What is appropriate content for DonationCoder?

[TucknDar]

To me NSFW tags are but one small step away from censorship. I think a more reasonable approach would be to add SFW tags to threads which are judged to not be offensive to anyone. Of course such threads would need to be locked too so vulger people cannot add a distasteful reply.

-Eóin (January 03, 2008, 06:29 PM)

[CodeTRUCKER]

Ok, since Mouser is obviously looking at implementing a NSFW tagging system, then it seems that at least someone is opening the windows and turned on a fan, but let me offer that I think it is too narrow and robotic to make this a "Censorship -vs- Freedom of Speech" issue.  It isn't.  It is an issue of courtesy and consideration.  It is kindness.  It is choosing to care enough about someone else to modify your behavior to allow them to participate. 

[Darwin]

...I think it is too narrow and robotic to make this a "Censorship -vs- Freedom of Speech" issue.  It isn't.  It is an issue of courtesy and consideration.  It is kindness.  It is choosing to care enough about someone else to modify your behavior to allow them to participate. 

-CodeTRUCKER (January 03, 2008, 06:35 PM)

Agreed... but - there are well over 100,000 members on this site. Even if only 2% of them are active in the forum, that's a LOT of people to ask to moderate their own behaviour. If only 2% of that number choose not to respect this sentiment, it will be difficult to clean up the forum without resorting to outright censorship, if it is agreed that the boards need to be cleaned up. I'm not saying it can't (or shouldn't, for that matter) be done but I am not optimistic about the success of appealing to people's better nature! FWIW, the knowledge that my worries about other peoples' reactions to postings that I suspected might be objectionable were well-founded is enough to make me vow to try to avoid being personally responsible for such material in the future. Now we'll have to see how long I can stick to it 

[Eóin]

Ok I'd better mention my previous post wasn't meant to be inflammatory, just to point out how seemingly sensible NSFW tags are really a stepping stone to more pervasive censorship... with an attempt at satire thrown in.

CodeTRUCKER, I like that you say this is more an issue of courtesy and consideration but doesn't that go the other way too where the more conservative (for genuine lack of a better word) tolerate the the openness of others.

[Veign]

Ok, since Mouser is obviously looking at implementing a NSFW tagging system, then it seems that at least someone is opening the windows and turned on a fan, but let me offer that I think it is too narrow and robotic to make this a "Censorship -vs- Freedom of Speech" issue.  It isn't.  It is an issue of courtesy and consideration.  It is kindness.  It is choosing to care enough about someone else to modify your behavior to allow them to participate. 

-CodeTRUCKER (January 03, 2008, 06:35 PM)

Again, where do you draw the line.  NSFW tags only work when the person creating the post feels its not safe for work.  What if I feel something is perfectly safe. 

Typically NSFW is for nudity more than profanity and many tag as such.  Reason is profanity happens in a work place.

I think the NSFW tag needs to be used sparingly.  Imagine coming to a forum for the first time and seeing NSFW on numerous posts.  I think that would turn people away, and fast.

[f0dder]

I think NSFW is a good enough idea, and is a sign of respect from the poster's side. Of course what is deemed "safe for work" is in the eye of the beholder, but I think most people here have some common sense. And people who are easily offended would click the "don't show NFSW content" and everybody would be happy. I don't think there would be many threads marked NSFW, and I think it'd be a waste of time going through the forum to tag old threads.

I'm against censorship in general, as it doesn't really bring anything good with it - but I do support more or less banning religion and politic related stuff; it always degrades to mud-throwing. I don't even think it should be allowed in the NSFW-tagging way mentioned above, because people who would visit politic/religion related threads would end up building large amounts of animosity against each other. Bad bad.

Can't say I've been offended by anything on DonationCoder (I'm not a conservative christian ),  but I have wondered at a few threads like the YouPorn one and some of mouser's toy-threads, thought that perhaps it was a bit inappropriate, but nothing worse than a shoulder-shrug. Have a hard time understanding that anybody could be offended by that, but hey - people are different.

[Ralf Maximus]

I think the NSFW tag needs to be used sparingly.  Imagine coming to a forum for the first time and seeing NSFW on numerous posts.  I think that would turn people away, and fast.

-Veign (January 03, 2008, 06:45 PM)

I think mouser's thinking of implementing many tags, not just NSFW.  Thus it won't stand out; it'll just be one  selection among many keywords.  I hope we get to create our own tags; this would let the forum self-organize itself into topics everyone cares about.

