Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Paperback_Writer wrote:There was one http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59848/ when the asker was asking about pre-marital exams and what to expect. I was explaining in a basic way what to expect and used the proper, anatomical term "vagina" which I felt was appropriate. Let's all be mature and use the correct terminology. But the editors changed it to "down there." And then, even later after it was posted, it was changed to "look inside." I think that the only time I was censored and was annoyed by it. Now, if I had used that word in a non-serious or humorous way, it would have definitely been inappropriate and I can see why it would have been edited.

Did you at least know that they had changed the wording before it posted?

My un-solicited thoughts on the un-touchable rape topic....

i think that was smart. in my humble opinion, rape is NEVER the victim's fault, no matter what the circumstances are. that would have certainly led to me thinking less of those writers.

Not to be a logic dork, but your argument pre-supposes the result. (Hey, this might be a time I could use "begs the question" the way it's supposed to be used.) We're saying, "Rape is never the victim's fault. Since she was rape, this isn't her fault." The real question isn't whether or not we think this is her fault, the question is whether or not she was actually raped.

How do we define rape? Traditionally, it used to be forcible sex without consent of the individual. But, today the force requirement has been removed in most places (including Utah) and it focuses primarily on consent. I think most people agree that this is a good movement, but some still push for the force requirement because it makes things much more clear as to whether or not a rape occurred. Did a woman physically resist? No? Then there's no rape. (There have traditionally been exceptions where threats of force or overt intimidation would satisfy the force requirement.) The transition to a consent-focused standard poses the problem of what constitutes consent. Do we focus on the victims subjective state of mind or do we focus on the attacker's subjective state of mind? Do we look at the objective circumstances that occurred and then decide whether or not a reasonable victim thought she was being raped or do we decide whether or not a reasonable attacker thought he was having sex without the victim's consent?

In non-sexually active BYU land (of which, Imogen, I don't believe you are a part) this doesn't seem like that big of a deal. But at other universities and colleges, this can be a very big deal. In a survey of female undergraduates at one university, 39% reported that they had said "No" to sexual encounters when in reality they wanted the sexual encounter to occur. If you look at just those who were sexually active, the number jumped to 61%. "Many said they wanted their dates to wait or 'talk me into it,' and some said they told their dates no because they 'wanted him to be more physically aggressive.'" So as a legal standard do we say that "No means No" or do we say "No means no when it's verbalized and other circumstances would indicate it is meant to be construed as no." Do we require a verbalized no or is someone who simply "coyly" resists (e.g. smiles, but takes a guys hand off her shirt) responsible.

As for the case in this instance, I have no clue what happened. I don't think any of the other writers know what factual circumstances occurred. But the reality is, it is possible and even quite likely that this girl thought she was being raped at the time and the boy thought he had her full consent. So I think that the censorship of any answer that could have suggested that is unfortunate because it pre-supposes that her feelings are more important than the guy's feelings. (Being raped is life-altering and horrific; being accused of rape when you are innocent can be just as destructive, although in a very different way.) Yes, she's having an incredibly difficult time as it is. But I think for the board to continue to have robust discussion on important issues, it ought to recognize the other side or abstain from positing only one side. Perhaps, most appropriate might be to refer her to a rape hotline and then be done with it. They would likely give the same response that Desdamona gave, but then it preserves the Board's own appearance of allowing debate.

So while there may be some (perhaps even a fair number) of people who could do with hearing that a rape claim may not be what it is purported to be, is it worth the psychological trauma upon the one (or many) innocents who are struggling with the thought that their rape was somehow their fault?

That's quite a consequentialist view of the Board. Is that really what the Board is for? Providing support and re-affirmation? Or providing information? I'm not asking that as rhetoric, I am just wondering what the Board's real aim is. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be a sliding scale. I also think that there are guys who are accused (even convicted) rapists who didn't have any sort of criminal or even morally blameworthy intent when they had sex with a girl. Does the Board risk alienating them? (That one is rhetorical.)



