Although the "execution description" question is reasonably settled (I think), that got me wondering about the general feeling about what is and isn't appropriate here or there.

In a quiz I did about 1986, question 4 asks about a remark Ronald Reagan made to Baltimore Orioles catcher Rick Dempsey during the ceremonies marking the start of the baseball season.

The correct answer is that he made a crude remark about Libyan leader Muamar Khadafi, and that's exactly how I have it phrased in the multiple choice options.

In the additional information though, I go on to explain the circumstances and exactly what Reagan said ("Don't worry about Khadafi, we're going to nail his nuts to that log over there.")

I deliberately included the quote, and was happy that the editor left it in when the quiz went online early last year. It is a funny quote, a colorful quote, arguably amusing in that it came from a US President. And for better or worse, it's something that would probably be allowed in US broadcast television, or certainly be not that unusual to hear among fifth grade boys on a playground (speaking as a former fifth grade boy). Basically, I thought that the vividness and spiciness added more value than offensiveness to the quote, and that it would lose much of that spice if paraphrased.

At the same time, well, I don't see the quote showing up any time soon in a "Fun Trivia for the whole family" marketing campaign. And to certain people, perhaps that quote is more offensive than the execution description that did, in fact, show up in a published opinion of the US Supreme Court.

In my mind, my Reagan quote was okay because I called it "crude" in the answers, only included it in the additional information, put it in context, and it was on a quiz that most likely would only be taken by adults. And I know I've seen occasional mild profanity in some other people's quizzes and answers.

So how does "inappropriate" work? In keeping with the Supreme Court theme, is it like what Justice Potter Stewart once said about pornography: "I'll know it when I see it?"

I haven't seen your quiz, but if youre excuse is that you said 'crude' in the interesting info and kids aren't likely to play it, I'd have to say what you have in your quiz is inappropriate for the site.

As we said in the other active thread, it doesn't matter if it's not a kid subject - it may come up in the daily/hourly quiz and then kids *will* be reading it.

If it is in the "interesting information" the daily and hourly quizzes are not affected. It will only be seen by people actually taking the quiz.

I suppose the point d is making is not whether the given remark is crude or not, but where do we draw the line? At what point does PC become censorship? In America, you have the right to free speech, as we do in Canada. What you do with that free speech is up to you. However, one must be careful not to offend, if you don't want people to be offended.

As I always say when other cops complain about going to a death scene, "You wanted to be a cop".

My point is, you get what you sign up for. If d made it difficult to stumble across the possibly inappropriate remark, then pushing forward and finding it puts the onus on the discoverer. I personally don't find it offensive, but then I objected to a joke about cancer that was written into a gag for a stage show we did in college. Why? Because the people in the audience had no choice but to hear it. I would no more do a skit in blackface that that particular joke. People thought I was being unreasonable, but then again, that's what makes us individuals. It was my perception of that joke that made me object to it.

It's also why FT has editors.

Hmmm. I may be on shaky ground here. I just collaborated on a quiz (now on-line) where I cited a quote from a movie which was: "You [censored]". It was said in the film "Tootsie". When I saw the draft of the quiz I thought that that question would never get through. But it did. I am aware that youngsters view FunTrivia and agree that sexually explicit remarks, totally coarse references, etc. should not be made in the spirit of just sport. But repeating a public quote doesn't seem left of center to me. Any child could have heard Reagan's quote or seen that movie I refer to on afternoon TV. That's just my opinion. To note: the person with whom I built the aforementioned quiz is an FT editor. One with kids, I might add. She had no problem with the content or context of it.

Argh. Looks like my word got censored here, though.

I put that quiz online, Gatsby, and it did not even occur to me to censor that word. It isn't a swear word, and my Oxford dictionary does not even consider it 'coarse'. The meaning given is 'slovenly woman; slattern; hussy.'

The general rule of thumb here is - if you wouldn't hear it on the six o'clock news, don't use it in a quiz.

