Re^2: what are the rules regarding homenode image, what is inappropriate?

Let's keep the choice absolutely free.

I'm not sure about that because How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?

PerlMonks is meant to be family friendly. And perhaps more importantly, we'd like to keep PerlMonks off of corporate blacklists which would prevent worthy monks from participating while at work.

I don't know how blacklist makers make use of image recognition, and for now it appears less likely that highly offensive images would be tagged/flagged , but the choice appears to be not "absolutely free" already

Comment on Re^2: what are the rules regarding homenode image, what is inappropriate?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: what are the rules regarding homenode image, what is inappropriate? by soonix (Chancellor) on Jan 20, 2015 at 09:33 UTC
PerlMonks is meant to be family friendly is that so? more so than e.g. Wikipedia? if so, then what does this mean/imply?	[reply]
Re^4: what are the rules regarding homenode image, what is inappropriate? by Anonymous Monk on Jan 20, 2015 at 09:57 UTC
is that so? Yes, I believe so, I've seen it expressed in the chatterbox over the years , although thats the only mention in the FAQ. Some old threads on the topic Read more... (164 Bytes) more so than e.g. Wikipedia? Um, perlmonks isn't an encyclopedia, so yes, more so than Wikipedia, simply because the focus is perl and programming, not religion/politics/pornography if so, then what does this mean/imply? I'm not sure, that perlmonks is meant to be family friendly? I'm asking for clarification/guidance -- I'm trying to add to the guidelines known as PerlMonks FAQ	[reply]
Re^3: what are the rules regarding homenode image, what is inappropriate? by erix (Prior) on Jan 20, 2015 at 08:52 UTC
~~Go to hell. I am disgusted that someone should try to talk about this subject unknown, anonymously.~~ Let's keep the choice absolutely free. Edit: struck 'abusiveness' in view of apparent sensitivities. I actually have to guess as to which part would be 'abusive'. It wasn't abuse, of course. It was a way on my part to make clear that a dialogue on this subject with a void persona is not possible. In short, I think it's OK that that got -12 downvotes but what reflects badly on the monks is that it actually garnered any reap-votes. Getting a bit too sensitive, aren't we? So I really hope those reap-votes were directed at me personally and not about the subject or, even worse, about the wording.	[reply]