Also, Katya, tell us everything you know about the BYUSA scandal... I've always wanted to know and now that you're not a writer, you can write a tell all book (or maybe just post) about it.

wired wrote:That's quite a consequentialist view of the Board. Is that really what the Board is for? Providing support and re-affirmation? Or providing information? I'm not asking that as rhetoric, I am just wondering what the Board's real aim is. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be a sliding scale.

Eh, I'd say throughout its history the Board has been all over that scale, due largely to the thoughts of the editors, writers and readers* at the time. That notwithstanding, each question is going to get it's own review on that scale as well. Someone writing in asking about if their suicidal tenancies will damn them is more likely to get a response focused on support than purely an informative one. As you said, each response can be a blend of both, and I'd think that it wouldn't be impossible to give an opposing view while keeping a close eye on the potential collateral damage. In many ways, that was my role while writing for the Board, and the only times I can recall being asked to rewrite submissions was when my sideways sense of humor left my posts too hard to follow.

*One thought here: We as humans love validation. The psychological impact of being able to see the fruits of your actions, whether it be in the form of a paycheck, of a smiling child, or a thank-you note is massive. It has been claimed on these forums that the Board writers tend to be glory-hounds. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I can say that the feedback received from readers has an electrifying effect. And it cuts both ways. I can recall one individual upon discovering my 'nym stating "ah, you were the favorite writer of myself and my roommates until you wrote X". And while that impacted me perhaps more than either of us expected, imagine the impact on the editors not only receiving feedback on their own responses, but the full brunt of the (ahem) "letters to the editor" screaming and crying about any toes that may have potentially been suggested about being stepped near. At the end of the day that's going to affect you, and if you've the clout to see to some changes, odds are you'll swing it.

Katya wrote:

Paperback_Writer wrote:There was one http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59848/ when the asker was asking about pre-marital exams and what to expect. I was explaining in a basic way what to expect and used the proper, anatomical term "vagina" which I felt was appropriate. Let's all be mature and use the correct terminology. But the editors changed it to "down there." And then, even later after it was posted, it was changed to "look inside." I think that the only time I was censored and was annoyed by it. Now, if I had used that word in a non-serious or humorous way, it would have definitely been inappropriate and I can see why it would have been edited.

Did you at least know that they had changed the wording before it posted?

The system is set up so that if anyone other than the author makes changes to an answer (editors and proofreader are the only ones allowed to do that), it emails the author the changes as well as the original text. That is to keep editors and proofreader in check so that they can't change things without the author's knowledge. It does sometimes happen that the change happens and then the question posts before the author logs back into the Board to see the email, but if the author is greatly opposed to the change, one of the editors can change it back even after it posts.

I forget that changed since you left. It was instigated when we got a proofreader, because some people were scared of the change and what a proofreader could potentially do. But all initial fright has vanished and the proofreader has been hailed greatly as saving the Board from having horrible amounts of typos.

Dragon Lady wrote:I forget that changed since you left. It was instigated when we got a proofreader, because some people were scared of the change and what a proofreader could potentially do. But all initial fright has vanished and the proofreader has been hailed greatly as saving the Board from having horrible amounts of typos.

No, I was still around when The Heartless Siren came on, I just didn't know if this was still the setup in Board 5.0.

wired wrote:Also, Katya, tell us everything you know about the BYUSA scandal... I've always wanted to know and now that you're not a writer, you can write a tell all book (or maybe just post) about it.

Heh. Well, there are still some things I can't (or won't) talk about in detail, but I'll put together what I can, probably in a separate thread.

Linking to things that include swear words is distinctly likely to result in a request from the editors to remove the link. (Though I don't think that applies if, in the linked content, swear words appear outside of the main content (like in the comments on an article), or else we'd have to substantially limit linking to YouTube.)

Katya wrote:

Paperback_Writer wrote:There was one http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59848/ when the asker was asking about pre-marital exams and what to expect. I was explaining in a basic way what to expect and used the proper, anatomical term "vagina" which I felt was appropriate. Let's all be mature and use the correct terminology. But the editors changed it to "down there." And then, even later after it was posted, it was changed to "look inside." I think that the only time I was censored and was annoyed by it. Now, if I had used that word in a non-serious or humorous way, it would have definitely been inappropriate and I can see why it would have been edited.

