Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Transparent Moderation Log & Site Topics - Part I
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transparent Moderation Log & Site Topics - Part I - Page 69  

post #1021 of 9842
Perhaps these controversial threads can be moved to CE in the future, if the only problem was the topic. That way, it wouldn't be public, and we'd still get to discuss them.
post #1022 of 9842
Quote:
How come "Suit Sleeve Issues - Bespoke" got secret-squirreled?

Because the person who started the thread asked it to be deleted.

I was being pretty hard on him, but had pretty good reason to believe he's someone who's been banned here a number of times.
post #1023 of 9842
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
...

6. 2 of the supermoderators have young daughters.
post #1024 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post
Without weighing in on the moral/cultural issues, certain facts are relevant here:
1. Sex with minors (however that is defined in a given state) is illegal. Whether or not that should be the case, and whether or not there is room for reasonable debate about where the line should be drawn for the age of consent, that's the existing legal framework.
2. For what I presume we can all agree are understandable reasons, there are some fairly serious laws prohibiting not just actual sex with minors, but also portrayals of sex (or sexually suggestive/exploitative/whatever portrayals) involving minors.
3. Considerable law enforcement resources, backed by strong public/political sentiment, have been devoted (again, for obvious reasons) to cracking down on internet trafficking in child porn, solicitation, exploitation, etc.
4. Given the general abhorrence to the exploitation, etc. of kids, any person or medium accused of coming even close to crossing various lines (the exact placement of which may be a matter of interpretation or value judgment) tends not to get the benefit of the doubt.
5. This is a public forum, so pretty much anybody can join a discussion. What's more, there's a track record of some members -- sometimes openly, sometimes using aliases, getting a juvenile thrill out of crossing lines and deliberately attempting to offend others' sensibilities. Given that, even without having seen the thread in question I'd have to imagine there was a significant likelihood that the quality of discussion would have deteriorated, not improved, over time, and the incidence of "questionable" posts would have increased.

In light of all that, it hardly seems surprising that the thread got "squirrelled". There are plenty of places where some of the legal/cultural issues at play can be openly discussed -- but I'd tend to agree with the judgment of j et al. that this probably isn't the best place. As for those who suggest that canning a thread that appeals to what is, for some, a disturbingly strong interest in "discussing" sex with young girls makes this "blockbuster@corporate america", all I can say is:

i read you entire post as paranoia. you're saying that big brother is watching, and we should be afraid to say or do anything that could be construed as even slightly different from the accepted standard. as i said earlier, the responses i saw were either akin to "teenage girls are too annoying" or "15-16 years old", which is apparently legal age in most states. i don't see how that makes for a taboo thread, unless you're being super uptight.
post #1025 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by matadorpoeta View Post
i read you entire post as paranoia. you're saying that big brother is watching, and we should be afraid to say or do anything that could be construed as even slightly different from the accepted standard. as i said earlier, the responses i saw were either akin to "teenage girls are too annoying" or "15-16 years old", which is apparently legal age in most states. i don't see how that makes for a taboo thread, unless you're being super uptight.

Yeah, but it was only a matter of time before somebody posted the "this thread is worthless without pics" smiley.

I could understand why a moderator would squirrel a thread like that - why run the risk of an investigation or whatever when you can completely avoid the topic and the forum wouldn't be much the worse for it. If you do a "cost-utility" analysis of having a thread like that, it seems that the cost far outweighs the utililty.
post #1026 of 9842
I did not squirrel that thread, but I would have. These things come down to a judgement call. No one is afraid of "big brother". There was just nothing remotely valuable in the thread that would make any of us want the bother of having to monitor it.
post #1027 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by j View Post
6. 2 of the supermoderators have young daughters.

As do many of the mebers. Please, take these discussions someplace else.
post #1028 of 9842
Face it guys, the thread was very creepy. I read the first page or so and was disturbed by what people (who I knew were above and beyond 21) were saying about sex with girls 18 and below. And like someone above mentioned this is a public forum and I really doubt the moderators (or most members) would want Styleforum to be associated with older men fantasizing about sexing up girls.

I'm glad good sense prevailed and the thread was deep sixed.
post #1029 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodum5 View Post
Face it guys, the thread was very creepy. I read the first page or so and was disturbed by what people (who I knew were above and beyond 21) were saying about sex with girls 18 and below. And like someone above mentioned this is a public forum and I really doubt the moderators (or most members) would want Styleforum to be associated with older men fantasizing about sexing up girls.

I'm glad good sense prevailed and the thread was deep sixed.

+1. And then there was that lovely thread about swallowing. The internet already has plenty of sex forums.
post #1030 of 9842
You guys should know what is appropriate and what is not. Let's show a little discretion, or else we are going to have to start giving the OPs of obviously inappropriate threads time-outs.
post #1031 of 9842
Hey, J. Is there a way to embed youtube videos into posts instead of just links? If not, do you think you could implement something like that of superfuture's ? There have been a couple instances in the past few months where i wanted to do so but could not figure out how. Thanks
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.       I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
post #1032 of 9842
The 15yo girl thread was quite creepy. The swallowing thread was no different, probably cleaner, then the stuff that goes on everyday on Oprah.
post #1033 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by matadorpoeta View Post
i read you entire post as paranoia. you're saying that big brother is watching, and we should be afraid to say or do anything that could be construed as even slightly different from the accepted standard. as i said earlier, the responses i saw were either akin to "teenage girls are too annoying" or "15-16 years old", which is apparently legal age in most states. i don't see how that makes for a taboo thread, unless you're being super uptight.

If so, you should work on your reading comprehension. The point was that there are laws -- relatively new laws, the peripheries of which are still somewhat unsettled -- that deal with sexual content relating to minors on the internet. I was simply pointing out that, in light of that, it is understandable that the moderators chose to be prudent and curtail the thread before it went downhill. Keep in mind that unlike a conversation among friends over a beer or a coffee, you have no idea who might participate and no accountability for what they might say. The point is not whether people should be able to have intellectual conversations about the topic. The point is whether, in light of all the relevant considerations, it was unreasonable for the moderators to decide that people interested in discussing the topic should do so elsewhere rather than on Styleforum.
People should absolutely feel free to say or do things that may deviate from accepted standards. They should also have the maturity and sense to consider the context and audience for what they say.
In addition, while the cultural, social, and legal issues touched on by such a discussion can be a legitimate discussion topic -- and I assume most of the posters on the thread approached it as such -- it is disingenuous to pretend that there is not a danger (again, especially in an open, anonymous discussion board where we know we get trolls and worse) of it quickly sliding into creepiness or worse. If acknowledging that makes one uptight, then I am guilty as charged.
post #1034 of 9842
j has said that he would rather not have StyleForum come up on a google search of various unsavory topics. That's a good enough reason for me.
post #1035 of 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
j has said that he would rather not have StyleForum come up on a google search of various unsavory topics. That's a good enough reason for me.

Same here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Transparent Moderation Log & Site Topics - Part I