horror forum - to get the "shock porn" threads off of OT

[Anonymous]

No, not at all. That meets the litmus test for what I care about / can possibly do something about and it also impacts me personally. The difference between that and "grandma throws child off of tysons balcony" is that NO GOOD can come from me reading about and gawking over the latter, but if there is a hit and run and a problematic intersection, etc, then maybe it makes a difference.

Excellent. Please send Jeff a detailed list of "what you care about/can possibly do somethign about, and also impacts you personally." I'm sure he'll be happy to make sure anything that doesn't meet that criteria is diverted to a special board.

<facepalm>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, not at all. That meets the litmus test for what I care about / can possibly do something about and it also impacts me personally. The difference between that and "grandma throws child off of tysons balcony" is that NO GOOD can come from me reading about and gawking over the latter, but if there is a hit and run and a problematic intersection, etc, then maybe it makes a difference.

Excellent. Please send Jeff a detailed list of "what you care about/can possibly do somethign about, and also impacts you personally." I'm sure he'll be happy to make sure anything that doesn't meet that criteria is diverted to a special board.

<facepalm>

Maybe one is a local issue vs. one that has nothing to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, not at all. That meets the litmus test for what I care about / can possibly do something about and it also impacts me personally. The difference between that and "grandma throws child off of tysons balcony" is that NO GOOD can come from me reading about and gawking over the latter, but if there is a hit and run and a problematic intersection, etc, then maybe it makes a difference.

Excellent. Please send Jeff a detailed list of "what you care about/can possibly do somethign about, and also impacts you personally." I'm sure he'll be happy to make sure anything that doesn't meet that criteria is diverted to a special board.

<facepalm>

Maybe one is a local issue vs. one that has nothing to do with anything?

So Newtown is out? But Checy Chase Circle is in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, not at all. That meets the litmus test for what I care about / can possibly do something about and it also impacts me personally. The difference between that and "grandma throws child off of tysons balcony" is that NO GOOD can come from me reading about and gawking over the latter, but if there is a hit and run and a problematic intersection, etc, then maybe it makes a difference.

Excellent. Please send Jeff a detailed list of "what you care about/can possibly do somethign about, and also impacts you personally." I'm sure he'll be happy to make sure anything that doesn't meet that criteria is diverted to a special board.

<facepalm>

Maybe one is a local issue vs. one that has nothing to do with anything?

So Newtown is out? But Checy Chase Circle is in?

Newtown was a national news story covered everywhere and had real public policy implications, whereas the balcony story... does not. I don't really care, I'm just playing devil's advocate here (NP). A "news" forum may be a good idea. I think it would be best for everyone if OPs put less grotesque headlines, or just go away altogether.

[Anonymous]

Newtown was a national news story covered everywhere and had real public policy implications, whereas the balcony story... does not. I don't really care, I'm just playing devil's advocate here (NP). A "news" forum may be a good idea. I think it would be best for everyone if OPs put less grotesque headlines, or just go away altogether.

When your position is "only permit threads on things that I care about" you're not playing devil's advocate very well. Maybe some of the posters who really care about this can come up with a cogent argument?

[Anonymous]

I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, not at all. That meets the litmus test for what I care about / can possibly do something about and it also impacts me personally. The difference between that and "grandma throws child off of tysons balcony" is that NO GOOD can come from me reading about and gawking over the latter, but if there is a hit and run and a problematic intersection, etc, then maybe it makes a difference.

Excellent. Please send Jeff a detailed list of "what you care about/can possibly do somethign about, and also impacts you personally." I'm sure he'll be happy to make sure anything that doesn't meet that criteria is diverted to a special board.

<facepalm>

Maybe one is a local issue vs. one that has nothing to do with anything?

So Newtown is out? But Checy Chase Circle is in?

Newtown was a national news story covered everywhere and had real public policy implications, whereas the balcony story... does not. I don't really care, I'm just playing devil's advocate here (NP). A "news" forum may be a good idea. I think it would be best for everyone if OPs put less grotesque headlines, or just go away altogether.

Many of these so called "shocking" stories can have public policy implications. Mental health issues contribute to many of the ills of the world, as do poverty and abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

+1

I guarantee you there will be a couple of people who will shriek "no more posts saying something about children and being upsetting!" or "Need more details in title. I would not have clicked if I actually knew what it was about!"

