(Previously called "Policing ourselves") You know, this board does have a rating system. I would hate it if we started using it. But this doesn't feel like a family site lately. I know I've been part of it. I just feel bad that I wouldn't want my kids to hang out here. They are too young now, but I mean 15-18. We have a lot of folks that age now. We have a lot of folks who went through those years here.
I'm recalling that you don't have to read all threads, but it doesn't seem like the thread titles are giving any guidance.
[ January 13, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What do you think is inappropriate for 15-18 year olds here?
I think this forum is fine for anyone over the age of 10 or so. I'm far on the liberal side in terms of what I think kids should be allowed to hear/see, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't think of a single thread in the last year that's been inappropriate for a teenager, pooka. What content here do you think has been?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote: but it doesn't seem like the thread titles are giving any guidance.
Lets go over page 1:
"I need some opinions" "Policing ourselves" "Budgeting" "Kazaa Prosecutions (Help Beren Stay out of Jail)" "In the spirit of FarmGirls Suggestion" "Read this first" "Ye Elde Angle Thread" "Need help from the writers of Hatrack" "My wife is cheating, or am I just paranoid?" "Sacrificing Lives for Ethics" "Jack Sparrow vs Jack Black" "Uncomfortable around the Cheney Dinner Table" "Jury Duty" "MidWest Hatrack GetTogether" "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" "How could I be so wrong- Another thread on Homosexuality, I suppose"
"So how about a florida clump get-together" "Begging the Dogs Name (Game)" "Monologues if you'd be so kind" "You know who would make an excellent Petra?" "Former Secretary of Treasury claims Iraq War planned before 9/11" "*sob* My son prefers the Hardy Boys to the Narnia Chronicles *sob* " "Tears of Joy (I'm SOOOO happy!!!!) " "RotK/ Hatrack PARTAAAAY ('WenchCon') Make reservations under "Computer Companions" " "cooking pizza at home " "Superbowl Parties " "Need a ((( hug ))), take a ((( hug ))), have a (((hug ))), leave a ((hug)) " "Lusitania's Hive Queen " "Big Fish or Peter Pan? " "Dave Sim of Cerebus insane? " "I'm unhealthy " "south central(alaska) hatrack gathering " "7000: My shadow and I are friends again." "Cool Music or am I OLD " "My Christmas in Hell (A Self-Pity Thread) " "The two party system makes you stupid " "One line descriptions of people" "Any Hatrackers in Phoenix " "Music Question for People Who Watch Far Too Much Tv " "last post thread "
Now, take a good look at those. Now, pick out the ones you don't think are appropriate. Think also about the content of it. Now, of the ones you still consider to be innappropriate, compare that number with the number of ones that are appropriate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In fairness, I did take issue with "In the Spirit of Farmgirl's Suggestion" which, if I were a Jehovah's Witness, I would make it a priority to read.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wait a minute, you took issue with that thread? Meaning what? You did remark that you thought that the title was ambiguous; is that all that you mean here, or are you saying that for some reason you find the subject of the thread itself to be inappropriate for some reason. I can only assume the former, but your bringing it up here doesn't make much sense to me, except in the context of the latter.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
They titled it that because in another post I suggested we start more NEW threads to bump other certain ones down.
So I agree the title didn't say alot about the topic discussed. But I read all threads anyway, so I guess I never noticed.
FG
[ January 13, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:machine-gun tomatoes everyone:
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i don't undestand, is the issue here with inappropriate thread content or misleading thread titles?
if it's the latter, i still don't get it.
A person can title their thread whatever they feel like titling their thread. i can title a thread "Star Wars" and talk about how every time i do laundry i'm missing a new sock. it's not my job to make it easier for someone browsing the threads to know what i'm talking about beforehand(although i think my case above is pretty damn obvious). If it's misleading, it's my loss. Possibly theirs too, but it's still my perogative.
or is it some sort of mix of the two?
[ January 13, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Exactly Strider, exactly. If I want to draw people to my thread, it would probably be a good idea to title it in such a way that it both attracted people and gave them some idea of what the thread was about, but it would be ridiculous if doing so were some sort of requirement.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This post will give an example about Michael Jackson. . . . . . It's true, you can do that Strider. But if the subject is "Michael Jackson's arrest" and the subject of sex with minors comes up, it is not offensive. Whereas the same sentence in a "Congratulate me on my child's accomplishment" thread might be offensive.
The rationale of many Hatrackers is "you don't have to read every thread" and I'm saying that if the thread title doesn't give any indication, such discretion isn't possible. Folks who don't like a "more conservative than Bush" view of the world might skip a thread started by me entirely.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
The thing is, you don't have to keep reading. Things don't usually go from one post being "...and then my child an A+!" to the next post as "and then this teacher sexually assaulted the child in the following graphic detail..." If the thread is "devolving" into something that you're not interested in or find offensive it's generally pretty easy to stop reading before things get too hairy. The people who keep reading threads they find offensive are probably also going to open threads with titles that alert them to sensitive discussions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No thread title is going to give a complete idea as to what a thread is about. Not even the full text of a thread starting post does that, as threads change and morph all the time.
Discretion is not about snap judgements based on vague ideas from a thread title, or who a poster is, though one can certainly make those if one wants; discretion is about checking out the thread and after one has ascertained in an informed way one does not want to read it, going away. By definition, as long as you're still interested enough to keep reading, its not the sort of thread you don't want to read.
