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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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?

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>

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.