Sex with a guy i just met???

I have the amusing picture of you and your merry men and women going over all the threads and placing the ban in Boston mark that you had come up with.

Instead of NSFW why not either BIB for Ban in Boston or 666 for the mark of the devil herself?

In any case what would be nice is a feature to filter out all the G rated threads and only show the NSFW threads.

The one other village idiot that Hawkeye can convince. You guys are such ninnies. There are 4 little letters on the grids now and you guys want to act like the sky is falling.

Thanks for playing the village idiot roles so well, and making it easy for me to explain things to everyone else.

Those nasty and hurtful comments are strangely coming from a web-master that placed a new feature of this type without any announcement either ahead of time or at the time of employment.

Waiting for people to ask what the hell does NSFW means.

Let see the word that you used on me and Hawkeye idiot does not fit such behavior however any of the following words seems to apply sloppy, careless, shoddy, or slipshod ...........

That's a question that I keep asking, everytime I think I've got it sussed he throws me a wideball.

His intelligence is inversely proportional to his sense of importance.

You both are abject idiots. I am not going to filter my opinion on the matter either, especially given how obnoxious you guys incessantly are to everyone and how you both insist that any option for anyone else to filter anything is a huge sin.

If you don't like hearing it then don't go out of your way to make a fool out of yourself in public. Or find somewhere else to be the village idiot.

Leaving aside that RG is under no obligation to consult with anyone here before making a change (especially one so minor, which is not in the least disruptive), it is hardly his fault that some members here are so ignorant as not to know what NSFW means. It is certainly no great slur to one's intellect not to have known it, but it is more than a little ludicrous to attempt to portray its use in a sinister light.

NSFW at Wikipedia

NSFW at the Urban Dictionary

There is no reasonable basis upon which to suggest that RG was using an arcane term, or practicing deliberate obfuscation.

LOL I been on computer boards since the days of 300 baud dial up modems and have never ran into NSFW so somehow the claims it is so common on discussion websites that no notice is needed seem highly unlikely.

Alternately, you are just an abject idiot and aren't quick on the uptake. You've run into it before, just more info that went right through the sieve.

You're problem isn't that you didn't recognize a very long established term. Fine. No one knows everything. This one particular detail slipped your long range purview. That's fine. I think everyone is piling up on you now here because instead of letting this lapse of knowledge slide and move on with the fact, you're obsessing over it as one big censorship conspiracy.

As Robert said here and elsewhere: Whether you want to filter out these labeled threads is now opt in not opt out. And this new policy isn't only to protect the most prudish of the a2k members but those who actually could lose their job if they're seen/witnessed on participating/looking at questionable material. If you can't figure that out by now then you're completely hopeless.

I'm not condoning the firing of individuals who participate/look at/stumble upon but I do recognize the reality that these unjust events happen at the workplace. So I'm not making any ethical point for future debate.

The opt-in not opt-out is the bad-word filter. The NSFW flag does not collapse topics for anyone. The only thing it does to topics, is put a NSFW flag on it.

But one can go to ones preference and opt into the collapse NSFW threads if one chooses..., right?

here's the important piece to remember



that's right. No notice is needed.

A2K belongs to someone - he can do what he wants with it, when he wants. He can shut it down if he wants. It's not our call.

And the thing is, the people who don't get it, don't need to worry about it. It wasn't made for them.

Anyone who has a job where knowing what NSFW means is important will be able to use it. Anyone else can go on with their merry day. Unless they are stupid, in that case they will want to make a huge fuss about it and highlight how dumb they are for everyone else to see.

That is just posts. Posts do collapse and that is opt-out. This way we can stop editing out graphic images and just leave them there.

One important point to mention is that confusion isn't why I'm calling these guys stupid, this is gonna confuse plenty of normal people and plenty of really smart people (I got the specs for the bad-word filter mixed up to Nick in translation, it happens to anyone).

The stupid part, is where they jump to conclusions, and go apeshit over it. And even after being told their conclusions were wildly off the mark (and in ways they can simply verify for themselves) they decide to double down on the daftness and dig deeper.

That, is what is ******* dumb as dog ****. To look reality right in the face and say no, I will not accept that I am wrong and I will keep shouting this to the rooftops. That is what makes a village idiot.

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

You know, if you run into a term you're not familiar with, there's this nifty thing called the Internet where you can look up almost anything.

You should really consider looking into it.

The way I read it is that the NSFW tag on a thread means that the thread contains (could be?) a post which has been collapsed if I haven't opted out of that feature.

right?

According to the blog the entire thread is not visable without a click through, which research shows well over 80% of the people will rarely or never do. Robert knows this, knows that this is an act of burial, but he refuses to come clean.

In the a2k world of data, the first post constitutes the thread. So if that is marked the thread is marked.

If posts are marked it just collapses the post and users can click to see it or set the preference to never collapse it, but it does not mark the thread.

There may be times, where a moderator may just mark the first post, and thusly the thread, due to an enormous number of individual nsfw posts to it, just to make things easier.

So to recap:

Topics that are "nsfw" only get a red nsfw next to the tags. That's it.

Posts (most of which that used to be censored by removing the images or graphic content) that are marked nsfw are collapsed, but can be opened at a click or members can opt out of the collapsing.

I think on the balance of things, it actually adds up to less censorship and makes the ability to support such discussions entrenched as part of the community.

But hey, some people just need to throw things on the ground.

The blog did have confusing copy about whether a thread is collapsed (for about 10 minutes before someone else pointed that out to me politely and I edited), but even after I had edited that to make it clearer, and told you personally that it was not the case your response was to call me a liar. And to tell me that I suck at what I do, and that I am lying to everyone.

You are an abject idiot, you could have checked for yourself anytime and realized that I was telling you the truth but decided it was better to just keep insisting that I am a liar. Not once has any topic ever been collapsed for being nsfw flagged, it was never built that way and I clarified your confusion to you. You just called me a liar over and over instead of looking for your damn self.

But hey, someone has to be the village idiot and thank you for being such a useful one.

Robert? Some people aren't humble enough to admit they made a mistake ((Hawkeye for example)) OR WORSE, just simply make a note to themselves that they made a mistake and move on with ones life without further uberparanoid delusional conspiracy related comments.