I feel the Mods have done a very good job of being fair, consistent, and timely. The line is clear on the issue of porn and it was crossed (if I understand correctly by Dave’s description). I also believe that humor has an important role in any exchange between humans, and would not be here if the forum turned into an Internet textbook. We are supposed to enjoy what we’re doing here. I have enough books on the shelf if all I wanted were the facts. "Sniff... sniff" Yes, IMHO.
Rodd Yamashita
Rodd Yamashita
I think there should be room for a little humor and personality... I just think that the long, drawn-out posts about non-audio topics are pointless, and generally contribute negatively.
I guess it's just me... I'm not a BS'er. I like to get down to the topic at hand. I have little tolerance for people who like to run their mouth to hear the sound of their own voice.
There are way too many blowhards on this board. I found HH's posts funny, but also thought that they were a distraction. I thought Grey was a great guy, but found his drivel about cowboys and such to be way over the top. Anyone who has to resort to writing stories to get their point across is putting themself above the people they are talking to.
To quote Jack Nicholson's character in the movie As Good As It Gets: "people who talk in metaphors oughta shampoo my crotch"
😉
Sniff, Sniff... Some people around here are worse than dogs, the way they chase each other's tails!
I guess it's just me... I'm not a BS'er. I like to get down to the topic at hand. I have little tolerance for people who like to run their mouth to hear the sound of their own voice.
There are way too many blowhards on this board. I found HH's posts funny, but also thought that they were a distraction. I thought Grey was a great guy, but found his drivel about cowboys and such to be way over the top. Anyone who has to resort to writing stories to get their point across is putting themself above the people they are talking to.
To quote Jack Nicholson's character in the movie As Good As It Gets: "people who talk in metaphors oughta shampoo my crotch"
😉I guess my point is, what are we supposed to be doing here?
Sniff, Sniff... Some people around here are worse than dogs, the way they chase each other's tails!
This quote is hitting the nail right on it's head IMO. Not liking anti-American sentiments can not be a reason for disqualifying non-audio related threads.
Re: In the interest of Science and Justice
This isn't porn, but posting of images such as this for purely gratuitous purposes would be frowned on. If it is in the context of the thread it would be OK. (that last is not an invitation to fill this thread with ever increasingly less dressed female (or male) humans or sexually explicit pictures so as to find out what the limit is).
For the purposes of this forum, let's define the limit as anything that features human nudity , or sexually suggestive themes as beyond the bounds of this forum, and that anything approaching this -- such as the scantily-clad heidi above -- must have some solid context to merit being left alone (ie out of context you would probably find heidi in Texas, but you wouldn't find yourself in the SinBin)*.
* As any judge will tell you, such definitions can be extremely slippery (ie naked statues in public places, in context, would usually be acceptable) so in the end a call will have to be made by the mod, while on the job.
Note that at this point, the above statement is my opinion as captain of the mods and will be subject to discussion by the mods and Jason. As always input by members will be taken into account.
dave
(in official capacity)
Ryder said:
This isn't porn, but posting of images such as this for purely gratuitous purposes would be frowned on. If it is in the context of the thread it would be OK. (that last is not an invitation to fill this thread with ever increasingly less dressed female (or male) humans or sexually explicit pictures so as to find out what the limit is).
For the purposes of this forum, let's define the limit as anything that features human nudity , or sexually suggestive themes as beyond the bounds of this forum, and that anything approaching this -- such as the scantily-clad heidi above -- must have some solid context to merit being left alone (ie out of context you would probably find heidi in Texas, but you wouldn't find yourself in the SinBin)*.
* As any judge will tell you, such definitions can be extremely slippery (ie naked statues in public places, in context, would usually be acceptable) so in the end a call will have to be made by the mod, while on the job.
Note that at this point, the above statement is my opinion as captain of the mods and will be subject to discussion by the mods and Jason. As always input by members will be taken into account.
dave
(in official capacity)
Re: KILLING JOKE.
