Forum topic warnings

[Giggity]

I cannot BELIEVE you posted that. You KNOW how terrified I am of cake. 

[DangerMouth]

LOL!


Actually, I just remembered that my last top-post wasn't about cake, it was about personal care products. I asked for reccos and opinions about anti-perspirant, body powder, and TAMPONS. That must have offended someone so much, that not only was the topic closed, it was removed completely.

I addressed it to the 'ladies' and mentioned 'personal care products'. I guesse I should have also put a WARNING in blinking text, eh?

[Cyradis]

I suppose it's like any good idea, can be carried to extremes.  I haven't seen the post in question but I'd be grateful for any warning that a post contains pictures of frogs, toads or clowns. Those are my phobic issues though I can hit the "back" button or scroll with the best of them. I can walk away from the computer and take a deep breath and calm myself down. Child and animal abuse or neglect threads don't panic me but the effect is aching and long lasting.

I think the members of this forum try hard to be kind to each other and I see the warnings as an expression of that kindness.

[jimithing]

I saw a thread today, where the title had been edited to add a warning, and I was scratching my head about it. I didn't understand why there was a warning on that topic.

I've done warnings about TTC, or infertility, etc. I think it's fine to do them, but some are a bit OTT, in my opinion.

[Brentwood]

LOL!


Actually, I just remembered that my last top-post wasn't about cake, it was about personal care products. I asked for reccos and opinions about anti-perspirant, body powder, and TAMPONS. That must have offended someone so much, that not only was the topic closed, it was removed completely.

I addressed it to the 'ladies' and mentioned 'personal care products'. I guesse I should have also put a WARNING in blinking text, eh?

I didn't see it, but my guess would be that it was removed as a violation of the "no bodily functions" rule and not because it was offensive on its face.

[Brentwood]

I think it's fine to do them, but some are a bit OTT, in my opinion.

Gently and diplomatically said; I concur.

[DangerMouth]

LOL!


Actually, I just remembered that my last top-post wasn't about cake, it was about personal care products. I asked for reccos and opinions about anti-perspirant, body powder, and TAMPONS. That must have offended someone so much, that not only was the topic closed, it was removed completely.

I addressed it to the 'ladies' and mentioned 'personal care products'. I guesse I should have also put a WARNING in blinking text, eh?

I didn't see it, but my guess would be that it was removed as a violation of the "no bodily functions" rule and not because it was offensive on its face.

I thought I knew the rules, but I must've missed that one.

In your opnion, should I try again with the powder and deoderant, leaving out the 't', or does the 'no bodily functions' include sweat and odor?  (I'm actually being serious: I belong to other fora,  but none with this concentration of females) (I did ask a mod, and got an non-answer)

[hobish]

LOL!


Actually, I just remembered that my last top-post wasn't about cake, it was about personal care products. I asked for reccos and opinions about anti-perspirant, body powder, and TAMPONS. That must have offended someone so much, that not only was the topic closed, it was removed completely.

I addressed it to the 'ladies' and mentioned 'personal care products'. I guesse I should have also put a WARNING in blinking text, eh?

I didn't see it, but my guess would be that it was removed as a violation of the "no bodily functions" rule and not because it was offensive on its face.

I thought I knew the rules, but I must've missed that one.

In your opnion, should I try again with the powder and deoderant, leaving out the 't', or does the 'no bodily functions' include sweat and odor?  (I'm actually being serious: I belong to other fora,  but none with this concentration of females) (I did ask a mod, and got an non-answer)

I have seen questions about deodorant in the Coffee Break folder before.

ETA: If it crosses into medical advice territory it is of course verboten.

[TaylorMade]

This is very interesting to me.  I just posted a topic with a warning b/c it seemed like the thing to do in this forum.  Personally, I agree with the PPs.  I don't need warnings on topics.  If I open a thread & don't like the topic discussed, I back out.  No biggie.

(bolding on previous post mine)

This is why the warning are suddenly so prevalent.   If I just came to this forum, I would assume that it was 'the thing to do here', because so many of the posts recently have 'Warnings'.   Every time someone adds a warning to a thread title, more people think it's the norm.

