18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very RustyIt is quite obvious that you changed the quote. So everyone knows I didn't say it.
It is quite obvious that you changed the quote. So everyone knows I didn't say it.
I think the question here is it ok for 13+ children.
Wouldn't we need to know what you mean by play with ourselves.
Solitaire, etc., etc,
exactimundo!
I think the question here is it ok for 13+ children.
if they already know what it means, then mentioning it can't do any harm. and if they don't know what it means, then no harm done.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by BlackampI think it gets tricky here. You are assuming if they don't know what it mean, no harm done. That is in your opinion. A parent of a 13 year old may argue that point with you.
I think the question here is it ok for 13+ children.
if they already know what it means, then mentioning it can't do any harm. and if they don't know what it means, then no harm done.[/b]
18 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Very Rustyif they don't understand what it means, how can it possibly do any harm? it would just be like a joke on, say, The Simpsons or Family Guy, that contains adult-only innuendo, and flies over the heads of a lot of the kids. and there are thousands of those. i think that, since those shows are rated suitable for children, they are indicative of a widely-accepted standard of acceptability, and there is no need for RHP to adopt a stricter standard.
I think it gets tricky here. You are assuming if they don't know what it mean, no harm done. That is in your opinion. A parent of a 13 year old may argue that point with you.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by BlackampNot all parents let their kids watch the Simpsons!
if they don't understand what it means, how can it possibly do any harm? it would just be like a joke on, say, The Simpsons or Family Guy, that contains adult-only innuendo, and flies over the heads of a lot of the kids. and there are thousands of those. i think that, since those shows are rated suitable for children, they are indicative of a widely-accepted standard of acceptability, and there is no need for RHP to adopt a stricter standard.
Everyone has different values.
I certainly don't have anything to do with the RHP rules. I think we should be very careful when it comes to the subject matter, when it concerns 13 year olds. Some 13 year olds know as much as 17 & 18 year olds. Then you have others that know what 8 year olds know.
18 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Very RustyNot all parents let their kids watch the Simpsons!
Not all parents let their kids watch the Simpsons!
Everyone has different values.
I certainly don't have anything to do with the RHP rules. I think we should be very careful when it comes to the subject matter, when it concerns 13 year olds. Some 13 year olds know as much as 17 & 18 year olds. Then you have others that know what 8 year olds know.
Everyone has different values.
yes, but there's no need for RHP to adopt the values of the strictest. i mean, the Amish don't even let their kids watch TV, let alone The Simpsons. all we really need to do is comply with legal requirements and generally accepted norms, and i think the examples i gave show that the comment i made is in line with those guidelines.
I think we should be very careful when it comes to the subject matter, when it concerns 13 year olds. Some 13 year olds know as much as 17 & 18 year olds. Then you have others that know what 8 year olds know.
i agree that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 13yos have access to the forum. but to take your examples, a 13yo who knows as much as 17 & 18yos is hardly going to be harmed by the post in question, while one that knows as much as an 8yo will read it and not understand.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Blackampyes, but there's no need for RHP to adopt the values of the strictest. i mean, the Amish don't even let their kids watch TV, let alone The Simpsons. all we really need to do is comply with legal requirements and generally accepted norms, and i think the examples i gave show that the comment i made is in line with those guidelines.
[/b]
b]
There is a very good chance there are no Amish kids on the internet either, so we can probably rule them out. 😉
i agree that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 13yos have access to the forum. but to take your examples, a 13yo who knows as much as 17 & 18yos is hardly going to be harmed by the post in question, while one that knows as much as an 8yo will read it and not understand.
You're agreeing that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 13 year olds have access to the forum, but you figure it is ok too say stuff if in your opinion and mine they don't understand it. I remember when I was a kid, if I didn't understand something, like where babies come from, I would go ask my father, and he would say best ask your mother. Point being children want answers to things they do not understand.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by BlackampThere are exceptions to rules. You just finished saying you don't think it should be too strict. 😉
anyway, my main point is that the issue of editing quoted text needs to be clarified and a policy applied consistently. GB is quick to trot out the TOS whenever his text is modified, but hypocritically does it himself (see the Sticky Thread Game thread).
I think if a quote is changed and made into a joke or even a little potshot no one gets hurt.
IF it changed to be disrespectful or hurtful then that is a different matter again. That is why we have mods here to make those decisions. I wouldn't want it too strict, and I really don't think you would either.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very RustyYou're agreeing that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 13 year olds have access to the forum, but you figure it is ok too say stuff if in your opinion and mine they don't understand it.
I rYou're agreeing that we need to be sensitive to the fact that 13 year olds have access to the forum, but you figure it is ok too say stuff if in your opinion and mine they don't understand it. I remember when I was a kid, if I didn't understand something, like where babies come from, I would go ask my father, and he would say best ask your mother. Point being children want answers to things they do not understand.
that's part of it, but also, if they do understand it already, then the mere mention of it can't do any harm either.
I remember when I was a kid, if I didn't understand something, like where babies come from, I would go ask my father, and he would say best ask your mother. Point being children want answers to things they do not understand.
well, if a kid goes and asks his/her parents what 'playing with oneself' means, then the parents can choose to deliver whatever message they think is appropriate. same as with something the kids hear on those TV shows i mentioned, or something they hear on the playground. this message could range from that dreaded talk about the birds and the bees, to 'you know, that thing you do when you lock yourself in the bathroom', to 'you'll go blind and grow hair on the palms of your hands if you ever even think about doing that!'.
again, the important thing is that we are in line with generally accepted community standards.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very RustyHow about this: If it's got someone else's name on it, leave it alone. Extract a sentence
There are exceptions to rules. You just finished saying you don't think it should be too strict. 😉
I think if a quote is changed and made into a joke or even a little potshot no one gets hurt.
IF it changed to be disrespectful or hurtful then that is a different matter again. That is why we have mods here to make those decisions. I wouldn't want it too strict, and I really don't think you would either.
or two if you must, but leave what remains intact. Do not change words.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Very Rustyagain, i agree - i don't think it should be strict. but whatever rule is applied needs to be applied consistently. i'm ok with GB or anyone else doing it, but not if they go jabbing at the alert button whenever it's done to their text. generally, i think:
There are exceptions to rules. You just finished saying you don't think it should be too strict. 😉
I think if a quote is changed and made into a joke or even a little potshot no one gets hurt.
IF it changed to be disrespectful or hurtful then that is a different matter again. That is why we have mods here to make those decisions. I wouldn't want it too strict, and I really don't think you would either.
the first criterion should be whether the edited text would be modded, were it not edited text but just contained in the normal posting space.
additionally, the edited post probably should be proximate to the post containing the original text, so that people can see that it differs from the original poster's intent - a point you alluded to earlier.
finally, i think it is desirable for the edit to relate somehow to the original text, and be witty or funny. i.e., merely changing someone's text to 'i am an idiot' would not, in most contexts, meet this criterion.
18 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by HandyAndynot really. that would be perfectly acceptable under the three criteria i just outlined: (1) it wouldn't be modded if it appeared in the normal text space of a post; (2) it is proximate to the original text, so people can compare; and (3) it relates to the original text in a meaningful way. as an intended satire of the view i am defending, it is perfectly acceptable.
See what I mean?
and yet, as satire, i believe it fails because in fact the fun does lie in misrepresenting somebody else's view - again, the lulz from doing this come in the juxtaposition of the edited view with the original view. and so, as i say, the edited text should relate to the original view (as yours does), and be proximate to that text (as yours is).