Reaction to concerns about censorship
Of course we should not censor anyone. Nobody should get banned for posting gruesome stuff (when relevant). But where is the harm in providing this content in a way that every user can easily choose whether he/she wants to see it or not?
All I am asking is to remove this content from direct line of sight: Is it really censorship if an image is only linked to in a post instead of directly inserted into the post?
And again what we really are doing here is making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not really have a general problem with this on TGO and can find a way to deal with this when it comes up.
In general I do agree with the argument, that in the outdoors and specifically in hunting things get messy/gruesome/bloody/... and it should be possible to discuss and where relevant show a picture. However one also needs to accept that what is acceptable to someone might be highly objectionable to someone else. We want to target the broadest audience possible, so the gruesome part must be avoidable. This means: Keeping the tone in the title down, as this is what everyone, whether as user or from a search engine reads first.
About pictures I will quote @RoryAlsop:
If we do need to hide a possibly gruesome image, we can either use the
Spoiler tag, or if we really don't want it on the site, just have it
as a link, and annotate with "this links to particularly gory pic -
don't click unless you want to see it."
This is already used to great effect on a few Stack Exchange sites
(Movies, SciFi etc) where it can be used to cover up anything that
should remain hidden until the reader decides to uncover it.
I would suggest to always link if you think your picture is not appropriate for all audiences. Hovering over accidentally happens way too easily. And to be honest: It does not hurt the question if the image is external. Very often we are anyway infringing on copyright issues when uploading images to imgur and displaying them here directly.
In the general text after a possible short reminder that the following might be gruesome, it is obviously possible to be as explicit and detailed as possible, as long as it serves the question.
Telling people to hide tags is not an option for two reasons: First due to external visitors and second because it absolutely is possible and valid/acceptable to be interested in e.g. hunting but not wanting to see anything explicit.
Last comment: The question that spawned this discussion is exceptional and OddDear already stated that it was purposely tailored to probe for reactions. I still do not understand its value exceeding getting an explanation for one specific phenomenon. We had other questions that were somewhat gruesome, but they had in my opinion more substance and thus the gruesomness was better accepted. I still do not think this issue is or will be crucial/often encountered in this community.
I suggest the following:
Be conservative in titles: Keep it factual and don't go into detail/be descriptive - that belongs to the question body.
Use gruesome pictures if it serves the question, but only add a link to the gruesome image to your answer if in doubt about its appropriateness (this site is public).
Spoiler markdown is essentially useless: Hovering over accidentally happens too quickly.