I believe it is the exact same thing as people not using brand names or store names.   A poster sees one person writing 'Bullseye Store' instead of Target, and assumes that this forum wants you to mask names.  So they themselves start masking names.

It is just a cycle that keeps going and going and going

[baglady]

There's a "no bodily functions" rule? I missed that one. Not that I am likely to post about bodily functions, except in passing (bathroom etiquette, that sort of thing).

I think the members of this forum try hard to be kind to each other and I see the warnings as an expression of that kindness.

Me, too. It's a big forum, and I think people appreciate being warned away from topics that might upset or trigger them, if it's a close to home subject such as miscarriage, animal death or eating disorders. I would probably warn people about a post on spiders or clowns or other phobia-triggering things if the post contained photos, and since I haven't figured out how to post photos ... it's moot in my case.

[LadyPekoe]

I think some of the warnings are silly.  I understand animal abuse, rape, death, gross, NSFW that sort of thing.  But I've seen people white out the words UTI or urinate.  That seems OTT to me and I'm not going to do it. 

[jimithing]

I think some of the warnings are silly.  I understand animal abuse, rape, death, gross, NSFW that sort of thing.  But I've seen people white out the words UTI or urinate.  That seems OTT to me and I'm not going to do it. 

I whited out UTI on a post I started, but not really because of other people. I didn't want to give a lot of details to begin with, but when it became necessary, I decided that rather than announce it to the entire world, I would do it that way. Probably doesn't matter, but it made me feel better.

[kareng57]

I'm another one that doesn't need warnings either, although I do appreciate the sensitivity that others are showing when they use them.

As a veteran of various message boards, I admit that I get irritated by generic thread titles that don't give a clue about what the thread is about. A good title gives me enough info to decide whether it's a thread I want to pay attention to and is distinctive enough that I can identify the thread later if I run across it. All the "help please" and "have a question" type subject lines blur together and I either rely on the poster's name to identify them or skip them altogether. Ideally people would be using pertinent enough titles that some of the warnings would be included anyway: "Neighbor treating dog badly", "Go to Dad's funeral or Not", "Pet Komodo Dragon w/ upset tummy"...things like that.

One thing I do find helpful on this forum is the "squicky" warning that some include or whiting out the details within the post (that took some time for me to figure out when I first visited here!). That's not an issue on other forums I visit, but it seems to be necessary here fairly often. Odd given the forum's subject matter.

That's what I was going to add to the conversation.  I think a lot of these problems would be solved if people would just title their threads appropriately.

Oh, for sure.  Especially the vague ones that say something such as "need help right now!"  Well, if they said what they actually needed help with, it would probably be a lot more forthcoming.  Most of us don't "live" here 24/7 and won't bother to click on threads that we either have no interest in, or couldn't possibly provide help with.  (bad grammar, I know).

[Giggity]

I'm surprised to find out the "no bodily functions" rule, considering the Bridal Diapers thread.

[DangerMouth]

I'm actually doubting the 'no bodily functions' rule. Can someone point me to it?

We discuss eating, helping brides to pee and bridal diapers (as Juana la Loca pointed out), we have a thread going about changing a toddler's diaper (mentions poop), and threads about childbirth. I was searching for something or other and I pulled up a healthy, multipage thread about ladies 'leaking' onto other people's upholstry from a year or so back.

All these things are bodily functions.

The forum rules:

"Content No-Nos: You cannot post illegal material in either your profile, your sig file or your posts such as copyrighted material that is not yours, pornography, nudity and semi-nudity, spam, sexually explicit talk, advertising, malicious code, anyone’s personal information or to harass the moderators/admin."

Goes on to mention posting about other fora, avoiding the word filter, large sig files, politics, religion, sexual etiquette, and sensational news stories.

All these things are no-no's. I know legal issues are also a huge no-no, but I'm not seeing it listed (it's late). I'm also not seeing 'bodily functions'.

I'm not advocating 'bodily functions' threads, but I hate to see misinformation get spread. It's possible my asking for brand names was the real no-no, not the 'T' recco's bit.