Are you suggesting that the moderators start judging the frame of mind of the posters? Doing this would turn moderating into a totally subjective exercise and be very divisive for the forum. "I got banned for posting 'X' and so and so only got a warning, unfair, unfair, unfair". I can hear it now, ever time a vicious, obscene, offensive post is made the reaction from the poster is going to be "I was only kidding, gee why can't you guys take a joke".
If the rules say that doing a certain act will result in a certain punishment, then don't cry when the punishment happens. People perform acts of civil disobediance when they think something is unfair, but that belief doesn't exempt them from the consequences of their action.
The only way rules work is if they are enforced fairly and evenly on everyone. If the rules don't apply because you are "special" then there is no fairness and this will cause resentment and strife that will damage this site far more than not being able to post porn.
Phil
Are you suggesting that the moderators start judging the frame of mind of the posters? Doing this would turn moderating into a totally subjective exercise and be very divisive for the forum. "I got banned for posting 'X' and so and so only got a warning, unfair, unfair, unfair". I can hear it now, ever time a vicious, obscene, offensive post is made the reaction from the poster is going to be "I was only kidding, gee why can't you guys take a joke".
If the rules say that doing a certain act will result in a certain punishment, then don't cry when the punishment happens. People perform acts of civil disobediance when they think something is unfair, but that belief doesn't exempt them from the consequences of their action.
The only way rules work is if they are enforced fairly and evenly on everyone. If the rules don't apply because you are "special" then there is no fairness and this will cause resentment and strife that will damage this site far more than not being able to post porn.
Phil
For the record...
I’m glad to be back from the bin, but would like to straighten out some things:
At no time did I consider posting “porn” nor do I condone the posting or linking to it.
The picture I posted was little different from that to be found in any tabloid newspaper available to all in the UK. It was posted, not for it’s appearance, but for the message that it sent, ie the tenuous connection between Saddam and Osama.
For the record: There were no “hand jobs” involved, as previously intimated, merely some grasping of trouser cloth and a pair of “morphed” breasts. Of course I cannot demonstrate this, as any offer of the image could potentially cause a further sin-binning.
True, I did write "This'll probably get me into trouble", but did not expect the full wrath!
As for Tils sin-binning: I think he deserved it less than me! True, his posted image was “sickening”, but it was totally in context with the thread. Perhaps we should not discuss emotive issues such as war: but if we do, shouldn’t we be able to illustrate our words with relevant pictures?
I realise that moderating can be a thankless task, and that interpreting policies is not trivial. I also believe in rules. Was 7 days sin-binning for the above “offences” fair? I have my own view.
Thank you to those who spoke up for me.😉
I’m glad to be back from the bin, but would like to straighten out some things:
At no time did I consider posting “porn” nor do I condone the posting or linking to it.
The picture I posted was little different from that to be found in any tabloid newspaper available to all in the UK. It was posted, not for it’s appearance, but for the message that it sent, ie the tenuous connection between Saddam and Osama.
For the record: There were no “hand jobs” involved, as previously intimated, merely some grasping of trouser cloth and a pair of “morphed” breasts. Of course I cannot demonstrate this, as any offer of the image could potentially cause a further sin-binning.
True, I did write "This'll probably get me into trouble", but did not expect the full wrath!
As for Tils sin-binning: I think he deserved it less than me! True, his posted image was “sickening”, but it was totally in context with the thread. Perhaps we should not discuss emotive issues such as war: but if we do, shouldn’t we be able to illustrate our words with relevant pictures?
I realise that moderating can be a thankless task, and that interpreting policies is not trivial. I also believe in rules. Was 7 days sin-binning for the above “offences” fair? I have my own view.
Thank you to those who spoke up for me.😉
**it Happens....
I think it should be posted into Texas so that we can can form an opinion ourselves.
I understand that censorship and interpretations of pornography and decency vary wildly in the populace and is a difficult subject, but within this community forum I expect that the mean is somewhere in the middle of the road, and a level of good naturedness, tolerance, and decency will prevail.