Again, where do you draw the line.  NSFW tags only work when the person creating the post feels its not safe for work.  What if I feel something is perfectly safe.

You can't, really.  One surfer's filth is anothe's treasure... and that will never change.  But there *are* extremes everyone seems to agree about, and I think (hope) that's what we are discussing here.  The grey area will remain as it always has, and some of it will be marked NSFW and some of it won't.  I think that's a fair compromise.

[Veign]

Extremes are easy as common sense will handle that.  Its the far left (or is that right) side of things thats tougher.  Those will pass through and some acceptance has to occur on both ends.


Should we setup an auto-tagging system where anything posted by Zaine is marked as NSFW / NSFM (not safe for Microsoft) - 

[mouser]

Should we setup an auto-tagging system where anything posted by Zaine is marked as NSFW / NSFM (not safe for Microsoft)

[Darwin]

Drat - mouser beat me to it!

 

[Lashiec]

HAHAHAHA! That joke was great!

I'm all for the tag system. Some of the forums I usually visit are mostly used by teenagers and by twenty-something guys. Even those teenagers know when to mark a new topic as NSFW (prefixing a "+18" before the title of the post) when it can be clearly offending for someone. And I tell you, most of those guys are far meaner in language and pictures that the most explicit image or sentence posted here. If raving teenagers know when to draw the line, I feel the majority of the forum will know when to do such thing, after all most people around here is over 18 (it's not that being a 18-year old guy makes you a responsible person instantly, anyway).

Besides, I think that most adult threads here have a meaningful title, which explains by itself (case in point: the Pr0n Tube topic), and foul language often carries a spoiler tag or a "NSFW" mention somewhere. Of course, what it's foul language for me, could not be foul language for another person, like f0dder said.

[jgpaiva]

I belive the tagging system would solve most of the problem.

Almost every "offensive" thread got a comment from a mod, IIRC (i was about to make one in that youporn thread, but then i saw it was ken who had posted it and everything ken posts is sacred ). Thus, i think the mods are delicate enough to recognize questionable material, and even if they are not, members can "report to moderator" that thread, and it can be marked as NSFW.

I do recognize what veign mentioned about having too many threads marked as NSFW might be a "go away" sign for newcomers, but i think it'd be worse if they opened one of those threads and were surprised. At least, with the tag, they can be aware of what to expect.

As for considering the tagging system a means of censorship, i don't think it should be faced like that. It's a mean of preventing the "surprises", not a way of preventing the thread to be displayed for the general public. (because i support the idea that the default setting for the "show NSFW content" should be ON).


PS:

(BTW: +3 for jgpaiva's use of "anal")

-Ralf Maximus (January 03, 2008, 06:02 PM)

Oops, that was inadverted. Not being a native english speaker results in this kind of thing..

[Ralf Maximus]

Oops, that was inadverted. Not being a native english speaker results in this kind of thing..

-jgpaiva (January 03, 2008, 07:22 PM)

Your use of "anal" was appropriate, and a pefectly polite application of the word.  I was just being silly.  :-)

[CWuestefeld]

Trying to walk delicately around the margins of politics...

The line

it is too narrow and robotic to make this a "Censorship -vs- Freedom of Speech" issue.  It isn't.  It is an issue of courtesy and consideration.

is the universal rationalization of all censors.

There is absolutely no one who believes that they are actually censoring. They're always doing it for the larger good. Consider that television and movies practice "self-regulation", the result of which is the absence of even artistic nudity yet a glut of violence.

That said, while it is a censorship question this is emphatically not a free speech issue (not that anyone has asserted so yet). The right to free speech is only a limitation on the government. The Founding Fathers believed in the ability of civil society to police itself, community members directly and immediately providing responses to proper and improper speech.

So this sort of discussion is exactly what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the others would have expected of us.

[Ralf Maximus]

If we're considering implemention of a tagging system, then why is "censorship" relevant any more?

If we were talking about deleting posts, sure.  But nobody's suggested that.

FWIW, I am what many consider to be an extreme left-wing, progressive, libertarian, freedom of speech proponent.  I don't consider it my duty to protect the tender eyeballs and brains of anyone; if they've made the decision to venture out their front door they will See Things in the real world.  Expecting somebody else to protect them from unsavory images or ideas is infantile.

