Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

tubgirl or goatse? that's a banning.
December 11, 2003 6:51 AM   Subscribe

automatic banning of anyone who does this.
posted by crunchland to Feature Requests at 6:51 AM (25 comments total)

And a post parser that does this:

$post = preg_replace("/goatse.cx/","oralse.cx",$post)
$post = preg_replace("/tubgirl.com/","tubcat.com",$post)

posted by brownpau at 7:03 AM on December 11, 2003


I don't know about automatic banning, but an automatic strongly-worded email wouldn't hurt.

The people who know about goatse and tubgirl already know what they are (as I do from reading other users comments without having actually seen either site in the hideous flesh), and the people who don't know, almost certainly wouldn't want to.

If you do feel some perverse (and I do mean perverse), compulsion to link to this sort of stuff, some sort of all-caps, blink-tag warning should be in order at the very least.

I'm no expert on modern social-etiquette, but I'm quietly confident that Emily Post would back me up, were she available for comment on the subject.
posted by backOfYourMind at 7:14 AM on December 11, 2003



$post = preg_replace("/goatse.cx\"/","oralse.cx\" class=\"goatse\"",$post)

and in the stylesheet:

.goatse {
font: xx-large #FF0000;
text-decoration: blink;
text-transform: uppercase;
author-of-post: idiot;
}

Or maybe .goatse {display:none;} would be simpler.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 7:27 AM on December 11, 2003


"automatic banning"

I think just a policy would clear things up quite a bit. I don't think Matt has ever come out and explicitly said that goatse and tubgirl are not allowed.

But I come down on both sides with this issue.

On the one hand these are two of the most notoriously vile and obnoxious things on the Internet. Banning them just gives them more notoriety and makes us look like prudes. If you ban them the idiot fringe will just have more motivation to link other stuff.

But allowing these just encourages an atmosphere of stupidity. I'm not sure why people would link them other than just to be dumb for the sack of being dumb. I know that for myself, sometimes being an ass is it's own reward. It's like candy and I can assure you I should be discouraged.

Personally I think anyone linking goatse should get a one month timeout unless they can come up with a really good reason for the link. But we gave up on keeping MeFi a non-idiot zone long ago. So I'm not sure what the point is. Do we ban all dumb/rude sexual references? Or just these two?

This type of banning is either a slippery slope, or it's futile.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:36 AM on December 11, 2003


I was just coming here to post the same thing. My initial impulse is to vote for banning, but I guess a one-month timeout is OK too (for a first offense). At any rate, I hope Matt takes this seriously enough to do something appropriately drastic. (And before anything else, delete the damn comments.)

This type of banning is either a slippery slope, or it's futile.

I disagree. That's like saying "Well, if you're going to ban beanballs, you're going to wind up banning inside pitching, so you might as well let pitchers hit batters in the head." These are far worse than anything else I've seen people link to, and I don't see any problem with Matt banning the two of them; if something equally vile pops up, he can add that to the list. I'm willing to accept his judgment on such things. We can't let the assholes run the place.
posted by languagehat at 7:48 AM on December 11, 2003


Agreed y6, demonizing those specific sites out of the gazillions of obnoxious and revolting sites on the web would be a pretty stupid.

languagehat - I don't think you can make a hard and fast (hmmm) rule about this sort of thing, it's all about context, intent and...y'know, the whole vibe of the thing.

Bannings should just be judged on a prolapsed-colon by prolapsed-colon basis. But I'm all for a severe dressing-down and deletion of the comments.
posted by backOfYourMind at 7:52 AM on December 11, 2003


Case-in-point, a user posting a totally out-of-context link to a picture of someone with some sort of severe digestive disorder is straight-up wack, no argument here. But many people might get a chuckle out of another post of a pic of 'elephant-dropping-a-great-steaming-crap' that might be tangentially related to the FPP in some way.

Even the most neurotically coprophobic person would have to admit, there's a whole lot of grey (or perhaps brown) there.
posted by backOfYourMind at 8:02 AM on December 11, 2003


"These are far worse than anything else I've seen people link to"

See, that's you. But I don't think they come even close to that. I've seen much worse posted here (much of which Matt has actually banned people for). And I'll bet a few people don't see anything wrong with them at all.

I think we'd gain a lot more by giving one month bans to people who engage in dumb one-liners. And I think I could make a very passionate and convincing case for it. That's the slippery slope I was referring to.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:04 AM on December 11, 2003


" We can't let the assholes run the place."

great tagline for MetaTalk, by the way
posted by matteo at 8:06 AM on December 11, 2003


I think that a link to those two sites is unecessary.

A knowing reference to them is fine.

An, invitation for someone to google them if they are unaware of the reference is fine.

But linking them.... whats the point?

