Food for Moderator and General Poster Thought

[_moksha]

This is an altered list from elsewhere in the CyberUniverse, and might be interesting for moderator and general community consideration:

Posters should not display content, or engage in any activity, that:

1. is illegal;

2. exploits or endangers a minor, or invites private communication between a minor and an adult;

3. compromises anyone's privacy by using or revealing personal information;

4. condones or may provoke violence toward any individual or group on the basis of age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation, even if religiously motivated;

5. is vulgar even to Dr. Shades or violent;

6. uses Mormon Discussions community functions to harass or censure any person, group, or entity;

7. may cause or encourage substantial harm or damage to Mormon Discussions or its members.


Response from Mormon Discussions posters would be fruitful, I hope.

[_MCB]

4. condones or may provoke violence toward any individual or group on the basis of age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, ancestry, religion, or sexual orientation, even if religiously motivated;

[_zeezrom]

5. is vulgar even to Dr. Shades or violent;

I suppose I need to ask what Shades thinks lacks in sophistication. (John Currin?) Otherwise, I might have a problem with #5.

By violence, would you consider imagery from the Book of Mormon to be violent? Or, do you mean commentary that is violent against another board member? I'm guessing the latter...

[_Quasimodo]

Generally GREAT moksha!

I wonder if #5 should give a more comprehensive definition of 'vulgar'. It's hard to know what Shades might find vulgar and you leave the poster unaware of what might be deemed vulgar until after the fact.

Of course, any post that denigrates Quasimodo or his opinions should be considered vulgar.

[_moksha]

Quasimodo, what is vulgar to some is not vulgar to others. I think Shades would choose to be the final arbiter of what is vulgar. I may not be able to define it, but Dr. Shades will know it when he sees it.

[_Quasimodo]

Quasimodo, what is vulgar to some is not vulgar to others. I think Shades would choose to be the final arbiter of what is vulgar. I may not be able to define it, but Dr. Shades will know it when he sees it.

But only ex post facto. Maybe Shades could post some guidelines that would give posters an idea of what works and what doesn't before they post. I don't think his Louvre example (as well intentioned as it was) worked too well.

[_bcspace]

Homosexuality is an abominable sin.

[_Quasimodo]

Homosexuality is an abominable sin.

Only to those with an irrational view of the world or those that are insecure about their own sexuality and are trying to cover up by overcompensating.

It's very interesting that you would interject that subject in this conversation.

Which is it?

[_zeezrom]

I'm convinced BC really doesn't believe that.

[_ludwigm]

It's hard to know what Shades might find vulgar

Maybe these ones:

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -10-26.gif[/img]
[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -12-14.gif[/img]

I don't think his Louvre example (as well intentioned as it was) worked too well.

Especially in the light of my banning...