Indeed I consider the forum to be reasonably self regulating in that other posters will politely inform the miscreant that 'such and such' is not the done thing here at DIY.
Seems familiar !.
Twice in one week even - is that a new record ?
Rodd says it crossed the line, others say acceptable (borderline ?), but unfortunatley I am unable to relate my own discretion for lack of facts.
As in any justice system, there are anomalies here too, but the consequences are nothing so dire.
I have not said my full bit either in public, and as each day passes any percieved or actual injustice dwindles to insignificance really.
Don't worry about it, and as been the record, these sorts of events help to define this forum and serve to improve the whole thing.
Support and Regards,
Eric.
You too huh ?
I missed seeing it, but I would like to in the interests of 'Science and Justice' - thanks Craig Ryder.
I think it should be posted into Texas so that we can can form an opinion ourselves.
I understand that censorship and interpretations of pornography and decency vary wildly in the populace and is a difficult subject, but within this community forum I expect that the mean is somewhere in the middle of the road, and a level of good naturedness, tolerance, and decency will prevail.
Indeed I consider the forum to be reasonably self regulating in that other posters will politely inform the miscreant that 'such and such' is not the done thing here at DIY.
A couple of us wrote 'If you sin-bin us ..... , and guess what - no prizes for guessing.
Feel like you got the rough end of the pineapple ?
Seems familiar !.
Twice in one week even - is that a new record ?
I did not see your pix, or the thread context so I kept out of it.
Rodd says it crossed the line, others say acceptable (borderline ?), but unfortunatley I am unable to relate my own discretion for lack of facts.
As in any justice system, there are anomalies here too, but the consequences are nothing so dire.
I have not said my full bit either in public, and as each day passes any percieved or actual injustice dwindles to insignificance really.
Don't worry about it, and as been the record, these sorts of events help to define this forum and serve to improve the whole thing.
Support and Regards,
Eric.
Phred got a long sentence for not doing anything sinister, but being a smart-alec I think - correct me if I am wrong.
I feel that his banning was far too long, and that the forum has actually suffered in content and tone whilst he was in purgatory.
There are a group of 'old hands' here who I find inject a stabilising influence to the forum as a whole, and are in a position to divulge 'diamonds' of information.
Sure some are unwilling to suffer fools gladly, and have a 'wicked' but noble sense of humour, and as such the intellectual content here rises acordingly.
Amongst this group also is a band of old hands who are perfectly comfortable in lending a helping and advisory hand.
This is the spirit that keeps a community alive, healthy and productive, and it is to the loss of collective knowledge that these fellows can be driven away - very strong advice to mods.
Eric.
Jocko ?
Bobken ?
Silver Stealth ?
Others ?
I Seen It Good..
I just viewed the Hussein-Hillary-Bin Laden photo, and I get the political point sort of I think, but on first inspection I find it quite disrespectful (protests do not have to be) of Hillary really, and not an image that I would retain in my mind's eye.
I did not see the the complete context of the thread, but in my view this photo is not all that funny, or politically effective.
I know I posted recently a record cover with bare derriers, but that was in a whole different context, and not intended as porno or inflammatory.
I also had a photo of Elle McPherson caressing a camel deleted, but it stayed when I reposted it.
Everybody has different views on different days.
I just viewed the Hussein-Hillary-Bin Laden photo, and I get the political point sort of I think, but on first inspection I find it quite disrespectful (protests do not have to be) of Hillary really, and not an image that I would retain in my mind's eye.
I did not see the the complete context of the thread, but in my view this photo is not all that funny, or politically effective.
I know I posted recently a record cover with bare derriers, but that was in a whole different context, and not intended as porno or inflammatory.
I also had a photo of Elle McPherson caressing a camel deleted, but it stayed when I reposted it.