Having said that, I also respect the values of others who do not share my viewpoint.  I think a voluntary tagging system -- nothing like censorship -- is the way to go.

[Darwin]

Well said, Ralf 

[f0dder]

A generic tagging system not just limited to "NSFW" is a very interesting idea, but I'm afraid it's almost futile to try and implement it on a forum with our amount of posts - old threads would have to be tagged for it to be useful, and that's quite a daunting task here!

Anyway, imho the most important attribute of the DonationCoder community is that it's a friendly place where most people feel welcome, people treat eachother (mostly ) nicely and respectful, etc. And I don't think that has failed yet, I can only recall a single thread that became really heated (and I had a large share of responsibility for that  ).

[CodeTRUCKER]

Ok, time for another insert.

First off Bravo, bravo, bravo! for all of your graciousness!

Secondly, I would like to address two specific issues... Censorship and Morals Policing.


Censorship is almost as dirty a word as any expletive to many.  Why? because it conjures up a dislocuted people kept dumb for the purposes of aggrandizing the power of the state.  To be sure, this is and has been an issue ever since the days of the Gerushi in Trans-Mesopotamia circa 4500 B.C.  It was an issue in the time of Jesus as the Pharisees maintained a control over the Jewish population by censoring what was recorded in the scrolls and what parts were allowed to the masses.   It is an issue today in Afghanistan where Taliban clerics dictate fragmentary knowledge to their students to hold their power base.  It happens in large and small corporations so shareholders won't panic because they heard there was a serious flaw discovered in the "new" technology.  It also happens everyday as our news media chief editors decide what events to report in the 6 o'clock edition (funny how no one ever complains about this censorship... do you really believe they ARE unbiased?).  The point is that censorship is the tool of the powerful where it can be exercised to deceive and manipulate the subordinate and that is bad.  Does anyone here really believe that DonationCoder could even get remotely close to such a despotic disaster?  Tempest in a teacup! (Thanks Chris)  So the use of throwing out the dreaded "C" word is fundamentally flawed and irrelevant in this thread.  It can however be used in a reversed power structure when the subordinate cries out fiercely "CENSORSHIP!" to the point that it intimidates the superior into paralysis.  Any one ever been affected by "Reverse Discrimination?"  So again, in the context of this forum and until Mouser and his thugs start bludgeoning our posts can we please avoid the term.  It is non-sequitur.  If anyone feels they have grounds to refute my synopsis, please present some facts to substantiate your claims.

"Morals Policing"  Nosh, thank you for raising this issue.  This is short and sweet because it is fallacious.  Why? because there is no way to avoid it.  Again this is often used as an intimidation device.  It is a vapor really.  Let me explain.  Suppose there is a group of young men who have determined that they are going to do their own thing next time they are in class.  During the classtime they show up swearing and discussing loudly their exploits and "spicing" their answers to the teacher with many expletives and making lewd gestures to the females in the class.  At some point the teacher has had her fill of the boys behavior and has them escorted to the Headmaster's Office.  Once inside the professor explains the young men's impropriety and the Headmaster asks the accused, "Well, what's this all about?"  One of the more brackish members of the group brazenly retorts, "So, what are you... the Morals Police?"  Intimidated by this label the  Headmaster is paralyzed to inaction.  It doesn't help when the next day the Headmaster receives a visit from the brazen young man's father who is an attorney and presents documentation advising that the college and the Headmaster are named in a "Defamation of Character" suit.  Basically, the suit suggests that his client/son and his cronies were the "victims" of the colleges harsh and rigid policies on moral behavior were responsible for making the young men wear the scarlet letter.  The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum and the next week an announcement was issued to all student and faculty.  "It has come to our attention that our policies on moral behavior are archaic and aged.  As it is not our desire to be authoritarian in matters of personal taste and expression The University policy will embrace a willingness to embrace a more diverse acceptance of each individual's rights to express themselves in the public forum of our campus The University has therefore rewritten our moral code to allow a more tolerant environment.  Further, The University would like to offer our most sincere apologies to four specific young men that were unknowingly harmed by the outdated codes."

Ok, so what do we have here?  Before there was a morals policy that protected the rights of the female students to not be exposed to the inappropriate behavior of inconsiderate and lustful young men, but it squelched the free expression of the males sincere desires.  After the policy change the young men are now free to express their "real selves," but the modsesty of the young women is now free to be abused.  So, in short, the legislation of morality is inescapable.  If bills are passed in the quorum one morality will be legislated.  If the congressmen and congresswomen avoid the issue the other morality is legislated in absentia.  There is no way around it.  So like "Censorship," Morals Police" is an emotionally charged term that needs to be avoided.

