Re: Consideration for obscenity

I think the main point of the policy with regard to swear words is to keep the site from being blocked by corporate content scanners and to prevent blatent rudeness and interpersonal attacks.

On those grounds I think the node might justify a spoiler tag or something, but not reaping: Its obviously an attempt at a joke and therefore IMO falls under artistic-license, and since it doesnt attack anyone is harmless, although perhaps in bad taste. The same word used in a personal attack would IMO justify reaping however.

---
$world=~s/war/peace/g

Comment on Re: Consideration for obscenity

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Consideration for obscenity by jdporter (Paladin) on Feb 03, 2007 at 16:59 UTC
Spoiler tags will help a lot in the case of the coworker (or boss) looking over your shoulder, but does nothing with regard to network traffic scanners. A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^3: Consideration for obscenity by demerphq (Chancellor) on Feb 03, 2007 at 17:19 UTC
Er, why not? A tag that says "reveal foul language here" isnt going to get followed by someone that needs to worry about that is it? --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^4: Consideration for obscenity by jdporter (Paladin) on Feb 03, 2007 at 21:23 UTC
Sorry, I keep forgetting that spoilers can be rendered in different ways, based on a user setting. Apparently you forgot, too. ;-) Anyway, of the five different ways of handling spoiler tags, only one requires the user to click on a link to retrieve the spoiler content. The other four options deliver the content with the page, thus affording no protection in the face of network content scanners. So for spoilers to help in the way you suggest, all of the following conditions would have to hold: users who wish to protect themselves from NSFW content will have to limit themselves to the "link" spoiler option; writers of NSFW content must enclose that content in spoiler tags; the writers must have a protocol for tagging the spoiler content as NSFW, and follow it. Frankly, I don't see that happening. (It's possible that un-`<spoiler>`ed NSFW content could be considered to get the tags added, but that's likely to be regarded as censorship, and rejected out of hand.) So the user ends up clicking on the link and retrieving the spoiler content anyway. No protection. A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply] [d/l]