Please, make it about the coins and not the subject matter.

[NathanB]

What a gracious and humble response, @Ryro.  Thank you very much!

For what it's worth, most of the time, I do enjoy your posts, and...if I'm honest, I'd have to admit that I have a few bats loose in the belfry, too.  I think many of us do, really.  It's good for us to support each other. Have a good night, and a good week to come. 🙂 

[Octavius]

 As a physician, when one discusses body parts - breasts, buttocks, appendages, ect, all I can think of is "oh my God , more work!"

[DonnaML]

I think I want to clarify what I said in my original comment way back at the beginning, in case I was being unnecessarily obscure. And in case I'm one of the so-called "prudes" because I indicated that certain types of threads here make me uncomfortable. Which people might have (incorrectly) taken to mean that I'm uncomfortable with that kind of subject matter in general, or specifically with those sorts of representations on ancient coins and other art. 

Most importantly, my main point remains the same: it's always been extremely clear to me from the thread titles when the subject matter is "NSFW," whether a thread is from @Ryro or anyone else -- although adding NSFW to the thread title for anyone to whom that isn't clear is a great idea. Much better than my idea (and I promise I wasn't being serious) of an "X" rating! Anyone who doesn't want to read that kind of thread, for any reason, doesn't have to. And that should be the end of it; I wasn't suggesting and would never suggest that "NSFW" coins or other ancient art are inappropriate for this forum, or shouldn't be posted.

So what did I mean when I said that threads of that kind make me uncomfortable and I generally choose not to read them? It's all about context. There are no images in this particular thread (which I did scroll through, even if I didn't read what people said) showing anything that I haven't seen before, whether in books about Pompeii or in museums or elsewhere. And when I'm reading a book, or when I'm at a museum, and/or having a learned discussion with my women friends about the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian, or about ideal penis size in classical art (it's all about restraint and self-control and civilization, gentlemen!), I'm not the least bit uncomfortable. Here, though, I happen to be one of the few women, if not the only one, who very frequently posts in this forum, even though there are a number present. And sometimes, the atmosphere of the conversations in these kinds of NSFW threads (perhaps especially in the ones about women's body parts) feels to me like it gets a little bit too "boys' club" for my comfort. So much so that I wouldn't even consider participating, or posting a reaction to a comment.  I'm not singling you or anyone else out by any means, @Ryro; I hope you know that you're one of my favorite people here, as you were on Coin Talk. Nor am I suggesting that anyone should change their "style" of writing. I'm just explaining what I meant. 

[Ryro]

9 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

I think I want to clarify what I said in my original comment way back at the beginning, in case I was being unnecessarily obscure. And in case I'm one of the so-called "prudes" because I indicated that certain types of threads here make me uncomfortable. Which people might have (incorrectly) taken to mean that I'm uncomfortable with that kind of subject matter in general, or specifically with those sorts of representations on ancient coins and other art. 

Most importantly, my main point remains the same: it's always been extremely clear to me from the thread titles when the subject matter is "NSFW," whether a thread is from @Ryro or anyone else -- although adding NSFW to the thread title for anyone to whom that isn't clear is a great idea. Much better than my idea (and I promise I wasn't being serious) of an "X" rating! Anyone who doesn't want to read that kind of thread, for any reason, doesn't have to. And that should be the end of it; I wasn't suggesting and would never suggest that "NSFW" coins or other ancient art are inappropriate for this forum, or shouldn't be posted.

So what did I mean when I said that threads of that kind make me uncomfortable and I generally choose not to read them? It's all about context. There are no images in this particular thread (which I did scroll through, even if I didn't read what people said) showing anything that I haven't seen before, whether in books about Pompeii or in museums or elsewhere. And when I'm reading a book, or when I'm at a museum, and/or having a learned discussion with my women friends about the Apollonian vs. the Dionysian, or about ideal penis size in classical art (it's all about restraint and self-control and civilization, gentlemen!), I'm not the least bit uncomfortable. Here, though, I happen to be one of the few women, if not the only one, who very frequently posts in this forum, even though there are a number present. And sometimes, the atmosphere of the conversations in these kinds of NSFW threads (perhaps especially in the ones about women's body parts) feels to me like it gets a little bit too "boys' club" for my comfort. So much so that I wouldn't even consider participating, or posting a reaction to a comment.  I'm not singling you or anyone else out by any means, @Ryro; I hope you know that you're one of my favorite people here, as you were on Coin Talk. Nor am I suggesting that anyone should change their "style" of writing. I'm just explaining what I meant. 

I'm sorry Donna and thanks for being upfront. You don't need to explain your motivation, you too are a favorite of mine. I do my best to rIde the line and am sorry if I've created a negative atmosphere for anyone, female or male.

I try to take feedback and apply it where possible. And appreciate yours. 

Hopefully, you've added some new RRs for us to enjoy  that you might share😊 I've one, but am awaiting its arrival...

[DonnaML]

Thanks, @Ryro. I actually have two RRs that arrived fairly recently, but I've been very delinquent in writing them up. I've been distracted in general: my poor old kitty Ziggy is kind of on his last legs, even though it's been a prolonged process, and I haven't been doing much other than taking care of him and trying to get him to want to eat a little. 

[NathanB]

Hi @DonnaML! I'm very sorry to hear about your kitty being kind of on his last legs.  I'm a cat owner (ownee?) myself, and cats are definitely family members.  I have no idea what I'm going to do in the (hopefully distant) future when it's his time to go.  Hang in there.

