Moderation is looking at removing the content warning spoiler tag

[Viking Prince]

Moderation is looking at removing the content warning spoiler tag:

It is being discussed and this is not an announcement. We would like member input before a decision is made on the matter though.

I believe that this spoiler tag should never have been added in the first place. It gives the wholly erroneous impression that anything can go in them which is of course not correct. All posted material needs to be compliant with the rules. This tag was added with the best of intentions, but it is trapping too many into violations of the rules. The tag is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card for posts.

The ToS rules are not expected to be changed with this modification of the tags.

Now for your comments!

[Justinian]

You're talking about just removing the [CONTENTWARNING] tag, not all of the spoiler tags, right?

If that's the case, I won't really miss it. I doubt anyone cares too much

[Heinz Guderian]

i see what you're trying to achieve.

[Karamazovmm]

I also agree it won't be missed

[eXplicitX]

Let it be gone and done. It is indeed misleading.

[D.B. Cooper]

I've never seen it used for actual graphic content, only when the poster thinks they have a funny post/pic/video.

[Viking Prince]

Yes, we are only thinking of removing the one spoiler tag.

[Katsumoto]

Sounds good to me, I doubt many people use it anyway.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Hang on a sec. Are you'all reffering to this...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Excuse me, do you have any Grey Poupon???

Or having to say: Warning, adult content

Sorry, dense today, which one are you speaking of? Or am I just "Lost in the sauce?"

[Justinian]

They mean this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

do not violate the rules within the spoiler though

[Lysimachus]

Agreed with Viking Prince. That spoiler screwed me over with a 3-point infraction.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Hmmmmm... Okay, but we can still use them right? You'all are just saying this in terms of TOS violations...

[Viking Prince]

Hang on a sec. Are you'all reffering to this...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Excuse me, do you have any Grey Poupon???

Or having to say: Warning, adult content

Sorry, dense today, which one are you speaking of? Or am I just "Lost in the sauce?"

Justinian has the answer.

They mean this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

do not violate the rules within the spoiler though

Hmmmmm... Okay, but we can still use them right? You'all are just saying this in terms of TOS violations...

This is the tag that is going away:

[CONTENTWARNING]whatever within abiding by the ToS[/CONTENTWARNING]

These two will remain:
[CONTENTBOX]do not violate the rules within the spoiler though[/CONTENTBOX]
[Spoiler] do not violate the rules within the spoiler though[/SPOILER]

[Ferrets54]

I don't use them anyway, I always feel I have to add a written caveat to avoid attention from an overzealous member of staff if the content contains more than a swear word. I do the same thing when I am forced to post the poem of Jesus having sex with a Roman centurion.

[pannonian]

I don't use them anyway, I always feel I have to add a written caveat to avoid attention from an overzealous member of staff if the content contains more than a swear word. I do the same thing when I am forced to post the poem of Jesus having sex with a Roman centurion.

If there's a chance moderators may miscontrue a post of yours, report it with an explanation of what it is.

[ulti]

I would support this, never used it anyway and I would agree it gives misconceptions to the newbies.

[Ferrets54]

If there's a chance moderators may miscontrue a post of yours, report it with an explanation of what it is.

I'd rather moderators contacted me if they couldn't understand it and I will happily explain.

[pannonian]

I'd rather moderators contacted me if they couldn't understand it and I will happily explain.

You have a habit of savaging any staffers who have the gall to come into contact with you, even for the most innocuous reasons. Why not take the initiative to make their lives easier by reporting your own post and explaining your point? I've done it with mine in the past. If your post is reported again, the new reports are added to your original report, with your explanation at the top of the thread.

[Ferrets54]

You have a habit of savaging any staffers who have the gall to come into contact with you, even for the most innocuous reasons. Why not take the initiative to make their lives easier by reporting your own post and explaining your point? I've done it with mine in the past. If your post is reported again, the new reports are added to your original report, with your explanation at the top of the thread.

I believe this opinion may be based on your own experiences and for that you only have yourself to blame. If moderators are the ones that have a problem with my post yet are not fully confident in their interpretation of that post then then onus is on the moderator to contact me, not the other way round, and would solve much gnashing of teeth that comes from inappropriate infractions.

[pannonian]

I believe this opinion may be based on your own experiences and for that you only have yourself to blame. If moderators are the ones that have a problem with my post yet are not fully confident in their interpretation of that post then then onus is on the moderator to contact me, not the other way round, and would solve much gnashing of teeth that comes from inappropriate infractions.

Thus says someone who plays the self-righteous victim for eternity. Without Den access, you wouldn't have seen the number of times I've explained to inexperienced moderators how your posts are just this side of the ToS. But no, Ferrets is ever the self-righteous victim who is unfairly targeted, even though he persists in dancing on the boundary, and does nothing to make the moderators' job easier.