Forum:The path to choose regarding more controversial content

Following discussions and varying opinions on what would best be done regarding content like this and this, perhaps it's time to choose a consistent way of doing things that is agreeable to - hopefully - us all regarding the issue of less mature content.

The basic options - labelled about as self-deprecatingly as I can muster - that I can think of are as follows:

• The "Garbage Dump Of The Free And Dirty™" approach: Letting such content accumulate freely.
• The "Merciless Totalitarian Prude™" approach: Purging Illogicopedia of it all at sight.
• The "Half-Arsed Compromise Of Sensibility™" approach: Balancing the "quality" and "quantity" of it, allowing key articles on the subjects in question to remain, but enact a policy of merging related articles and content and removing near-duplicates, keeping it all in a few reserved places.
• The "Squabble And Hope It Kind Of Works™" approach: Come to no conclusion and go about dealing with it with conflicting methods.

So, what does the Illogicopedian community at large hold to be the best overall direction in which to head? No need to vote immedietly based upon what I've outlined; feel free to discuss and revise it. It's just my thoughts thus far, after all. --Fluffalizer 23:35, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC)

The Vote

VOTING REGULATIONS

Extra regulations currently apply:

There is voting currently taking place below this template, So here are the voting basics: Users are permitted one vote each. Please clearly state whether your addition is a for, an against or a comment. Remember to sign and to update the vote count. Nominations count as a vote for unless specified as "Neutral" or "Against". Take care not to overdo self-nomination. If you wish to change your vote, then cross out the previous using the <s> tags. Frog-infested pineapples are not allowed in the voting area until they have been de-frogged. Click here for more details

The "Garbage Dump Of The Free And Dirty™" approach

Score: 0

The "Merciless Totalitarian Prude™" approach

Score: 0

The "Half-Arsed Compromise Of Sensibility™" approach

Score: 9

• Okay, should "Penis" be deleted just because it says "Penis"? Umm, no, the article isn't even about a penis. Should PENISPENISPENIS be deleted because it actually talks about "cock-sucking"? Well, according to my reasoning, yes. I say, it only needs to be deleted if it has no intellectual unintellectuality in it. 71.203.244.64 23:41, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC) Eh?
• I aggree with this too, i think the IP is right.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 11:39, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)
• i'm with SP, (even though i added the bit about cock sucking - many months ago) - penispenispenis is childish and mot reall promoting illogic in a positive light but penis should be an article if it isnt immature and using the male genitalia as a long since dried up source of humour juice. Testostereich • (ballsack)
• This - no surprise - is where I'm heading as well. --Fluffalizer 15:13, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, please do bare in mind that those are just prime examples, we are actually deciding policy here.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 12:44, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)
• Comment you honestly believe ?pedia is about maturity??
• Comment: Nope, but it's not about immaturity either. --Fluffalizer 15:13, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)
• yes, i think it has to be case-by-case. otherwise, the "rules" would have to be clear, and that would be difficult. more simply, we could have general rules and decide the particulars as they arise.--MathPoet 10:44, 28 Aym 2007 (UTC)
• Aye sir!' It works on other places so you might as well.
  ~Robomilk
  21:27, 4 Yoon 2007 (UTC)
• I agree. Sort of. Asema 17:02, 15 Yoon 2007 (UTC)
• I'm down wit it. --Thekillerfruitcake 18:38, 15 Yoon 2007 (UTC)

The "Squabble And Hope It Kind Of Works™" approach

Score: 1

--Zerotrousers LOL! 20:08, 30 Aym 2007 (UTC)

The ... um ... More Discussion

i think maybe we need to talk about this more to come up with more options. there are several more possibilities I can think of, some of which involve the use of subpages to allow more than one version of an article under different content ratings. --Nerd42 16:47, 4 Yoon 2007 (UTC)

it could go either way. stodgy rules or endless exceptions. i don't see anything wrong with forbidding swear words and crude sexual references, crippling as it might be, but this may be extreme. i feel we could come to some kind of consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not. any questionable articles could be put up for vote. we basically don't want filth and crudeness. we should be self-editing, i say. we're all old enough to have a reasonable sense as to what is and is not okay. the less complicated, the better. we could try this self-editing and then, if it doesn't work, we could try stronger measures.--MathPoet 20:26, 11 Yoon 2007 (UTC)

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum