People who find trigger and content warnings helpful: what makes a good warning, and how can we format those better? [more inside]
Could we have a real documented policy on spoilers, ideally enforced by the people who approve the posts in question? Is it *really* necessary to approve posts (Warning: multiple "House" spoilers!) that are basically spoilers as read, or that have unwarned *spoiler* links? Perhaps all spoilers should be in the "more inside" section, with a prominent warning in the description field?! If multiple people are complaining that a post basically spoiled the episode, then what's the point of expecting the *spoilers!* or *NSFW* courtesies from posters at all, if no such standards actually exist?
Regarding this post: We've discussed problems with geocities links before. Unfortunately people are not requiored to have read that discussion before posting. Can we grep front Page posts for sites with limited bandwidth quotas (geocities and other known free hosting sites) and then at least warn the posters on the preview pane that they should probably get the google cash or try and find the content elseware?
In AOL Instant Messenger there is the ability to 'warn' other users. Perhaps the ability to tag someone with a 'warning' and the subsequent monitoring of how many warnings people accumulate in a time frame could be an idea?