Everybody has different views on different days.
dhaen,
thank you very much. it really makes me sad this board and it´s moderators are victims of US amerikan political censur now. There was nothing wrong on my pic, exept it´s right this shouldn be shown to children. Whats wrong is to do what was shown on it to children - and who makes war does this.
thank you very much. it really makes me sad this board and it´s moderators are victims of US amerikan political censur now. There was nothing wrong on my pic, exept it´s right this shouldn be shown to children. Whats wrong is to do what was shown on it to children - and who makes war does this.
Mods,
Having now seen the pic for which John was sinbinned, I feel the decision was seriously in error. As he has correctly pointed out, such images are available in the tabloid newspapers of the wetern world that any 3 yo could buy off the newsstand. The picture was quite obviously a parody and political, not sexual, in nature. Even a child would have been able to tell it had been morphed and the heads had been changed, as such gross changes were part of the satirical nature of the picture.
Till.
I disagree that the picture Till posted was either sickening or disgusting. Whilst some sensitive people may have been distressed by it, it was posted within the context of a discussion on war. And as I think we all know, people die in war. The picture actually gave me pause, and made me remember again the tragic nature of conflict. Perhaps it was simply too distressing for the hawk types, who had to see the result of their attitudes.
The shot was not 'graphic' in any way (ie, no blood and guts). Compare it, say, to the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, and it was very mild. As a matter of interest, I have a netnanny program as a limited time demo, so I loaded it up and went looking for the images of war. I had <i>no</i> trouble finding far more graphic images from conflict, and within minutes I had seen quite a number.
It is also quite easy for children to obtain video games where the whole purpose of the 'game' is to kill or mutilate others (often in very bloody and gory ways) and many, many popular release movies where people are killed in graphic and hideous ways. And don't get me started on TV.
Images like that should not become something that appears in every post, and I'm sure, they will be extremely rare, but a sinbinning was simply out of order.
For both John and Till's images, I feel both should have stayed as is. However thw worst case action should have been moving them permanently to Texas with a Mod inserted link to the moved image. As it stands, bith make you look foolish. Add to that the recent 'binning of Frank, Eric and Bob for no good reason, when you left one other member here to post rude, snide and sarcastic remarks that only retracted from the threads in question, and who adds little if anything to them.
As you guys know, I can be rather vocal and pointed about these sorts of issues. Please do not consider my polite response here to be any less strong than those in the past.
Having now seen the pic for which John was sinbinned, I feel the decision was seriously in error. As he has correctly pointed out, such images are available in the tabloid newspapers of the wetern world that any 3 yo could buy off the newsstand. The picture was quite obviously a parody and political, not sexual, in nature. Even a child would have been able to tell it had been morphed and the heads had been changed, as such gross changes were part of the satirical nature of the picture.
Till.
I disagree that the picture Till posted was either sickening or disgusting. Whilst some sensitive people may have been distressed by it, it was posted within the context of a discussion on war. And as I think we all know, people die in war. The picture actually gave me pause, and made me remember again the tragic nature of conflict. Perhaps it was simply too distressing for the hawk types, who had to see the result of their attitudes.
The shot was not 'graphic' in any way (ie, no blood and guts). Compare it, say, to the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan, and it was very mild. As a matter of interest, I have a netnanny program as a limited time demo, so I loaded it up and went looking for the images of war. I had <i>no</i> trouble finding far more graphic images from conflict, and within minutes I had seen quite a number.
It is also quite easy for children to obtain video games where the whole purpose of the 'game' is to kill or mutilate others (often in very bloody and gory ways) and many, many popular release movies where people are killed in graphic and hideous ways. And don't get me started on TV.
Images like that should not become something that appears in every post, and I'm sure, they will be extremely rare, but a sinbinning was simply out of order.
For both John and Till's images, I feel both should have stayed as is. However thw worst case action should have been moving them permanently to Texas with a Mod inserted link to the moved image. As it stands, bith make you look foolish. Add to that the recent 'binning of Frank, Eric and Bob for no good reason, when you left one other member here to post rude, snide and sarcastic remarks that only retracted from the threads in question, and who adds little if anything to them.
