It is not that bad since glass can be easily melted down to make new glass, but that is assuming people are recycl--- oh no, america wat r u doin, stahp
I still keep the nice jars, even though recycling is easy and efficient where I live.
I had described most of these ideas in another thread some time ago...
TL;DR: adding NSFL tags has almost no cost and significant benefit, simple "CW:<...>" has higher cost with insufficient benefit, better tagging might be achievable.
long comment...
I think "CW: <...>" would be good, but implementing that correctly requires much more effort.
For example it would be nice to have closed-captions/alt-text on all image posts, but OPs are often lazy or do not know what to include.
Best solution would be allowing other users, so not OP themselves, to add alt-text/content-warnings/tags onto posts.
But implementing something like that correctly would take time.
In my opinion crowd sourced tagging really is the way to go, and anything implemented now could risk creating inconsistencies with future systems.
For example, I would like all non-vegan posts to be tagged "vegan/CW:carnism" but that is highly opinionated and not something OPs would tag themselves or even a category of tags that all users want to see.
Putting all the effort of tagging onto mods is not sufficient, that is too much work, they do not have reaction time, and mod opinions/discernment/interests do not cover the range of all applicable tags.
A better system might be to grant regular users global tagging privileges within specific categories of their interest. Then make tag categories optional to display, and click ··· to show hidden tags.
Another tag category could be "trauma", including things like "trauma/CW:religion" but again that is not something OPs or even most mods would care about tagging everything.
The problem with simple "CW: <...>" is precisely that which things are CW worthy for you, might not be for others, and multiple "CW" tags on everything is spammy/clutter so it needs to be selectively optional first.
Just like setting pronouns, adding "CW: <...>" will have pushback if it is not optional for both posters and users.
Especially considering that "CW: <...>" is highly opinionated. For example withing trauma communities things like "CW:incest" are further obfuscated into "CW:in***t" and even that is arguably better filtered rather than visibly tagged.
But then having open ended <description> makes filtering nearly impossible. Meanwhile "alt-text/<description>" could be useful. So really there has to be some kind of curation/expertise within each tag category.
Simple NSFL tag seems to me like a good stopgap solution, and that level of effort and discernment is reasonable to expect from all OPs.
The idea of what is NSFL is much like NSFW something that we could agree upon as a culture. NSFL just means traumatic for the majority of people.
Adding simple "CW: <...>" has the risk of requiring effort without being reliable enough for people that depend on CW to actually use this website.
The same applies with closed-captions/alt-text; if those tags are so sparsely added then people using them just leave anyway.
Requiring people to do things for marginalized groups, even if that work is done by mods, unfortunately can cause some resentment.
Almost nobody that really depends on detailed content-warnings is using ChapoChat, random terfs/trolls/nazis show up all the time, this is hardly a safe space.
Something like "CW: <...>" could easily provide a false sense of security if not sufficiently crowd sourced to be responsive and comprehensive.
Or there would have to be "CW: unchecked" added by default, but even that is less useful that "vegan/unchecked" and "truama/unchecked" and so on...
Because it takes some amount of experience/expertise to know what things need tagging within these various domains.
It has to be worth the cost-benefit. NSFL tags have effectively no cost, usage can be enforced by mods.
"CW: <...>" has a cost but in my opinion benefit is just not there until it can be organized into categories and crowd sourced.
The most important thing to me is that ChapoChat needs to maintain some degree of a carefree attitude.
I do not mean anything goes, but rather that it should be accessible to lazy people and those with lingering liberalism.
If people are worried about making mistakes while posting because they did not alt-text/content-warnings/tags correctly, that could be the end of ChapoChat.
There is no worry associated with using NSFL incorrectly; if anything having an NSFL tag makes posting NSFL content less worrisome.
/r/BPT also verifies allies, forearm picture is only used because that takes less time and effort.
But you are missing the point, I mention /r/BPT because they show the principle of identities being co-opted for trolling, and they have been very successful at combating that.
I was not suggesting that you copy their methods.
