Topic: The opt-in nature of Explicit

[Johnny Slick]

I'm fine with that, but if you're going to do this, can you please make a second members-only subforum for those of us who do not intend to opt in to Explicit but who nonetheless enjoy occasionally sharing information with others that doesn't get put onto the Internet attached to our screen names?

[Beleth]

Would it be acceptable if, instead of making a second board, making a rule that said "no sexual content in a thread in Explicit unless the thread has 'NSFW' in the subject line"?

[Johnny Slick]

.

[Caffiene]

Right, this looks like as good a place as any... I wanted to say I completely disagree with the interpretation of the results of the poll. (Id have said so in the thread, but its locked for no apparent reason that I can figure out)

None of the responses were phrased to indicate that voting for them indicated not wanting the opposite. For example, I voted for the non-opt-in child board option (the 9 votes), but I have absolutely no problem with the opt-in child board version either - it was basically a coin flip which one I put my vote on. The analysis, though, says "29+9=38 were opposed". No, I am not opposed, and I kind of object to my vote being represented that way.

In the same way, I think its completely baseless to assume that the people who voted for opt-in dont like the non-opt-in options, or that the people who are in favour of child boards therefore are against not having a child board.

To be blunt, I think if the "if I want to maximise happiness" idea was presented in any other context on these boards (eg, an article about some study or science news item) we would tear it a new a-hole as woo-woo BS because of the quality of the poll and trying to way over-extrapolate the data.


If you want to do it right, stick with the first sentiment: The results are nonsense. Trying to base any decision on them will be a nonsense decision.

Either re-do the poll with multiple choice voting so that people can actually tell you which options they like and dont like, or just use your best judgement and do what you think is best without referring to the completely useless current poll results. Your general judgement of the community is much better than your poll interpreting abilities, at least in this case

[Shadow Of A Doubt]

With Caffeine here; far from being opposed I actually think Johnny Slick's proposed child board was an excellent idea.

[Johnny Slick]

.

[wastrel]

Seems a bit dramatic JS.

[Johnny Slick]

Yeah, sorry. I didn't intend it to be.

[Johnny Slick]

.

[Caffiene]

[uolj]

If you want to do it right, stick with the first sentiment: The results are nonsense. Trying to base any decision on them will be a nonsense decision.

Either re-do the poll with multiple choice voting so that people can actually tell you which options they like and dont like, or just use your best judgement and do what you think is best without referring to the completely useless current poll results. Your general judgement of the community is much better than your poll interpreting abilities, at least in this case

Yeah... I have to agree with this. I mean, I don't know how you can draw any conclusions from that poll result other than each option has some appeal. 

(click to show/hide)

I never did give my 2 cents on which option was best in the other thread, but I doubt it is much help here so I'll give it anyway...

Create a Private board for members-only. Move Explicit to opt-in.

The Private board can be slightly more moderated than perhaps the Explicit board is now, mostly telling people who post potentially offensive material to move it to Explicit, but would still allow a non-search indexed place to vent or chat.

The Explicit board could include more than just sexually explicit material, but would be for anything that where the offensiveness is debatable and the existence of those types of threads would have a non-trivial impact on people feeling welcome. That board would have an obvious disclaimer at the top indicating that the SGU rogues, and SGUForums moderators, admins and other members don't necessarily condone or support what is posted on the board.

To me that allows for the Private board for most users to use and allows the Explicit stuff to continue but make it difficult for new users to come across it and make the assumption that it is any way representative of the forums in general. And for users of Explicit it would require minimal adjustment to continue doing what they're doing.

[GodSlayer]

Beleth, can't you deduce a solution from the poll?

EDIT: skipped to page 38 to see you've already said this. d'oh!

e.g.,
80% favored sexual content
35.9% favored it being in a child board (as creepy as that sounds); 45.7% favored keeping it where it is
43.7% favored opt-in.

so...making explicit-as-it-is-now an 'opt-in' forum instead seems like it would cover the bases.

[pandamonium]

If you want to do it right, stick with the first sentiment: The results are nonsense. Trying to base any decision on them will be a nonsense decision.

Either re-do the poll with multiple choice voting so that people can actually tell you which options they like and dont like, or just use your best judgement and do what you think is best without referring to the completely useless current poll results. Your general judgement of the community is much better than your poll interpreting abilities, at least in this case

Yeah... I have to agree with this. I mean, I don't know how you can draw any conclusions from that poll result other than each option has some appeal. 

(click to show/hide)

I never did give my 2 cents on which option was best in the other thread, but I doubt it is much help here so I'll give it anyway...

Create a Private board for members-only. Move Explicit to opt-in.

The Private board can be slightly more moderated than perhaps the Explicit board is now, mostly telling people who post potentially offensive material to move it to Explicit, but would still allow a non-search indexed place to vent or chat.

The Explicit board could include more than just sexually explicit material, but would be for anything that where the offensiveness is debatable and the existence of those types of threads would have a non-trivial impact on people feeling welcome. That board would have an obvious disclaimer at the top indicating that the SGU rogues, and SGUForums moderators, admins and other members don't necessarily condone or support what is posted on the board.

To me that allows for the Private board for most users to use and allows the Explicit stuff to continue but make it difficult for new users to come across it and make the assumption that it is any way representative of the forums in general. And for users of Explicit it would require minimal adjustment to continue doing what they're doing.

I like this. I'm sorry that you didn't post this earlier. Thanks for sharing now!

[Caffiene]

80% favored sexual content
35.9% favored it being in a child board (as creepy as that sounds); 45.7% favored keeping it where it is
43.7% favored opt-in.

The problem is that "favoured" doesnt tell us how the voters view the options they didnt vote for. We dont have any data on what people dislike, and we dont have any data on how much each voter preferred one option to another.

For example: If we had looked at two options together, we might have seen that all of the 35.9% who voted for child board loved the child board idea and hated the idea of keeping it where it is, while each of the voters in the 45.7% were about 52/100 on the happiness scale for keeping it where it is and 51/100 for the child board (ie: Only barely care).

In that hypothetical situation leaving the content where it is would be a much worse outcome for overall happiness than to create a child board, even though it goes with the most favoured option. The 35.9% would hate it and the 45.7% wouldnt really be any happier than they would have been with the other option.

[GodSlayer]

The problem is that "favoured" doesnt tell us how the voters view the options they didnt vote for. We dont have any data on what people dislike, and we dont have any data on how much each voter preferred one option to another.

so, you're thinking there should be more consolation?

e.g., if 20% want no such content, but there shall be such content, then we should at least let them weigh in on what they think the least objectionable place to have it?