"Dangerous Content" or "Banned Content"?

[Corey S. McFadden]

We need to keep the word neutral regarding the implication of
administrative choice to prevent users from coming up with the idea they're
being denied anything.  It's an ignorant conclusion, but one that happens
frequently.

Unsuitable, Restricted, Banned, or anything that has the overtone of
administrators rendering an opinion isn't desirable.  We need to use a word
that leaves little "wiggle" room.  Dangerous fits.

Unless a strong word is used, users are going to challenge you to justify
the policy every time they get an error message...  (The fact that a policy
decision was made to determine whether something is dangerous or not isn't
something users need to be in on.)  Show them that there's some ambiguity
and they'll want to debate with you every time they can't receive something.

-Corey


At 01:08 PM 11/19/2003, you wrote:
>How about "Unsuitable Content"?
>
>Mr. Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd
>http://www.blacknightsolutions.ie/
>http://www.search.ie/
>Tel. + 353 (0)59 9139897
>Lowest price domains in Ireland
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK]On
> > Behalf Of Timothy VanFosson
> > Sent: 19 November 2003 17:46
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: "Dangerous Content" or "Banned Content"?
> >
> >
> > How about {Content Policy Violation}?  The word "banned" carries with it
> > some emotional baggage, at least in the US, that I'd like to avoid.
> >
> > tv
> >
> > At 11:33 AM 11/19/2003, you wrote:
> > >I'm thinking of changing one of the default subject line tags for new
> > >installations.
> > >It currently says
> > >        {Dangerous Content?}
> > >but I'm thinking of changing it to
> > >        {Banned Content}
> > >
> > >My thinking is that the content checks, such as HTML tags, partial
> > >messages, attachment size limits and so on are more of a policy/safety
> > >issue than a risk issue. What is considered safe on a site is really a
> > >policy decision made by the management of that site.
> > >
> > >Having messages which are too big tagged as potentially dangerous isn't
> > >really correct.
> > >
> > >Does that sound reasonable?
> > >--
> > >Julian Field
> > >www.MailScanner.info
> > >Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> > >MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
> > >PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC  7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
> >
> > --
> > Timothy VanFosson, Manager         E-mail: timv at ccad.uiowa.edu
> > Computing Services, Web Master    WWW: http://www.ccad.uiowa.edu/~timv/
> > Center for Computer-Aided Design   US Mail: The University of Iowa
> > Phone: (319) 335-6298                      208 ERF
> > FAX: (319) 384-0542                        Iowa City, Iowa 52242
> >
> > What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit
> > his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
> >
> >
>
>#########################################################
>This message (and any attachment) is intended only for the
>recipient and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>material.  If you have received this in error, please contact the
>sender and delete this message immediately.  Disclosure, copying
>or other action taken in respect of this email or in
>reliance to it is prohibited.
>
>*********************************************
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.


*********************************************
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.