Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:40:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Frank Filz wrote:
| |
John wrote:
| |
Why this fixation on the adjective “graphic”? Isn’t plain ol’ sexual
content inappropriate enough?
|
What do you mean by “sexual” content? Is mentioning that you have a wife
sexual? Is a guy mentioning that he has a boyfriend sexual? Is you
mentioning that you have a kid sexual? Is a woman mentioning tha she is
pregnant sexual? Is mentioning that you’re a guy and someone else is a gal
sexual?
Of course “graphic” has similar problems. Is showing a picture of a guy
graphic?
|
Yes, I agree that everybody has different thresholds of what they consider to be
appropriate and inappropriate. That is precisely why I would stay away from
those type of arguments and simply categorize everything off-topic as being
“adult”. Not because it is necessarily so, but because it is potentially so.
I just don’t think that kids come to LUGNET to participate in off-topic
discussions as many adults do. Kids are looking for cool MOCs or for feedback
on their MOC or advice (WRT to LEGO) or knowledge about something related to
LEGO. For them, it’s about the LEGO. For many adults, as I believe you
personally stated, it’s about the community of AFOLs. And I have no problem
with that. Really. .GLBT, .LGBT, .TGIF, whatever. All I’m suggesting is that
off-topic groups be restricted to adults. I’m not suggesting that there will
necessarily be anything bad happening “behind the wall”, just stuff that is
OFF-TOPIC for LEGO. That’s all. That way, LUGNET appears to the GP as a nice,
completely LEGO-related web site, and the off-topic communities can flourish
besides.
I don’t see any compelling arguments against this course of action. It has been
suggested that the appearance of an “adult section” might suggest some sort of
“seediness”, but I would counter that the public existence of some particular
threads currently viewable by the GP might raise some eyebrows as well. It has
been suggested that the age barrier would discriminate against some younger FOLs
who are indeed mature enough to handle anything an adult could. That may be
true, but the currently system discriminates against adults who’d like to be
able to participate in LUGNET groups without having to mince words or tiptoe
around because there might be children present. Let’s be honest. Even though
there are some topics that are “kid-safe”, isn’t it nice to be able to just
relate to one another, adult-to-adult? To hang out at the bar over a few beers
at a Fest with just adults? Off-topic would be the bar where kids aren’t
allowed. Nothing bad necessarily happens in a bar, but kids are still
unwelcomed there. It would be the same for off-topic LUGNET.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love kids. I have kids. I have a KABOB. And I
love building with him and sharing the LEGO experience with him. But I also
love just hanging with AFOLs without him; in fact, I happen to find it hard to
do both at the same time. So even in that respect I’m a Compartmentalized
Dork™:-) (though that is changing now that he is getting older).
So that is about all I have to say on the matter. Now I noticed that Todd
posted a “personal ad” in the .singles group. There is nothing inappropriate
for a kid to see in his post, but at the same time, there is nothing of value
for a kid to see in that post, either. That post adds nothing to the value of
LUGNET as a LEGO resource, BUT that post adds greatly to the value of the
AFOL community! For one thing: I never knew Todd “bic”ed daily, and I shall
henceforth strive to follow his bald example:-) I really do value the off-topic
interaction among AFOLs (even glbt ones!), but my dilemma is that on-topic and
off-topic don’t reconcile well with me. I really believe that an intentional
division between the two will allow BOTH areas to flourish.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) But what about when someone shows their wedding cake topper? Is that on-topic? If so, it is ok that it presents sexual content? Do the admin groups remain adult only because they're off-topic also? You have not provided a good reason why (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) What do you mean by "sexual" content? Is mentioning that you have a wife sexual? Is a guy mentioning that he has a boyfriend sexual? Is you mentioning that you have a kid sexual? Is a woman mentioning tha she is pregnant sexual? Is mentioning (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