Did you at least know that they had changed the wording before it posted?

I did get a notice that it had changed. Like DL said, it was changed and posted before I could have it changed back- although, one of the editors deemed the word inappropriate, so it wouldn't have been changed back to my original wording.

You can't use the word crap anymore and that ticks me right off.

I also got a post deleted because I made a crack at ordering Russian Brides. My brother in law asked the question and I put that as a joke, but apparently it was inappropriate.

Laser Jock wrote:Linking to things that include swear words is distinctly likely to result in a request from the editors to remove the link. (Though I don't think that applies if, in the linked content, swear words appear outside of the main content (like in the comments on an article), or else we'd have to substantially limit linking to YouTube.)

Heh, even if it is a Wikipedia article. I got a youtube link deleted because there were swears in the comments.I posted the same link without the "careful of the swears in the comments" caveat and it posted. From now on, I'm not going to warn people if there are swears, I'll let people find out for themselves.

Dr. Smeed wrote:You can't use the word crap anymore and that ticks me right off.

I also got a post deleted because I made a crack at ordering Russian Brides. My brother in law asked the question and I put that as a joke, but apparently it was inappropriate.

What the crap are you supposed to say if you can't say crap?

I'm sure we could all agree that nobody likes censorship, but let's not forget the main reason why it has to happen: to prevent the Board from getting shutdown. Permanently. If the DU drops the Board, nobody is going to pick it back up. And considering the Board received a warning a bit recently, well, I just don't think the Board can really afford to be at its "most liberal" right now. Just saying.

Emiliana wrote:

TheBlackSheep wrote:I was only asked to change an answer once, which shocks me, looking back. (From what I understand, there's no way some of that stuff would have been approved if I was writing now. Bless the editors.) I had written a slightly more out-there version of Cognoscente's response to this question: http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/56656/ I just ended up deleting it, and luckily Cognoscente wrote up an answer that got approved.

What are some things that you wrote about that you wouldn't be allowed to now? And why are the standards different now?

Mostly I'm just referring to some comments I made to people who were struggling with going to church. 100% sure those wouldn't be allowed now because I've heard my comments cited as examples of what isn't okay, though often those quotes were attributed to others in those cases. And Sky Bones just mentioned why there are slightly different standards now.

And you know, I think they're right, more or less, at least about the sort of stuff I said. The Board is supposed to be a forum for BYU students who are striving for the same goals that the university supports, and I may or may not have occasionally stuck a toe over that line. When I retired, most of the reason was that I knew I wasn't the sort of person (for many reasons) that the Board is really aimed toward anymore and I didn't want to offend people.

This whole thread is just so... funny.

NerdGirl wrote:

Dr. Smeed wrote:You can't use the word crap anymore and that ticks me right off.

I also got a post deleted because I made a crack at ordering Russian Brides. My brother in law asked the question and I put that as a joke, but apparently it was inappropriate.

What the crap are you supposed to say if you can't say crap?

"Crudfully."

UnluckyStuntman wrote:This whole thread is just so... funny.

Dang, I almost said the exact same thing at the exact same time. It is pretty funny...

Commander Keen wrote:

UnluckyStuntman wrote:This whole thread is just so... funny.

Dang, I almost said the exact same thing at the exact same time. It is pretty funny...

Clearly, CK, great minds think alike. As the Black Sheep would say: "cheers."

Sky Bones wrote:I'm sure we could all agree that nobody likes censorship, but let's not forget the main reason why it has to happen: to prevent the Board from getting shutdown. Permanently. If the DU drops the Board, nobody is going to pick it back up. And considering the Board received a warning a bit recently, well, I just don't think the Board can really afford to be at its "most liberal" right now. Just saying.

well, thanks for providing this missing information. I guess I can understand the cautions a little better now.

What was the warning about by the way?

I wonder if the writers were informed that there was a "warning" or if to them the censorship shot up without any apparent reason. I assume that the writer whose content caused the warning was told, but it is anybody's guess if the other writers were told "we got a warning, and we are going to censor you more".