Wussy Americans...is that the best your guys can do? Our head of state said something much worse years ago. Prime Minister Trudeau uttered something familiar in the House of Commons during a session, but when called on it, dismissed it as "fuddle duddle". I think we Canadians found the whole thing amusing, especially when he added "the finger" to his repetoire while out west a few years later.

Good old Pierre, we don't miss him much!

Everyone's feeling about this issue is quite different, but as long as it adheres to the guidelines set forth in QL, I think it will be ok.

Regarding colorful presidential language, the so-called six o'clock news rule is irrelevant, as the evening news has quoted it in the past. I can recall hearing mild curse words on the evening news going years back. Infrequent, but it's been there. What's more, I'm sure all of us who watch the news can recall references to sex scandals, genocide, and horrific street crime. Perhaps some of you live places where the news does not report such things. Must be nice.

I find the "won't someone think of the children" line suspect. If this site is really aiming to cater to young children, it may be heading for trouble.

"Under a federal law that took effect earlier this year, Web sites must gain verifiable parental consent before allowing children to use email and chat forums or before collecting consumer data on children through registration forms and other methods. The law, known as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), has been criticized for raising the costs of Web site operations and has prompted some sites to stop offering content to children altogether."
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-246907.html

Maybe that law doesn't matter because of the site operating outside the US. If so, disregard and read on.

Second, no child so sheltered as to not know that the word nuts doesn't just refer to snack food is going to have much access to the internet. Anybody who's dealt much with kids online will know that they are more likely to use rough language than adults. There are exceptions but experience tells me they are rare.

The quote is quite mild. You were fortunate it fell into the hands of a reasonable editor, one of the majority, and thus correctly left in. Unfortunately, you drew attention to it, and now it may go. Next time you'll know better.

The federal law doesn't apply - first because we don't cater to children (family-friendly does not equal cater to children) and also because I believe the federal law was struck down by a judge. But I'll leave that for Terry to answer as he's the one with the lawyers who I believe have combed over every inch of this site.

To answer that kids sometimes use more rough language than adults - so? If a kid swears a lot, do we let them watch a show that has a ton of swearing? No. We tell the kids that it's not appropriate and steer them away from profanity-laden sources.

As for sheltered kids not being able to use the internet - I don't know where you get this idea, but a lot of kids whose parents could be described as overly protec tive use the internet. There's something called having a parent sit next to your kid to see everything they're doing online. Funtrivia is one of the few websites on the internet that parents and kids can sit together and actually have some fun.

The editors try to err on the side of caution and disallow any profanity. If someone has a problem with this and wants a little more profanity/rough language, then this isnt' the site for you.

You know, as editors we all have to make judgement calls on this every day we work on the site. In music in particular, this subject comes up quite often. However, we don't go chasing people for expressing their opinions or asking legitimate questions. We've got better things to do. I'd say that it's very rare we have too much trouble with anyone in one of the areas in which the language poses problems. We try to make the writing more professional and work hard at getting people to do a topic without directly using the objectionable material. There's rarely any problem getting the message across.

"The quote is quite mild. You were fortunate it fell into the hands of a reasonable editor, one of the majority, and thus correctly left in. Unfortunately, you drew attention to it, and now it may go. Next time you'll know better."

Frankly, we all have better things to do.
And, I for one, appreciated being asked about this concern as it helped others in their writing.

"...and also because I believe the federal law was struck down by a judge."

You may be thinking of the Communications Decency Act. COPPA is in effect. See http://www.ftc.gov/

Further, given that there is a section called "For Children", I'd say that it could be that the site is catering to kids not just family friendly. A lot of the other indicators, like the advertising on the site, how plain the quizzes are, etc. suggest to me that the site is of little interest to most children, though. Anyway, what I'm trying to get acrosss is:

1. The six o'clock news rule of thumb is junk, if it's used to rule against mildly coarse language as such language appears on the news.

2. "Kids might see it" is also useless, since the site doesn't--according to one of the moderators--cater to kids.

3. Kids under 13 probably shouldn't be on the site anyway due to COPPA.

There's nothing wrong with excluding anything the site owner wants to exclude, it's entirely up to him/her. If the owner objects to the word "salad" and bans it from the site, hey, it's his/her choo choo and he/she can run it that way. I'd prefer that it was presented as the ideosyncratic whim of the owner or his/her representatives and not with a bogus "think of the children" rationale.