[f0dder]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A little censorship isnt such a bad thing... it won't get any tighter than this... don't worry, it's for your own good... etc. It's almost always a slippery road and a snowball rolling down it.

There's situations where it must be done; we have relatively strict policies on what we allow at www.asmcommunity.net . Sorta sucks, the bad guys will always be able to find the info they need, and the good guys can't discuss stuff openly. On the other hand, the script-kiddies aren't spoon fed.

[CWuestefeld]

(more on the philosophy of morals, feel free to tell me to shut up about non-practical stuff)

CodeTRUCKER, your arguments are both flawed. Perhaps I don't thoroughly get your response to "censorship", because it seems like you're saying that it shouldn't concern us until it reaches the level of despotism. It's quite clear that you are asking for censorship, whether directly via rules, or indirectly via an implied threat of repurcussions (just like the regime under which movies are "regulated"). Saying "if you link to porn sites we'll deactivate your account" is most certainly censorship. But it's Mouser's board, he's free to make such a restriction if he so decides.

Since you seem to be well educated, let me point out that the silencing of people like Dalton Trumbo (http://en.wikipedia....g/wiki/Dalton_Trumbo) was done under the aegis of the "House Un-American Activities Committee" in the name of preserving American morals. And of course it wasn't censorship (I say with sarcasm), they were just protecting America from this dangerous man who wouldn't provide Congress with information about Communists.

Your "morals policing" analogy is also flawed. The teacher is correct to stop the student, but not for the reasons of morality that you suggest. It's because the students are there each to obtain the education that they're paying for, and the unruly students are violating the property rights of the others by interfering with the teaching of the class, denying them the educational service that they've paid for. The situation would be quite the same if rather than being raunchy, they were singing "Michael Row the Boat Ashore".

No one in our society is guaranteed the right to freedom from offense. At least in principle we value the opportunity for a voice in the marketplace of ideas more highly than we do delicate sensibilities. First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes this through the doctrine of Prior Restraint (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Prior_restraint). In America you can't be prevented by the gov't from saying something. (Although you can be held responsible later if it damages others) -- but as I said previously, this ties the hands of government, but doesn't prevent the speaker's colleagues from telling him he's a jerk: we all enjoy the same freedom.

Also, you never addressed my practical concerns about, e.g., the appropriateness of ...ummm... inappropriate language ... in a relevant topic like spam filtering. Should I be allowed to freely (that is, without requiring an NSFW tag) identify the names of anatomical parts and intimate acts when we are discussing them in terms of a symptom of a legitimate computer-related problem?

[Veign]

identify the names of anatomical parts and intimate acts when we are discussing them in terms of a symptom of a legitimate computer-related problem?

-CWuestefeld (January 03, 2008, 08:57 PM)

You would be amazed at how many time this happens to me when fixing someone's computer or explaining how some code works to a client 

[Ralf Maximus]

Should I be allowed to freely (that is, without requiring an NSFW tag) identify the names of anatomical parts and intimate acts when we are discussing them in terms of a symptom of a legitimate computer-related problem?

This is exactly the kind of slicing-and-dicing exercise I dread, the part where it is decided "how much breast is too much" or "can we use the word penis"?

I would hope that whatever policy evolves, it is left deliberately vague.  Otherwise we shall become obsessed with discussing in detail the very subjects some find objectionable.

[CodeTRUCKER]

It would seem that my efforts to maintain harmony are really serving to polarize.  Not my desire.  When I initiated this thread, one of the ultimate choices that I might have to face is I may be fundamentally incompatible with the population at DC.  I am trying to be a non-smoker in a auditorium where the audience has far too many smokers to allow comfortable breathing.  The problem is that in that atmosphere is not possible for me to survive, much less thrive.  Dispensing with simile, metaphor and allegory, the truth is that I do not use profanity as a way to express myself and it is vexing to my being to consume it.  I have daughters and a wife and I am learning, like a trans-national Mesopotamian mercature mogul in 4500 B.C. that a wife is more than just a means to gain political and socio-economic advantage.  I have learned that my daughters and sons are micro-universes. When I hear references to others' wives sons and daughters(this pretty much encompasses everybody), I feel no differently.  You say that it is the "real world," but it doesn't mean it is a good thing.  For 20 years I have been a trucker and have declined many an invitation to participate in things that I believe hurt the person in ways they don't, but I do perceive.  Am I better than them?, No.  Am I "holier than thou?"  I detest such things because as an apologist for Truth, I recognize that such attitudes are inherently dishonest and hurtful.  Please reference my tag line.  I ask you, "What's wrong with doing right?"

