I'm the editor who put that one online. I thought about it, decided teh subject was being dealt with in a responsible way, and made a judgement call. As Terry said, the fact that the issue has been raised shows that my judgement was wrong, and the question has been taken off.

We have quizzes on human sexuality online, as well as quizzes on books that deal with sexuality. Our guideline has to be whether we think the subject is intended to shock, or if it's taken more seriously. As different editors will draw the line in different places, and, as has been pointed out, players will also draw lines differently, sometimes problems will arise.

"You should try sitting in a Pub in South Wales discussing who is/was the best ever Welsh Rugby Union player!

For me it was Gareth Edwards, with Mervyn Davis a close second"

Now look delboyo, I may be Irish, but even I know that the greatest ever Welsh Rugby Union player was the King - Barry John.

*Runs away to hide behind the Giant's Causeway, nonchalantly munching on some potato bread*

I'll reiterate that I find nothing wrong with the question, including the "molten" answer option. Unless someone has experienced what is being talked about, that description will not evoke anything. And if they have, then there is no big deal. The description is archaic and flowery. It is about a literary work, I don't find it questionable or offensive. Nevertheless, I accept that anyone can disagree with my opinion on this or any other matter.

As the mother of two teens (one of each), I find the molten option inappropriate, but the rest of the question would be perfectly O.K. It's literature, and I have never banned any well-known book from my children's perusal.

The 'molten' could have been substituted with another one-word option, and the question would have been perfectly acceptable. We are talking about well-known literature, and a well-known bodily function.

Edited because I can't type, nor can I spell

I am an adult and it really doesn't bother me,but I have seen questions on here that would not be appropriate for some thirteen year olds. I don't think these questions add a whole lot to funtrivia.

Quote:

---

*Runs away to hide behind the Giant's Causeway

---

Now that is one of the most beautiful places in the world, IMHO!

Aggers, thank you for holding your hand up as the Ed who put the Q online. I didn't think for a second that you (or any other Ed) passed it through without consideration, and knew that your decision was made in accordance with understood guidelines. It's to get to these guidelines, to start a discussion, that I posted this thread in the first place!

It is perhaps unfortunate that it all focused on one question, when the issue is obviously a much wider one, and I am truly sorry if you (or the writer of the Q, who was not someone known to me) feel in any way singled out. However, an example is always a good way to start a discussion, and, as has been borne out, the issue is something people feel strongly about.

Given this level of feeling, may I also add that I am heartened that both this thread and the one on humour in the Authors' Lounge (which I also kinda started...ahem) have been carried out so rationally and at such a high level of maturity. As Del said above, this is unusual on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), and I do think we should all feel proud of ourselves for managing it. If that sounds in any way patronising, I plead the inadequacies of the written form of the language...

Has this quiz been taken offline? Or has the single question just been removed from the hourly question pool?

If this is a discussion on guidelines which may lead to future decisions about whether or not questions are appropriate for children, I'd like to add my twopennorth.

I'm disappointed that the question was removed; had I encountered it in my set I wouldn't have hesitated to mark it "Good".

There are many internet sites for children, but this is predominantly a site for adults. As adults we, hopefully, don't use foul language or insult each other - in other words we act decently, and the site is therefore child friendly. It is well monitored and occasional "nutters" are swiftly gagged. I think it would be a shame if every question or comment were to be examined to merit its suitability for a 13 year old to read.

Quote:

---

this is predominantly a site for adults

---

With respect, I beg to differ. There are many children who access this site. There are many teachers who use FunTrivia as a fun way for children to learn. There are many adult members who have introduced their children to this site, myself included. Why else would we have a 'For Children' category?

Agony put it exceptionally well when she said "As different editors will draw the line in different places, and, as has been pointed out, players will also draw lines differently, sometimes problems will arise".

I probably would not have put that question online - not because it offended me personally, but because I would have been sure some members would find it objectionable. As an editor, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

If confronted by a quiz or question that I feel is unsuitable, I do give it a lot of thought before rejecting it, and I usually seek a second opinion from another editor, then I write to the player and explain the reasons why I rejected it.

The rejection, of course, is not a permanent one. If the quiz author is happy to do a little editing, they are welcome to resubmit.

Most quiz authors are very understanding about our family-friendly policy and my personal experience is that it is very rare for them to argue the point. In fact, I usually get a note back saying something like "Yes, I did wonder whether it would be suitable".

I've brought children to the site too - but always under supervision.

I might also add that making sure things are suitable for children is not the only issue that has to be considered, and that this is where I fell down.

I'm obviously defining the site differently. Although mainstream TV has children's programmes and other programmes which appeal to both children and adults, I would consider it to be predominantly for adults and unsuitable for indiscriminate viewing by children. Nickelodeon and Disney Channel are, in my opinion, for children, and of interest to them but less so to adults. I didn’t intend for my little vote against censorship to linger, but dread the thought of the site becoming FunDisneya

The site is supposed to be family friendly, but I think it's important to strike a balance between the Osbornes and the Waltons. Incidentally, in some countries the Waltons was heavily censored before being shown.

When I first joined, there was some sort of criteria about making postings/quizzes that you'd be happy for your 13 year old daughter and your 70 year old mother to see. Well, we've all got different ideas about that!

On TV there is supposedly a 9 o'clock watershed, but that doesn't mean can only have Teletubbies before that time.

It's a shame 'that' question had to go, but I do hope that the author has been allowed to keep it in their total count and ratings.