It would be only vetting pronouns when those are custom requests besides provided defaults.
So only things like cat/girl, xe/xim, zir/zey, where selecting those pronouns might otherwise be abused.
That would not be a task for admins, but rather for mods of relevant communities to figure out themselves.
It takes only a cursory glance at post history to decide if somebody is sincere or trolling in most cases.
It is not about verifying gender identity, but verifying that they are not low effort trolling.
Even on /r/BPT people could fabricate pictures to get verified, it is not about getting perfect accuracy.
Quantity has a quality all its own.
Mods could require some minimum posting history, other users could vouch, figure out on discord, those details would be up to mods themselves.
They could adjust their approach depending upon how many custom pronoun requests those threads actually get.
Again this would only be applicable to pronouns that cannot simply be added to the drop-down list.
And it is only for filtering out trolls.
Another example /r/science also has custom flair that gets verified by mods: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair
That is effective both when number of requests is limited (/r/science, people using neopronouns) or verification process is simple (/r/BPT in most cases).
Another illustrative case is /r/polandball where users can set their own flair, but mods also award custom trophy flairs when users win competitions.
If select mods/admins could assign custom pronouns to users, then it would be possible to have pronoun request sticky threads in relevant communities.
I do not think it is possible for the current system to do both: give people all combinations they want, and avoid some combinations being used as jokes.
Some sincere identities are used as insults by others. Many slurs also function as pronouns, and while those should obviously not be allowed here, those do illustrate the contradiction you are dealing with here.
It could be worth taking /r/BlackPeopleTwitter as an example here, they actually verify that some users are allies or have the racial identity that they claim to have.
Adding "by name" could be better because then at least people know what to do.
Also "comrade" is a pronoun that could be used even for those with "no pronoun" making it technically incorrect.
"Chinese delegation, Jerusalem March, September 2013" via image source
Jerusalem March happens annually with the Sukkot (one of three pilgrimage festivals in Judaism) and is largely organized by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem and attended mostly by Christian evangelicals.
Edit: obviously these "delegations" are not government sponsored. Christian evangelicals just like to make a big thing out of "proclaiming to all nations" with flags and such.
Be careful clicking any links, likely viral payload/honeypot/etc.
If somebody had doxxed you, they could post details in plain text for proof, no need to go down their rabbit hole.
My argument was implicitly about formalized assessment where anti-cheating measures are required.
Even so, most researchers and independent learners are quite capable of gauging their own understanding without any external testing or assessment.
And when people attend lectures simply out of curiosity they can become educated entirely without assessment.
I do not undervalue testing, if anything I would endorse all classes using brief informal testing on a weekly or even daily basis.
But I am opposed to the misuse of testing as metrics for performance. An effective test is one where people make plenty of mistakes, otherwise not much learning is happening.
Frequent recall and testing is for many subjects the most effective teaching methodology.
If you have to get rid of lectures, books, workshops, projects, or informal testing; then testing should be the last thing to go.
This is not merely my opinion, it is one of the most reliable results in pedagogical research.
Calcifying the most important teaching methodology with this type of privacy invasive crap is harmful to the pedagogical process.
Students with self-motivation issues benefit most from frequent informal testing that covers small chunks of material.
Formality and privacy invasion only heighten the perfectionism and anxiety issues that constitute much of procrastinating behavior.
Formalized testing most often occurs at the end of semesters, when there is no time left for course correction by teachers or students anyway.
Informal testing can easily fulfill the role of gauging material absorption, and students cheating is then simply at their own peril.
When testing is informal, teachers can just use easy to cheat multiple choice tests, and not waste so much time with grading either.
But in any case, responsibility for ensuring that material is sufficiently understood should be held by students themselves.
It is only formalized exams and accreditation that could require measures to deal with cheating.
But such exams serve no direct function in education, and are entirely about the role of schools and universities under capitalism.
It is not that bad since glass can be easily melted down to make new glass, but that is assuming people are recycl--- oh no, america wat r u doin, stahp
I still keep the nice jars, even though recycling is easy and efficient where I live.