They have been linked a lot recently. I've been to three threads with tub/goat links in the last week. What is that, has everyone just seen it or something?
posted by davehat at 9:08 AM on December 11, 2003


This is the equivalent of yelling "GONADS" in a crowded theater.
posted by scarabic at 9:16 AM on December 11, 2003


I must admit to being the latest prude who found the goat thing offensive link goes to my outrage not the pic.
I only actually viewed it for less that a second, yet it has still somehow managed to burn into my mind's eye........

I have not yet seen 'tubgirl' and dont want to.......... as for throwing someone off for posting it I think that would be harsh.
posted by kenaman at 9:22 AM on December 11, 2003


It's fucked up, and I deleted the comment.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:05 AM on December 11, 2003


> I'm quietly confident that Emily Post would back me up, were she available for
> comment on the subject.

As it happens, I have tea with dear Emily from beyond the grave regularly and was able to put the question before her. She replies ,

"I have never worried about being called a prude. It has been my observation that everyone is, each differing from the other only in where he draws the line.

"As for banning , I am reluctant to ban any subject or expression from a fully public forum, subject only to dear Justice Holmes's famous dictum. Indeed one is not infrequently called upon to be civil to highly dubious persons encountered in public places, and to tolerate their obscure obsessions and unusual diction. One simply does one's best--though, when obliged to shake hands with the truly repellant, double vinyl gloves may be worn any time after luncheon, so you may wish to plan your excursions into the Public Square accordingly.

"On fully private occasions, on the contrary, it is not only acceptable but preferred that there be limits upon aggressively eccentric behavior, speech, clothing, or personal hygene. One must, after all, occasionally be able to relax among persons with whom one is entirely comfortable. Violations of decorum in such a setting may be met with anything from mild surprise to frosty punctiliousness. In the ultimate instance, where one guest's behavior is ruining the pleasure of the occasion for all, it is the duty of the host to have a word privately with the offender and if necessary show him the door.

"The question is most difficult when it arises at one of those many events that are not entirely private and yet not fully public. Examples will occur to your imagination. Such occasions do more and more seem to attract the sort of nuisance who feels that if anything may be said or done then therefore everything must be. At such times there is no better guide than to trust the grace and tact--and also, it may be, the courage--of the other participants. I regret I cannot be more helpfully prescriptive than that, it is a vexed issue. Do have some more of this remarkable Macallan."
posted by jfuller at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2003


Since Matt deleted the comment, who actually made this allegedly offensive posting?
posted by billsaysthis at 11:53 AM on December 11, 2003


Good background on Goatse, tubgirl, and the other "shock" sites from Wikipedia, for the heretofore unitiated.
posted by PrinceValium at 12:12 PM on December 11, 2003


Has the member been notified? then is this a new or existing problem as the solution would be easy to give forth. Basically the member posted links which would pancake the double post as other comments point out that though in deed it was a double post. It was better since the original contained the "dreaded" links. Honestly it looked more like jealousy. The one I know around here receiving prizes is our leader.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:20 PM on December 11, 2003


Justice Holmes's famous dictum

(ping!)

Just had an idea for a porn movie.
posted by Hildago at 12:33 PM on December 11, 2003


The person who left the message has a relatively low user number... (sub 10k). One would think that they've been around long enough to have a little respect for community standards, even if they aren't explicit, and know that doing stuff like that is intolerable. (And, admittedly, they left the offending message to prove some inane point, styling it after a previous message, which, unfairly, passed without metatalk comment.)
posted by crunchland at 12:37 PM on December 11, 2003


My poorly thought out comment was in response to the member who thought that although this was a recent double post "The earlier one has links to goatse in the comments, so I vote to keep this one."

The earlier post was more informative (IMO) and the idea of deleting the original due to the Goatse guy was a bit anal (again IMO).

Yup, I shoulda known better. No excuses.

Sorry MeFites.

Paul
posted by DBAPaul at 1:24 PM on December 11, 2003


"...the idea of deleting the original due to the Goatse guy was a bit anal..."

*groan*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:51 PM on December 11, 2003


> (ping!) Just had an idea for a porn movie.

Take it to goatse. No, no, fuller prepares to be brave. Just gimme some more of that Macallan, I think it's helping. Leave the bottle.
posted by jfuller at 2:15 PM on December 11, 2003


The person who left the message has a relatively low user number... (sub 10k). One would think that they've been around long enough to have a little respect for community standards

Well, if you equate low user number with "the community" then perhaps the real community standard isn't as offended as you are? I personally don't put a goatse link right up there as a capital offense. Definitely deletable, but not a big deal.
posted by scarabic at 4:06 PM on December 11, 2003


goatse is so 1999. nowadays http://bartse.cx is where the kewl trolls link.
posted by quonsar at 4:47 PM on December 11, 2003


But where's the prime number shitting bartse?
posted by homunculus at 5:52 PM on December 11, 2003


« Older I've noticed (myself included)...  |  Anyone else going to Vegas for... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments