LiveJournal May Be Unsuitable for Minors

While reading roleplaying game designer Chris Pramas' blog this morning, I discovered that LiveJournal can display an "adult content notice" when one of its bloggers is talkin' dirty:

LiveJournal adult content notice warning

In this case, Pramas was discussing a fight that took place at his bus stop between a drunk and a middle-aged Native American with a walker. This paragraph contains a gerund that could potentially be unsuitable to minors:

As we were finding seats, somehow the tide turned. Walker guy had gotten his arms around the drunk and body slammed him head first into the wall. The whole bus went, "Whoah!" Drunky ended up on all fours, with the other guy on top of him. The last thing we saw was the now walkerless guy reaching up between the drunk's legs and cockpunching him. Can't say he didn't deserve it. Then the bus roared away.

Pramas would be in a better position to judge, but it appears to me that the drunk's armor class was adversely affected by his inebriation. I'm not surprised that the Native American, even with his reduced Dexterity, could succeed with a grappling attack.

Content notices were added last November and can be triggered by the blogger on a voluntary basis or by LiveJournal admins. There are two levels of warning -- the one on Pramas' blog and another for pages that may contain material only suitable for adults and are restricted to people 18 and up.

So if I understand LiveJournal's content filtering system, cockpunching is OK for 14-year-olds.

Livejournal · Gaming · 2008/06/02 · 5 COMMENTS · Link

Comments

Not only OK, but recommended. The little rascals.

#1 · Don McArthur · 2008/06/02

When cockpunching do you get double damage if you roll a 20?

#2 · Brent Wehrmaker · 2008/06/03

I guess they have to place a limit at some point, why 14, who knows.
Keeping it Real,
Allison English

#3 · Allison English · 2008/07/12

I would have to say that's not really a good word to be teaching kids that are still in school although very funny, but the humor in it will give them more of a reason to use it on a constant basis.

sincerely,
Joel Sonnet

#4 · Joel Sonnet · 2008/07/12

Maybe it's because I'm a more grown-up 14-year old, which is why I don't see anything wrong with the "low" age limit. I've REALLY read worse, but I guess for some remaining 14-year olds, this might be shocking. Not that this post would shock many, the most damadge from this might be an exteremely annoying, ongoing joke.
--
I apologize for any ignorance this might contain.

#5 · LURKER · 2011/06/01