At this juncture I am not declaring my departure, but I don't see to many people extinguishing their smokes.  No one has yet posted anything remotely congruent with my position which makes me something of a "dissenter among brethren."   A misfit.  This is Ok, really as it is a given and I'm not going to pout over it, I am just going to go on.  The real problem is I cannot compromise as it would destroy my own soul and I would lose the very traits that have allowed me to be an asset.  This thread has many evidences of this fact. 

CWuestefeld - You have stated that I desire censorship when I do not... ok maybe either from me using crafted Proxomitron filters or from others censoring themselves out of kindness.  No, my goal was not censorship or moral policing, but a hope that others would rise above the level of their own personal rights to be undaunted in expressing themselves autonomously to making themselves vulnerable that their actions do; in fact, have the power to inflict injury to others.  Even if that person sees no threat, a higher ideal guides them to be considerate that it may not be so with others.  I have been warned that to put confidence in expecting others to go against human nature is not a very solid bridge to be walking on.  Call me stubborn.  I am of the opinion that if you make the whole target one big bulls-eye you forever condemn the archer to mediocrity.  It is only when a deleniation is made of red and white concentric bands does the archer ever have the chance of gaining mastery.  So, I am now and will always hope for the best from people, even if disappointed many times because to give up is to capitulate to defeat and that I will never do.  I will address your other points later and I would never tell you to "shut-up" in this venue.

[Renegade]

...
I would hope that whatever policy evolves, it is left deliberately vague.  Otherwise we shall become obsessed with discussing in detail the very subjects some find objectionable.

-Ralf Maximus (January 03, 2008, 09:22 PM)

I don't think that I've ever seen anything that I've found even remotely offensive here... Then again, I could well be a culprit.

But well said Ralf.

I've found that most topics where porn sites or sex toys come up are quite focused on technology with the given spattering of suggestive comments. But nothing even remotely obscene. Then again, I may well have missed those posts too as I can only manage to read a very few of the posts here, and can only respond to even fewer.

However, there certainly is a point to adding in NSFW tags or using the smilie. Sure... Sometimes it's a real pain in the to insert smilies like that, but it's not too much trouble really.

I don't mind a little bit of cursing, and I certainly do so myself, but there's a limit as well. Used sparingly (or rarely), it has a definite effect. Used without reserve, it's nothing short of, well, not sure what to call it other than "undesirable". Swearing belongs in an office when discussing IT projects with colleagues.

In any event, I have faith in the community here to properly police itself and in mouser's judgement over how things should pan out.

Cheers!

[Deozaan]

CodeTRUCKER, I share similar ideals as you. I've never said a "swear word" on purpose, don't smoke, don't drink, don't a lot of things many people find perfectly ordinary and commonplace today.

When someone posts a topic here that is borderline or clearly inappropriate to my personal standards, it makes me uncomfortable, sure. I'm not personally offended though. That is, while it may offend my tastes, I'm not angry or upset or harmed by the person who meant no harm.

There is nothing wrong with just doing what's right. The problem, though, is that not everyone agrees to the same definition of what's right and what's not. The best you can do is decide for yourself. And yes, in my opinion it is common courtesy to censor one's self for the sake of others. But in social places where many discussions on many topics are taking place, everyone is bound to come across something that isn't to their liking some time. I think the best course of action at that point is to judge the intent.

The key to most things in the world is to teach people correct principles and have them govern themselves. Having an organized body or group that does these things for you takes away personal responsibility and leads to bigger problems.

The fact of life is that people will talk about or do things you don't like. That doesn't make them bad people. It just makes them different than you. Like I said, I'm quite a misfit myself because of my personal standards--which are often thought of as strange or unnecessary. But it's my choice to make my standards, it's their choice to make theirs. No one is better or worse for it.

I'm still typing because I feel like I should wrap this up in a nice coherent, clean sentence or two, but I can't really think of how to do that. So I'll just stop now.