You can't win with the types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

Seriously? How can you want more information but also not want information that would make you upset? You really don't want to reach a compromise do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the best idea is to put a spoiler type heading such as "NATIONAL NEWS STORY - INVOLVES CHILDREN. DO NOT READ IF EASILY UPSET". I think that solves problems on all ends. Those who want to post those stories can, and those who don't want to read the stories don't have to click on the title. If you get upset just seeing that title, I don't know what to tell you. Similarly, it can be changed to any area, so if you feel like it may impact you, click on it. But you've been properly warned in the title without being given gruesome details. Can we agree on this?

No. I would like more information in the title to decide if I want to read it.

+1

I guarantee you there will be a couple of people who will shriek "no more posts saying something about children and being upsetting!" or "Need more details in title. I would not have clicked if I actually knew what it was about!"

You can't win with the types.

Then these people really don't belong on a public forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need toughen up. If the heading doesn't appeal to you, just don't click. I have a hard time believing that any heading could upset so much and cause so much anxiety to a reader that these topics need to be censored. What one person considers to be shocking is news to another. I personaly think we need to be aware of the ills of the world in order to combat them. I am not comfortable sticking my head in the same and fingers in my ears.

+1

They are just bored control freaks that think how they feel is more important than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Where is the line between a legitimate news story that belongs in one of the current forums and a "horror" story that would need to be posted in a new forum?

Baby flushed down sewer pipe
dad rapes children
grandson rapes grandmother
pedophilia is a growing problem in our society
Growing trend of child abuse

Which of these are shock topics? Well, you can tell by the prurient nature of the headline.

I think this illustrates the problem here. I don't see "Baby flushed down sewer pipe" as being in the "horror" category at all. The baby lived and the father claimed it was an accident. It's more of a "News of the Weird" type of story. At least two people mentioned the story to me in real life. What about the grandmother that threw her grandchild off the walkway at Tysons? Is that a horror story or a news story since it happened where many of our posters shop?

I think this is very much an "eye of the beholder" situation. It is different than the distinction between "explicit" and "non-explicit" topics because we have all socialized rules for making that distinction. That distinction exists throughout American culture. I can see this being one big argument about what should go where. And, that doesn't address the "Recent Topics" issue. If I create a horror forum and leave it out of "Recent Topics" I expect there will be resistance to using it.

We can try to get users to be more sensitive about the topics they choose. I doubt it will have much effect, but we can try. But, here is where you can help. I need one line to go in the subject of a sticky post. Can you suggest language for that line?

I'll tell you one thing. I'm a very longtime frequent user of DCUM. I am sure many people make empty threats like this all of the time but increasingly, OT has become a repository for just those types of threads. Yes, the tysons story stayed with me for a long time. And WHY exactly is it relevant to me, just because I shop there I want to hear about some terrible, horrible thing that has nothing to do with me? I avoid the news because I think it is disgusting half the time. I do NOT visit CNN for my news because of all of the prurient threads and graphic pictures. it's one thing to put them there with a warning (warning: graphic photos or graphic materials), and it's another thing altogether to put it in someone's face

The sticky could read "do not post graphic or "shock" material - including news stories - in thread titles. But I agree it won't do much. To the extent that this forum does become a repository for lots of these stories, this long time user will truly be out. I avoid talking to family members or acquaintances who trade in this kind of gossip, and I'll avoid these forums if it continues to be a problem. And I am NOT saying this as an empty threat; I'm sure you won't miss me as one user, but I guarantee others feel similarly. You see the growing backlash. Maybe not all of the complainers will vote with their feet, but do you really want the forums to be turning into places where really sick people go to get off on sick stories about hurting kids? Because that's DEFINITELY a part of this. It's prurient. And like I said, most of us know it when we see it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Just leave it alone already. Are you all also not reading newspapers? Not listening to the radio? Turning on the tv? Not looking at magazines while waiting in line? I find many things shocking, such as a kimye baby, but you don't see me requesting it to go to the "shock and horror," section.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused - sensitive PPs, how do you rule on the story about the NYC nanny who murdered her charges? That was obscene by any stretch of the imagination, but lots of parents wanted to discuss it.

I have been a regular DCUM user since the website was launched and I don't agree that there is a proliferation of horror stories that are likely to alienate readers. I also wonder if those of you who are so outraged by this have ever subscribed to a newspaper in your lives? If so, you managed to survive daily material on tragedies through a print format, why not via the internet?