 |
| |
|
|
ColdWizard
|
|
anyhow, if it's that big a deal just put zylka on ignore. nothing shows up but the name, time of post and a brief message inquiring as to whether you wish to view the post
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
However, if you were to describe in detail certain physical acts, that would be explicit. |
If Z. inserted the word "in" before "your" in the location field.... would that be "explicit"? How about "near"? How about "Fs"? How about "raps"?
This is just a test: "Ming penis Mark b-hole vagina." is _not_ explicit, right? Just nouns (one of them mispelled). Not offensive?
How about : "Foppish connoisseur of warm".... never mind.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
On whether on not Z.'s location feild is a sexual reference: Oh, come on. The picture, the tag line, and the location field all taken together - you'd have to be a mere 13 year old to not catch the (implicit) sexual context.
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
I also said it depends on how you use them  |
How about the first part of my message? Does you think the inclusion of a a verb make the phrase "explicit?" Any verb? (There are some verbs that'd obviously be offensive.) I'm sure TheHobbit realizes that in, say, a serious (OT) discussion of Z.'s medical problems the words in question might pop up and be of unquestionably valid usage. So what constitutes improper use, if what matters is "how you use them."?
Here's what I think: Z.'s location field isn't technically _explicit_, because it does rely on the imagaination of the reader to imbue the phrase "my penis your vagina" with some "action", to make it an act, or to bring two simple body parts into some sexual contact. However, the amount of imgaination is soooo tiny that the phrase is, in effect, explicit. For all that, I can't imagine any explicit phrase that'd be less explicit or offensive. Unless the reader's imagination is the problem, the phrase doesn't evoke anything beyond a very basic biological act/fact. Basic (non-pathological)biology is often kinda gross, but it shouldn't be offensive. Z. seems to merely be going for some minor shock value, and there isn't a concerted effort to offend*. Only on the border of explict, no intent to offend (nothing beyond "cable TV humor". Thus: no ban.
Finally: The faq says sexual "discussion." Z. has thrown out what amounts to a sexual statement, but a single, simple, statement (even if repeated every time Z. posts) is not a _discussion._ If Z. presented a more complicated statement, one in some way inviting more thought/words on the subject of sex by the other readers then Z.'d be posting the beginnings of a discussion. Likewise, if people continually picked up on Z.'s references and started discussing sex explicitly then the mods might ask Z. to change the location field etc. because they keep sparking explicit sexual discussion. ("Disturbing the peace" sort of thing.)
For all your good natured winky-smilies and refusal to commit to an opinion on my example phrase of "simple nouns", Ming, I think your statement that it _might_ be considered explicit/offesive reveals that you probably act under the same guidlines I would, as explained in the paragraphs above. Certainly, some other factors beyond mere grammer ("simple nouns" must be at work. Intent and _degree_ of explicitness are the best possibilities for those other, "it depends on how you use them" factors.
So, there you go, TheHobbit. It took some verbage, but there's a straight answer that I think should satisfy you.
Personally, TheHobbit, I suggest you either Ignore Z. (I don't think you'd be missing much), or do leave Z. in, but cultivate a sense of condesention and personal superiority whenever you see Z. post.
*OTOH, maybe Z. is a sexually repressed flake, or a classic chav. pig, and it never occoured to Z. that there might be something iffy about the location field, avatar, and tag.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheHobbit
I am extremely offended at the subtitle in Zylka's profile.
|
What about it makes you "extremely" offended? Sense of "fairness" violated by Z.'s precieved violation of the rules? Or the sexual context? What factor of the sexual context? (BTW - I understand if you don't want to discuss it.) It's easy to imagine someone having better things to do than dwell on something they find extremely offensive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tarquelne
Intent and _degree_ of explicitness are the best possibilities for those other, "it depends on how you use them" factors.
|
As I said... It depends on how you use them... That's sums it up far better than your long post
And AGAIN... it's a matter of opinion. The owner of the site is familiar with this example. And he has not asked him to change it, or directed me to take any actions. So those are the "opinions" that count here.
Just because one person has complains that something offensive, doesn't mean that it is. There are many times I get silly complaints from people about a word, avatar, or signature that are just too crazy to believe. Heck, somebody could complain that they your name had some strange sexual meaning. (don't laugh, I get those kind of complaints)
So for the record... It's how you use them, and it is solely based on the admin and mods opinion. See, so simple, and only one sentence
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tarquelne
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
As I said... It depends on how you use them... That's sums it up far better than your long post |
Since I went to the effort of making that long post, I'm going to defend it's length:
"far better."? You didn't give any info on what factors your judge when you form an opinion. TheHobbit didn't seem seem to go away satisfied, and I strongly suspect that others weren't either. I know I wasn't - I started reading the thread because I was curious about the Z. case. I didn't think Z. should be banned or anything over the location field, etc, but I was interested in how the mods. explained it. "it depends"/"it's a matter of opinion", while completely true, are, IMO, pretty lame.
Now, your job most certainly _isn't_ discussing and defending why you act as you do - I dont think there's anything wrong with the fact that you didn't post a long explaination or make a concerted attempt to persuade TheHobbit or others to your point of view. However, I assume that you don't make arbitrary decesions, I think that many would like to know how you do make your decisions, and (finally) I think the reasons I presented do explain how you make such decisions, at least in Z.'s case. So I think _my_ explaination is "far better."
and even  , to boot.
Last edited by Tarquelne on 28-03-2002 at 00:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2002 05:39
Should I say anything? 
. But all I want to know is. Who is that girlie in Zykla's profile
|