By the way, there's apparently been a lapse in vigilence somewhere along the line. I searched for Carlin's seven words you can't say on television within the domain funtrivia.com and turned up 37 hits.

"There's something called having a parent sit next to your kid to see everything they're doing online. Funtrivia is one of the few websites on the internet that parents and kids can sit together and actually have some fun."

Since I have a kid (do you?) I know a bit about this myself. There's no lack of sites we use, so claiming funtrivia is one of the few sites available is unconvincing. I've done a few quizzes with my boy-- the ones marked "For Children" on topics I think he might enjoy. Maybe other kids like text trivia quizzes more, but mainly he wants to go to legoland or somewhere with games. Usually when I'm on the site he's interested in the colorful advertisments, particularly the Smokey the Bear one. In a few years I imagine he'll be interested in the one with the swimsuit model.

This is my last post on this.

Again, this site is family-friendly, not geared towards children. We have a For Children category so all the quizzes that are easy for kids can be found easily. It's not intended to be a babysitting category for kids under 13.

If you say kids shouldn't be on the site anyway due to COPPA, kids shouldn't be on the net at all, actually. There is not a single site on the internet that is 100% foolproof. Mis-spelling Disney could get you to an adult website. Clicking on a link on a 'childrens' website that was mis-spelled can do the same thing.

What I meant about funtrivia being one of the few sites is looking at the internet as a whole - there are over 1 billion webpages, and how many truly strive to be family-friendly? Maybe 1%? So therefore my use of the word few is fine.

'Kids might see it' argument is still valid as this is a FAMILY-FRIENDLY site. There is a huge difference bwteen catering to children and being family-friendly. Catering to children would mean we'd have bouncing animals that talk to the kids in flashy colors. Grouping some quizzes so parents don't have to wade through a ton to find one their kid can play with them is different.

And, contrary to some belief, kids play quizzes that aren't in the For Children category. My little cousin who's 10 years old has played some in the science and literature categories - with her grandma sitting next to her.

The whim of the owner isn't the excuse unless you use it for Terry's intention is that this site be family-friendly. And because the boundaries for family-friendly aren't hard and fast, that's why we have editors who use their discretion. When we're not sure if something is appropriate or not, we talk amongst ourselves to get the rest of the editors' opinions.

In the forums we do not encourage very young members but having said that, there is rarely anything which could be a problem should one view them. The main reason for not catering for youngsters in the forums is that the majority of our members here are adult, either in years or in maturity, and don't come here to chat to young children. Young children are rarely going to be interested in the same topics as adults.

I'm a parent and my one child's helped make a few quizzes with me. I'm also an editor. I'd have no trouble with him using the site alone but that's not his choice. We have a few excellent authors who are kids, but you'd never know that nor is it information to be shared with anyone. It's basically nobody's business but their own.

Another aspect of the language used in quizzes is that they're subject to editing for chatspeak and usage. As a parent I appreciate that.

By the way, my own parents frequent the site too and it's for people of all ages to enjoy.

I discovered this site while helping my friend's son with his homework. We were looking for some information via Google which led us to the answer at FunTrivia. So children will access this site even though they are not the intended audience.

Speaking as a parent, I am grateful for the higher standards imposed by the moderators and editors here at FunTrivia which I feel contributes to the overall high quality and uniqueness of this site. Websites which allow foul language and offensive material are a dime a dozen. Most of them won't be around in a few years whereas I am sure FunTrivia will.

Every now and then I get a wild hair and decide to check out other sites that have a forum's page. It has gotten so that within the first few posts, I encounter foul language, chat speak that I don't understand or something else that I don't care for. I cannot tell you enough how much I enjoy coming to FT where I don't have to read such filth. I have introduced this site to many friends, relatives, my mother, and even my young step-daughter and I have no fear of them coming across something embarassing or foul. I, for one, am every thankful for the wonderful editors and moderators that keep this wonderful site worthwhile for all.