SNERK.

I just feel that making explicit that community standards here, including what constitutes 'offensive', are set by the community, puts us in a stronger position when confronted with objections such as these. (Because it strikes me that his objections, not to mention his charge of hypocrisy, indicate that he believes, or at least will argue, that there should be some defined gold standard of offensiveness.) It will, after all, come down to community standards anyway.

It's a tough call. I think most of us know it when we see it, but to define it is tricky.

Here's a couple of other things to think about. First, if one of our regular posters starts trash talking in all caps in Natter, do we step in and warn them, too? I mean most of the regulars know that Rio and Miracleman were joking, but would somebody new to the board get that? Also, we now have Rebecca Lizard's younger sister (I don't know how much younger) posting on the board. Is there anything we need to worry about that, and if so, how do we handle it?

It's a tough call. I think most of us know it when we see it, but to define it is tricky.

Yep. That's why I think it may be worthwhile. For anyone who's posted here for a while, I don't think it's an issue. For newbies, well, personal notions of what constitutes 'offensive' will vary widely. A definitional debate isn't going to be helpful in these sorts of situations.

As a support to stompy-foot action, the ability to say "many people here have been offended; that's why it's deemed offensive" would not be a bad thing, IMO. It's really just making explicit, and putting up front, something which is the case anyway, but may not be apprehended as such.

Eep, we now have age 14 and under Buffistas? I mean, I've voluntarily scaled back on the bawdiness of my own posts in recent weeks to avoid embarrassment in front of set a better example for the influx of new posters, but perhaps not as much as I would knowing children's eyes are reading.

I think it's limiting to write down a definition of what is offensive to the Buffista community. Perhaps something along the lines of "if three stompy feet agree that you have been offensive, that's enough for us". Or something like that.

I think it's limiting to write down a definition of what is offensive to the Buffista community.

Yep; that's basically why I think we should change the wording to something that invites less definitional dispute. (I don't know if I'd even bother putting in 'three stompy feet will constitute a quorum, on the grounds that it would require at least a second opinion or else a truly prodigious freak of nature'. I think the warning process is probably sufficient as is, as a procedural specification.)

Eep, we now have age 14 and under Buffistas?

Weren't both Holli and RL in about that (sub-14) age range when they first came on board?

It's a good reminder to keep on the right side of the suggested vs. explicit line in outside of Bitches, SV and the fic threads, but we've had younguns before, unless I mistake my Buffistory.

Bitchy Fic has a warning about explicitness, but I must admit I'm a trifle nervous about under-18 eyes in there. Having Liz read (some of) my stuff would be considered a felony if she did it here in Utah. And I know she has read the NC-17 stuff. That said, I keep the more--interesting items in the threads with warnings on them.

Weren't both Holli and RL in about that (sub-14) age range when they first came on board?

You are correct in that (Holli was 12), and both seemed remarkably mature for their ages, but we also didn't own the board then.

we also didn't own the board then.

No, we didn't -- and owning the board means legal implications that we didn't have then. I was just thinking along the lines of "don't be afraid to natter now that the chibi-lizard is around, just be aware that some threads are pornier than others."