As you guys know, I can be rather vocal and pointed about these sorts of issues. Please do not consider my polite response here to be any less strong than those in the past.
Thank You very much Brett, i´m glad to see there are still people in this board thinking in a way i´m able to understand and support.
I just want to repeat what I said just after Tills sin-binning in
the thread where it happened, since it might have "got lost"
when the S/N ratio in that thread dropped below -90dB.
the thread where it happened, since it might have "got lost"
when the S/N ratio in that thread dropped below -90dB.
I read your posting (i had enough time to read in the time is wasn´t allowed to post😉 ) and wondered why there was not much reaktion on this? censur? no interest ? not political correct to think this way?
Do we need to ban it? the moderators do everything against serios diskussion. I think we need to stay away from these type of diskussion even if it seems to be very necessary. Our amerikan war supporting members and moderators seem to be not mature enough for diskussion about those topics.
(provocative)
sad.
(true)
lets switch over to audio.
Do we need to ban it? the moderators do everything against serios diskussion. I think we need to stay away from these type of diskussion even if it seems to be very necessary. Our amerikan war supporting members and moderators seem to be not mature enough for diskussion about those topics.
(provocative)
sad.
(true)
lets switch over to audio.
Till,till said:
I don't think it's true that the moderation is politically biased.
Just because a country has a particular foreign policy, it does not follow that all the citizens agree with this. In fact the UK has far more citizens against our foreign policy than in favour of it. We may have the first "regime change"😉
IMO there have been some questionable decisions by the Moderators, but it has been a matter of interpretation of the rules.
It would be a shame to ban off-topic discussion completely. I have learned a great deal from the "war" thread, and hope that I may have informed others too.
Cheers,
mrfeedback said:
Eric,
I couldn't agree more. Yet, we had to act according to the rules we once created.😉
I also agree with Brett that opening scene in Saving Privte Ryan movie was much more graphic than Till's picture.
We have Off Topic forum now and there's a good chance it will be less moderated than our usual threads.😉
My three year old son likes to look over my shoulder while I read this stuff (he likes the schematics and pictures of amps). Fortunately the mutilated-child picture had already been deleted by the time we got to it, but the topless-babe picture took some explaining. If I can't be pretty sure that I'm not going to scroll down to find disturbing violent or pornographic images, we'll have to stop reading it together, and I think that would be a shame. Whatever policies you decide on (strict modertation, no moderation, moderation in some forums and not others,...) please just make them explicit and stick to them.
Thanks for all your good work in keeping this site running!
Thanks for all your good work in keeping this site running!
Rob,
I'm sorry if my post caused YOU any embarrassment.
I put it that way because children in their innocence are not normally embarrassed by things until they think they understand.
Personally I don't think any explanation was necessary. My adult daughter (who sent it to me) certainly didn't.
Maybe this is part of another cultural difference between the USA and Europe. I think Europeans are less embarrassed by nakedness.
Cheers,
I'm sorry if my post caused YOU any embarrassment.
I put it that way because children in their innocence are not normally embarrassed by things until they think they understand.
Personally I don't think any explanation was necessary. My adult daughter (who sent it to me) certainly didn't.
Maybe this is part of another cultural difference between the USA and Europe. I think Europeans are less embarrassed by nakedness.
Cheers,
Rob M said:
This is exactly why, and for the kids surfing the site on their own, that these kinds of images are not condoned. Not everyone using this site is a jaded adult.
dave
dhaen said:
Please. It's not the nudity per se that's the problem, and you know it. I've only recently moved back to the US -- my son was born in the Netherlands and spent most of his life there, and even there that kind of thing would not be considered appropriate for small children. So, you're a father, how would you explain what's going on in that picture to a bright, inquisitive pre-schooler?
But anyway, I'm new here. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you can and can't post. I'm just saying that if you choose to show such little respect for cultural norms in other parts of the world, then you're going to drive people away.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.