@KarlBielefeldt Sounds good to me. The first time I saw your account you were wearing something that looked like a priest hat on your head and I just could not fathom why someone would post that on the site, lol!
@Joe I don't know about a formal decision (but I have a HORRIBLE memory), this search, though, has only one closed question, if that helps.
@KarlBielefeldt - I enjoy a good winter bash, and I love the hats!
@KarlBielefeldt. @Beofett, How does anyone tell here who's trolling? I'm not very good at that. About 25 years ago, someone came in to get an x-ray of their foot, which they thought had a broken bone or two. When I asked them what happened, they answered, "I tried to kick the dog, but it moved, and I kicked a tree instead."
I'm sure I kept a straight (and hopefully empathetic) face, but I never ever forgot that. I wondered to myself, who would ever admit to that? Not that it never happens, but who doesn't have a sense of what's acceptable behavior and what's not?
I understand we all have different ideas of what's acceptable. But like Jeremy pointed out a bit ago, some posts just leave me looking like this:
:-O
I guess the best tack is 1) Don't feed the trolls and 2) Don't think of trolls when you hear footsteps?
@medica That's probably a good question for moderators.stackexchange. Social acceptability isn't even close to a universal concept. That means you can't really tell if someone's trolling on the subject matter alone unless you know him well. Usually I go by the tone and try to give people the benefit of the doubt if I can't tell.
It can often be very difficult to determine if a user is genuinely confused or upset versus simply trying to cause problems for laughs or malice. What are the most reliable indicators that a user is intentionally being difficult?
So, the movie question I was going to ask (but ended up just using the link from one of the general movie questions to the ratings site) was: Star Wars at 3, yes or no? My three year old is really into Star Wars despite not having seen any of the movies. He's a mature 3 year old, but he's still, well, three.
I think it's mostly okay - not very violent, not really any bad language - though he also probably won't understand much of what's going on.
(by not very violent I mean not very much on-screen violence - of course blowing up a planet is rather violent)
@Joe I watched Star Wars with my kids when they were around that age with no problems. Just keep an eye on if it gets too much. I can't remember where I saw it, perhaps on one of the DVD special features, but there was a discussion about how scary the scene is for some kids where Jar-Jar's hand is stuck in the engine when Anakin is about to start the racing pod, and his "tongue is fat" so he can't call for help. Things we don't consider scary are often seen very differently by kids.
@KarlBielefeldt hmm, that makes me think, you really could screw with an audience by having Jar Jar actually get killed there
though I'd think it would have more effect if it was actually a character that people weren't wishing that would happen to
but yea, the language and patterns of cinema teach us it is just a comical situation and he isn't actually going to get hurt. Having a character in a situation like that actually get killed would be an interesting experiment since it would catch people off guard
because really, the kid's reaction is the more "normal" reaction to the situation
It can often be very difficult to determine if a user is genuinely confused or upset versus simply trying to cause problems for laughs or malice. What are the most reliable indicators that a user is intentionally being difficult?