[robinjojo]

I would hope that a degree of decorum is followed in this forum, and that any language, terms, jargon or references that demeans or degrades, whether intentional or not, is to be avoided.  I do think people have a fundamental right to express themselves, but as informed and responsible members, I think we also have an obligation to express our opinions, in this case opinions of a sexual nature, within the boundaries of propriety.  To be sure, the subject of eroticism has been a major thread throughout ancient history, and discussions on the subject are totally within the realm of this forum, but "locker room" talk should be done through messaging and not aired in the public domain.

[Topcat7]

1 hour ago, robinjojo said:

I would hope that a degree of decorum is followed in this forum, and that any language, terms, jargon or references that demeans or degrades, whether intentional or not, is to be avoided.  I do think people have a fundamental right to express themselves, but as informed and responsible members, I think we also have an obligation to express our opinions, in this case opinions of a sexual nature, within the boundaries of propriety.  To be sure, the subject of eroticism has been a major thread throughout ancient history, and discussions on the subject are totally within the realm of this forum, but "locker room" talk should be done through messaging and not aired in the public domain.

Congratulations @robinjojo.

You understand the point I was making. I could not have said it better myself.

[Steppenfool]

I was very impressed with the way that this forum handled a disagreement I had with another user. It did end up quite vitriolic at points. However, the posts on both sides were allowed to stand, and the issue was smoothed over privately.

Free communication and exchange of ideas is something very important to me. I think we must tread carefully when calling for our speech to be moderated. There's scarcely a community online that has been improved by heavy handed moderation, yet I have seen the inverse result many times.

Of course, there are things that every "good and rational" person would deplore as unacceptable. Consequently there are certainly times where moderation is appropriate. The previous incident at the previous forum was one such example.

With that said, I don't believe the posts being referred to fall into that domain. The fact that the user base appears to disagree and each view point has "good and rational" supporters, is a testament to that fact.

I think moderation being unnecessary is made most clear by the posts' opponents not being able to clearly define and  communicate an argument as to why the post is actually bad, and why censorship of some kind is needed. I don't believe vague appeals to decency merit an official response by the moderator(s).

I believe members should be free to not participate in threads they don't like, ignore users whose posts the don't like and even  attempt to persuade people people of their point of view regarding the issue, in order to tackle the issue in a social manner. Going further and mandating official moderation on crude humour would be a massive overstep and to the detriment of this forum. There are no limits to what can make people feel offended, uneasy, uncomfortable, icky etc. and it's important to demarcate these feelings  from genuine hate, evil or degredation. If low-level concerns are given merit, I fear a descent into eventual over-policing that will strip the life and personality out of the forum. 

I hope the liberal style of moderating I've seen so far continues. Perhaps some folks haven't been in as many hobby-based internet forums as I have (particularly 5+ years ago when the internet was more libertarian), but I can assure everyone that Numisforums currently has a standard of conduct that I would consider near perfect and does not require intervention.

 

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, Steppenfool said:

I was very impressed with the way that this forum handled a disagreement I had with another user. It did end up quite vitriolic at points. However, the posts on both sides were allowed to stand, and the issue was smoothed over privately.

Free communication and exchange of ideas is something very important to me. I think we must tread carefully when calling for our speech to be moderated. There's scarcely a community online that has been improved by heavy handed moderation, yet I have seen the inverse result many times.

Of course, there are things that every "good and rational" person would deplore as unacceptable. Consequently there are certainly times where moderation is appropriate. The previous incident at the previous forum was one such example.

With that said, I don't believe the posts being referred to fall into that domain. The fact that the user base appears to disagree and each view point has "good and rational" supporters, is a testament to that fact.

I think moderation being unnecessary is made most clear by the posts' opponents not being able to clearly define and  communicate an argument as to why the post is actually bad, and why censorship of some kind is needed. I don't believe vague appeals to decency merit an official response by the moderator(s).

I believe members should be free to not participate in threads they don't like, ignore users whose posts the don't like and even  attempt to persuade people people of their point of view regarding the issue, in order to tackle the issue in a social manner. Going further and mandating official moderation on crude humour would be a massive overstep and to the detriment of this forum. There are no limits to what can make people feel offended, uneasy, uncomfortable, icky etc. and it's important to demarcate these feelings  from genuine hate, evil or degredation. If low-level concerns are given merit, I fear a descent into eventual over-policing that will strip the life and personality out of the forum. 

I hope the liberal style of moderating I've seen so far continues. Perhaps some folks haven't been in as many hobby-based internet forums as I have (particularly 5+ years ago when the internet was more libertarian), but I can assure everyone that Numisforums currently has a standard of conduct that I would consider near perfect and does not require intervention.

I agree, but I don't think anyone was calling for a moderator to sanction Ryro or anyone. There is a difference between banning something and requesting a change to tone/content. I enjoy Ryro's posts and the variation they bring, but the edginess that makes them entertaining also brings them close to the wire. Being able to say you're uncomfortable is just as valid as being able to say what you want. How can that be done without offending the poster?

People can choose to ignore the people who are offended, or they can choose to ignore the posts in question. But correct me if I'm wrong, the ideal scenario is where everyone understands everyone else's sensibilities and posts accordingly, even if they make a judgement to ignore them in a particular instance, perhaps mitigating for that fact e.g. using NSFW. We can all do better in communicating.