Humour section

[jasn78]

im in agreeance with 99gti here guys i lov the humour section but there is some stuff that is posted in there esp the motivational posters that borders on pornagraphic at times, and while i lov reading them it means alot of pple inc myself have to be careful where we read them. So I see no problem mods asking to keep it a bit cleaner so it cuts down on an already hectic work load for them, after all it is a free forum and they are doing a job they dont get any rewards for.

[KWICKS]

The humour section is one of the forums I always check out. The content is always interesting, the contributors often regulars, etc so it is obvious to me this is part of the communtiy that should stay - its working for VWW.

But use your wisdom to do whatebver is best, and occasionally call for restraint as is required.

[zz2]

jesus christ not again

[maca]

jesus christ not again

x2.

We were only having this debate about 2 weeks ago weren't we?

[Mrk_Mickey]

We're having it on a weeklyish basis I reckon...don't worry. The rules get layed in place, then everyone slacks off, then the rules get laid back down, then everyone slacks off again. It's life, this is the ''laid back down'' stage

[tinto]

[mikepologti]

i do love the humour section in fact i visit it more then other areas, of the forum. though some posts i do have to agree are maybe going a lil to far. i personally dont have a problem with them but i can see how others would get offended.

i think maybe the main problem here is the guide lines. maybe they need to be updated.what we could do is what alot of online chat sites are doing ,rate them. formalise it to r rated, g rated, m rated with corisponding guidlines, posted as a sticky. i know this only sounds like more work, though in the end, with the rating scheme in place it would hopfully remedy the need for constant need for moderating threads.

[zz2]

if its too much of a hassle for the mods then why did they put their hand up to become one?

[99gti]

if its too much of a hassle for the mods then why did they put their hand up to become one?

Thanks again Mark for some constructive feedback. They signed up to help, not to be abused.

They were also asked because they demonstrated the quality's needed to perform the role, they didn't volunteer.

[Mind's Eye]

Perhaps a good compromise would be to draft up a what's taboo in the most clear-cut way possible. I know in reality everyone's individual interpretation and perspective will blur the line and will get the odd person who posts something they think is OK, but a mod thinks otherwise and then normally ensues is a ban, a cry about injustice/inconsistency, and a thread regarding the future of the humour section. But if there is something more concrete to refer to other than the term "offensive" it may be a more effective measure of stamping it out. I know with what I proposed, for it's best chance of working the rules will have to be absolutely no racist, sexist, insert-your-discrimination-here-ist jokes, to minimize that gray area of opinion.

I love a good joke (including the odd dirty/may be deemed "offensive" one), and I'd hate to see the humour section go.
So instead of losing the whole thing, is it too illogical to just drop the bad jokes?
The internet is your oyster for jokes of all descriptions.