and the Ham -vs- Spam game is an ongoing fiasco.
The folks here seem to be a generally pleasant lot, so I don't thing making a hard policy of "Self Policing" ones own posts would be a problem. You only need one simple question: "Would you type that if your mother was watching?" ...If the answer is No, then label it NSFW. I know with the tons of research I do on a daily basis (vulgar as I are...) that I truly appreciate the NSFW tags when I have to find something when a client is present, or the boss is watching. It's quickly become a universal label and works splendidly on 90% of the boards I frequent. Others feature links to a video of two girls eating poop (I'm not making that up...) <- Now that IS vulgar. ;)
Lashiec:
Okay, now I'm confused :) I was referring to the feature I used in my post, which lets you hide content. It's much easier to use than Rot-13, of course, but serves the same purpose: you won't be able to see the contect until you decide to physically reveal it.
It may even be "better" (forgive the inverted quotes) than the proposed tagging system, in that a tagged post remains fully readable, while the spoiler feature mechanically hides what might offend.
-tranglos (January 03, 2008, 10:17 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, OK, now I understand, I got it backwards :-[
Veign:
I am trying to be a non-smoker in a auditorium of smokers.
-CodeTRUCKER (January 03, 2008, 09:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think its unfair to assign everyone else to one single group.
Please reference my tag line. I ask you, "What's wrong with doing right?"
-CodeTRUCKER (January 03, 2008, 09:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
Why? Are you saying everyone else is wrong?
I had written a lot more but deleted it since it was a reaction to your post and really served no purpose except venting.
CodeTRUCKER:
It was an ambush and it was mean. I was terribly disappointed, as I have said.
--- End quote ---
Having clicked on the link, you learned something. So don't do it again. Renegade's humor is not for you, that much is clear. Were you expecting happyjoyjoy funtime? That's not R's style.
And blaming ANY of this on mouser or the mods here doesn't impress. I find the assumption that I am an adult and capable of filtering what I perceive a blessing, not a burden.
-Ralf Maximus (January 03, 2008, 10:10 PM)
--- End quote ---
I find it interesting that you have chosen to defend a mean trick as a harmless joke. Herein lies the problem, what I feel as pain you find humorous. This will never be resolved. What can be resolved is if people become more important than rights, but it appears my attempts at planting are not finding fertile soil. I tried. In regard to Mouser, you don't need to get your feathers ruffled because I have had an open dialog with Jessie since last year, albeit with a massive gap in the middle, but even that was an effort to find harmony with this wonderful community. He knows my feelings completely and could produce multitudes of posts that expressed my heartfelt admiration for his leadership.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version