No, not at all. That being said, this forum in particular can have young members so I wouldn't think that very graphic discussion would be entirely appropriate.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with it at all, but I think this particular site's terms of agreement mention not posting explicit sexual references...or images...or something along those lines.
[1 point]112 days ago by rollingReplyEdited 112 days ago by rolling
I won't use graphic terms gratuitously, but I will write the way I speak, and not worry about whether there are young members. If there's a kid online, I will presume the kid's parents are aware of what they are doing. If not, they should be. But that's not my problem.
[1 point]112 days ago by waugsReplyEdited 112 days ago by waugs
I really dislike the idea of censorship. One can tell by the question in almost all cases if it is likely to be "offensive". My experience of dealing with children is that they just don't understand most of the stuff parents worry about--and if they do, censoring this site it too late for them anyway. Besides, it gives the PARENT first input if the child asks about something strange or new to them.
We also do a pretty good job of letting anyone who cares to look what we here consider acceptable behavior.
And what is next? Censoring atheist comments because a believer is offended?
Assuming that some form of censorship is a possibility.
[1 point]112 days ago by dauguyReplyEdited 112 days ago by dauguy
I think the problem lies in the definition of "inappropriate" content; it's subjective. Most people are in agreement about what constitutes spam or hate speech, but beyond that there's plenty of content that's fine for some folks but is truly offensive to others.
That's the content that I'm hoping we can find a way to keep rather than delete. With tags and categories content could be sorted into the right bins, rather than deleted. I hope that makes more sense.
(We also keep in mind that people help us out by showing polls on their sites via the widget. We need to make sure we're not offending people on their sites.)
It depends on whether or not I've just returned from confession and have to stay pure until after mass on Sunday, or whether I'm planning on going to confession in two more nights so I have that much time left to be wild and crazy.
Yes - this is no conversation for the dinner table
48%63 Votes
Depends on topic.
Male
Female
35%31 Votes
No, go for it - were all humans
11%10 Votes
Yes - this is no conversation for the dinner table
53%47 Votes
Depends on topic.
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Loading...
No, not at all. That being said, this forum in particular can have young members so I wouldn't think that very graphic discussion would be entirely appropriate.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with it at all, but I think this particular site's terms of agreement mention not posting explicit sexual references...or images...or something along those lines.
I won't use graphic terms gratuitously, but I will write the way I speak, and not worry about whether there are young members. If there's a kid online, I will presume the kid's parents are aware of what they are doing. If not, they should be. But that's not my problem.
Perhaps there is room for a sister site, Ask500Adults?
Woo Hoo!
Better yet, Ask500Kids!!! :-)
I'm thinking categories/tags could handle this nicely. If a question is racy it could be marked as such, so it would still be part of the site.
Perhaps some categories wouldn't show up on the main question list by default (eg. US election, 18+, etc)
It's on the todo list, we're just hard at work on something else right now. ;)
I really dislike the idea of censorship. One can tell by the question in almost all cases if it is likely to be "offensive". My experience of dealing with children is that they just don't understand most of the stuff parents worry about--and if they do, censoring this site it too late for them anyway. Besides, it gives the PARENT first input if the child asks about something strange or new to them.
We also do a pretty good job of letting anyone who cares to look what we here consider acceptable behavior.
And what is next? Censoring atheist comments because a believer is offended?
Assuming that some form of censorship is a possibility.
Hi dauguy,
I agree we have room for improvement here.
I think the problem lies in the definition of "inappropriate" content; it's subjective. Most people are in agreement about what constitutes spam or hate speech, but beyond that there's plenty of content that's fine for some folks but is truly offensive to others.
That's the content that I'm hoping we can find a way to keep rather than delete. With tags and categories content could be sorted into the right bins, rather than deleted. I hope that makes more sense.
(We also keep in mind that people help us out by showing polls on their sites via the widget. We need to make sure we're not offending people on their sites.)
Thanks for the comments and discussion.
True, it is easy to forget that these appear elsewhere. As you point out, 'inappropriate' is in the eye of the beholder.
They do have a point, though. Just speaking from an more-adult-aspect 'n all ... (lol)
Tags would be nice, but I bet there are a lot of kids that wouldn't hesitate to say they are 18 when they really aren't.
No, but then, I am not at the dinner table.
It depends on whether or not I've just returned from confession and have to stay pure until after mass on Sunday, or whether I'm planning on going to confession in two more nights so I have that much time left to be wild and crazy.