And a lot of us don't discount the interest of someone's opinions due to their views, and read every thread.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think a 15 year old should be prepared to deal with uncomfortable topics that come up unexpectedly. If they aren't, they might as well learn here now, because it's fairly certain their friends and peers will bring up things worse.
In fact, as I suggested earier, I think 10 or 11 is around the age where this becomes true.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The innuendo does get crass and vivid sometimes.
Crass is okay. Vivid is okay. Crass and vivid together may not be appropriate.
But if something bugs me, I'll say something. If I haven't said anything, I think you're fine.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
All right, all right!
I will cut out the "sailor talk" right now.
Well, right after "Shiver me timbers!"
Okay. Better?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That's it Elaine! One more "avast ye scruvy dogs" and I'm reporting to you. To Mike. Like celia.
I think everybody should notify Mike whenever they feel that something here at Hatrack is out of line.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"norna borna fiorda cajorda HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" -Dilbert, When he had nothing to say during a meeting.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
[ January 13, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Noemon, that is an excellent suggestion!
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I agree with Tresopax. Of all the stuff I've read on Hatrack, I was openly discussing worse in real life with my friends by sixth grade.
Now the chatroom is another story, but that doesn't have a topic other than "hatrack chat," and there is a lot you can do by hatracks.
[ January 13, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Kat, your link didn't work for me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's bizarre - it works for me. Does it work for anyone else?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Yeah, I'm afraid I'm just not authorized to view that web page.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
it said that to me, but i hit refresh and the picture popped right up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It's just a direct link prevention system.
Hitting refresh should work, as well as copying and pasting the link.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
kat gets all the luck. when i try direct links to sights that don't allow them, i end up posting porn.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Okay, refresh worked for me.
kat!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sure celia, that's why you're always posting porn.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Refreshing and cutting and pasting don't seem to be working for me.
Ever have a joke that requires a link, and it takes so long to find the link that the moment has totally passed? I hate when that happens.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
I think that if someone has the intelligence and maturity to read OSC's books, they are intelligent and mature enough to be in this site. Granted I definitely don't read all of the threads. For instance, I generally don't go into threads that have religion, politics, or get togethers in them because they don't really pertain to me. I don't feel comfortable meeting people I've only talked to online (as nice as I'm sure all of you are ) and I really haven't decided what my opinions are about religion and politics and I don't want to get into a debate over something as personal as that. I don't think anything I've read on these boards has ever been at all offensive. I wouldn't come here if I did.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I really haven't decided what my opinions are about religion and politics and I don't want to get into a debate over something as personal as that
All the more reason to be in such a thread.... Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As I said, the motto of Hatrack should be 'This offends me.'
1)Given a sufficiently large population of people, it is impossible for someone to not be offended by something someone says.
2)In cases where offense is taken, it is expected of the person taking offense, the 'offendee', to voice their objection.
3) The offender then may choose whether or not to change their post or posting style.
4)If the offender does not wish to change their posts, then I think the offendee should respect that and adapt, or move on to another thread or cease to read that poster's posts rather than derail the thread into what the meaningo f 'is' is.
I'm not sure what pooka means by instituting a rating system. Is she speaking of general thread approval like plastic.com (an awesome idea ), or is she speaking of some kind of rating system based off of movie ratings (rater 'R', 'G', or whatever)?
I don't know how I feel about the latter. On the one hand, if it means that there would be more latitude in what could be posted within the thread, I would be all for it. On a qualitative level, I doubt it would change anything as those who are already active participants in the non-fluff threads are already posting in those threads.
I would like to respectfully say that I feel sorry for people who find any thread on this site to be so offensive that they feel 'assaulted' and that they need to be protected from the information contained in it. I hope this forum never becomes a place where there are threads that never offend someone. I hope those who wish this forum to be such a place never get their way.
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
quote: All the more reason to be in such a thread....
It's not so much that I don't want to read the threads. It's just that I don't usually bother because given the choice between a thread that I feel comfortable responding to and one that I don't, I'll pick the one that I do. Okay, okay, I'll admit it. I'm just too big of a chicken. I'd much rather hide out in the LPT or on the other side.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The only thing I really have to add is that I've lately seen more vulgarity than I have in the past. Not that this is an awful thing, it's just noticeable.
I'm not sure if it is new people, or what, but I've seen a word slip out here and there that struck me as odd to see on hatrack. Basically, I try to keep my language on the same level I'd use in my 7th grade classroom.
That's about what I'd come to expect here, but I've seen a word here and a word there slip by. Not sure why this is, but it's nothing major. Just a slip here and there.
"Vulgarity is a strong emotion expressed by a weak mind." (my father said that once, anyone know if that's attributed anywhere?)
Content-wise, though, the topics have been pretty good lately, and the level of discussion I've been seeing has been very restrained (no flames, no wars, no "leaving hatrack forever" thank goodness). Maybe it's just me, but I feel that there's been a high signal to noise ratio lately.
I'm not exactly sure what I was supposed to see in that list, pooka.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
But you read the threads on things you don't know about and learn, without ever posting, that's why I love hatrack, I learn so much.
Um, I was remarkably sheltered as a child and I've not seen anything on hatrack that I didn't hear first in school several years before.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
kat!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and I really haven't decided what my opinions are about religion and politics and I don't want to get into a debate over something as personal as that. I don't think anything I've read on these boards has ever been at all offensive. I wouldn't come here if I did.