Spoilers for innapropriate content?

[Hecktix]

i don't see why it should really exist as a rule then? idk maybe its just me

It's a rule as a collective, for instance I believe it says something like "mildly inappropriate content may be posted so long as there is a warning and it's in a spoiler". So that counts for all inappropriate content, although some mods won't mind links being posted without spoilers, it's all down to discretion and our rules being subjective - which they should be, or you'd find robotic moderation which would piss us all off.

[Catzsy]

It's a rule as a collective, for instance I believe it says something like "mildly inappropriate content may be posted so long as there is a warning and it's in a spoiler". So that counts for all inappropriate content, although some mods won't mind links being posted without spoilers, it's all down to discretion and our rules being subjective - which they should be, or you'd find robotic moderation which would piss us all off.

Well as long as the mods don't get told off for leaving those with links and no spoiler that's fine. I cannot see anything robotic about moderating to this rule which is pretty specific and am unable to see anything robotic about it at all. Either the content is mildly inappropriate and should be in a spoiler or it is not mildly inappropriate. There doesn't seem to be any halfway house here. I do agree though that somebody should not be penalised about it and just reminded unless it happens persistently and they just chose to ignore it.
I have often put content in a spoilerr and put a warning on with a simple reminder. That's where the discretion comes in I believe.

[Hecktix]

Well as long as the mods don't get told off for leaving those with links and no spoiler that's fine. I cannot see anything robotic about moderating to this rule which is pretty specific and am unable to see anything robotic about it at all. Either the content is mildly inappropriate and should be in a spoiler or it is not mildly inappropriate. There doesn't seem to be any halfway house here. I do agree though that somebody should not be penalised about it and just reminded unless it happens persistently and they just chose to ignore it.
I have often put content in a spoilerr and put a warning on with a simple reminder. That's where the discretion comes in I believe.

I believe the textual warning is more important than spoilers, especially when it's just links we're referring to But yes, you are right.

[Catzsy]

I believe the textual warning is more important than spoilers, especially when it's just links we're referring to But yes, you are right.

Well the rules used to say link or spoiler but they just say spoiler now (which is neater) but the warning is the most important part, I agree. I don't mind either way. Maybe worth a little amend. Nicola?

[Grig]

But with this discretion it may not be very fair if someone gets a warning from one mod and another one completely overlooks it surely? I know discretion when analyzing whether a post is rude or not, but for this I think something standardized should be followed.

[Hecktix]

But with this discretion it may not be very fair if someone gets a warning from one mod and another one completely overlooks it surely? I know discretion when analyzing whether a post is rude or not, but for this I think something standardized should be followed.

Nobody is ever punished for posting mildly inappropriate content without a warning/spoiler, a mod will add a warning & spoiler and just let the person know that they've done it and ask them to do it in the future, obviously if someone repeatedly ignored this further action could be taken. Discretion is in the sense of what is mildly inappropriate and that is down to the moderators' discretion, always has been and works a treat.