Banned....

[guildfire]

Long time members whom I would have NEVER imagined behaving in such a manner... intentionally committing forum harakiri ?!? WTF!!?!

 

 

Sad, but true.

[Phlat Phive]

 

We have a hard-and-fast rule around here about not tolerating such phrases as " it is what it is ". Going forward we're enforcing it 24/7 and at the end of the day you are in violation of this forum ordinance.

 

 

It's undeniably true though. I can't imagine anyone posting on these forums not being aware of the rules concerning nudity, and I'm usually all for it that a rule should be changed if it doesn't make sense (since rules are created by people, and are therefore fallible), but in this case I feel that it does make sense. HC gets its page views, i.e. a part of its revenue via adds from the forums, and many people browse these forums from work, so the forums should be work-safe.

[Samilyn]

Not on GJ they aren't. And not according to the official forum rules either. {snip}

 

 

Then what, pray tell, is on the chest of Venus? Mosquito bites?

[Michael Martin]

We have a hard-and-fast rule around here about not tolerating such phrases as " it is what it is ". Going forward we're enforcing it 24/7 and at the end of the day you are in violation of this forum ordinance.

And we must be proactive in order to achieve our realistically achievable win-win synergies, in the long run.

[StringJunky]

We have a hard-and-fast rule around here about not tolerating such phrases as " it is what it is ". Going forward we're enforcing it 24/7 and at the end of the day you are in violation of this forum ordinance.

 

I think it's important that we develop a proactive plan so that we can positively identify scenarios such as these, in a timely fashion, and nip them in the bud.

 

Also, in addition, FYI, just a reminder: Wednesday is Hawaiian shirt day.

[Queequeg]

I think it's important that we develop a proactive plan so that we can positively identify scenarios such as these, in a timely fashion, and nip them in the bud. Also, in addition, FYI, just a reminder: Wednesday is Hawaiian shirt day.

 

ah, a new Paradygm.

that's my take-away.

[Michael Martin]

 

ah, a new Paradygm. that's my take-away.

 

 

I see your paradigms and raise you a pair of quarters.

[Frets99]

In the spirit of the truth council, I went to Thread Jail and saw the offending "Bush" picture in the thread posted by OGP not an alt. I'm sorry but that is akin to committing bannicide.

[Phlat Phive]

Then what, pray tell, is on the chest of Venus? Mosquito bites?

 

 

We've been through this (ten pages ago?). Photography is a different animal. Ask yourself, with each image you post, would this appropriately in the workplace? In a public library, or a school or university library? Venus de Milo; yes. Photos of naked people, whether for the purpose of art or pornography; no.

[BATCAT]

And we must be proactive in order to achieve our realistically achievable win-win synergies, in the long run.

 

 

That's some good out-of-the-box thinking.

[FretFiend.]

 

We've been through this (ten pages ago?). Photography is a different animal. Ask yourself, with each image you post, would this appropriately in the workplace? In a public library, or a school or university library? Venus de Milo; yes. Photos of naked people, whether for the purpose of art or pornography; no.

 

 

Pure subjective bull{censored}.

[StringJunky]

 

And we must be proactive in order to achieve our realistically achievable win-win synergies, in the long run.

 

 

Agreed. Let's go ahead and drill-down for an ETA. Let's make sure we touch base on this and keep it visible. If we stay positively focused and make sure everyone is a team player, we can really score a touchdown. How soon do you think R&D can get us a power-point on this?

[Queequeg]

 

And we must be proactive in order to achieve our realistically achievable win-win synergies, in the long run.

 

Spot on, Michael.

If we can ever hope to implement mission-critical interfaces & innovate scalable benchmarks, we have to first embrace the visionary models and empower scalable portals through unleashed synergistic action-items.

[BATCAT]

Not on GJ they aren't. And not according to the official forum rules either. I doubt it would fly on other subforums. Maybe you can get away with it here because this forum is not that actively moderated; I only see an admin listed as mod, and I doubt he's scouring this forum for nudity on a daily basis, so it sneaks under the radar.

 

 

Something people need to understand is that some forums are more actively moderated than others. Also, believe it or not, the mods are people too and cant see every post in every thread. If you see a post you believe is in violation of the rules, report it.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

Pure subjective bull{censored}.

 

 

Subject to what, exactly? It's a fairly objective matter whether something is or isn't photography.

[EdBega]

[Phlat Phive]

 

Pure subjective bull{censored}.

 

 

Subjective; yes, absolutely. Go ahead and suggest your alternative to admin if you want to see a change, but don't shoot the messenger.

 

Bull{censored}? No, not given the context in which many people browse these forums. I don't know where you live, of course, but even in this god-forsaken country where "women openly flaunt their wares" or whatever {censored}e way of saying it is that Tartanlad had (I can't be bothered to look it up), nude photography on your computer screen in a public environment is heavily frowned upon.

[Samilyn]

We've been through this (ten pages ago?). Photography is a different animal. Ask yourself, with each image you post, would this appropriately in the workplace? In a public library, or a school or university library? Venus de Milo; yes. Photos of naked people, whether for the purpose of art or pornography; no.

 

 

It's still pointless to argue because, IMO, a nipple is a nipple is a nipple, regardless of what medium it's rendered in. The rules specify nipples - only nipples - not which medium they're rendered in. Therefore, all nipples are in violation of the rule. Pretty cut and dried.

 

Your interpretation of the rule is obviously different.

 

 

But FWIW, since you refer to "Venus de Milo", a little clarification is in order for those who may not be well-versed in fine art:

 

The painting in question is "The Birth of Venus" by Botticelli. Venus is the Roman name for Aphrodite.

 

"Venus De Milo" is a statue by Alexandros depicting Aphrodite (The Greek name for Venus.)

[guildfire]

I'm glad we're all on the same page.

[FretFiend.]

*Sigh* I don't know how many times it has to be said... I'll try once more. Please pay attention. This is important.

From the rules on GJ Don't post porn. Many of us read this forum at work, or at home with our families present. Thus, pictures of attractive women are okay to post, but those women must be presentable. Bottomless pics (thongs, G-strings, etc.) are not okay. Full-frontal nudity is not okay. Exposed nipples are not okay. If you're still in any doubt about whether your picture is porn or not, ask yourself if you'd be comfortable with a boss or parent seeing it. If not, we probably don't want to see it either.

It is not a stretch of the imagination to describe the Michelangelo statue as "full frontal nudity."
It is not a stretch of the imagination to describe the Botticelli painting as "exposed nipples."
It is not a stretch of the imagination to describe these images as NSFW.

It is also not a stretch of the imagination to view the posting of those pictures on the same page as the deleted Jimi Hendrix album cover as selective enforcement of the rules.

It is also not a stretch of the imagination to describe the escalating penalties for the selected violations as excessive.

I make no defense of those who intentionally violated the rules. They deserve a ban... but a FAIR ban.

[12er]

We've been through this (ten pages ago?). Photography is a different animal. Ask yourself, with each image you post, would this appropriately in the workplace? In a public library, or a school or university library? Venus de Milo; yes. Photos of naked people, whether for the purpose of art or pornography; no.

 

 

You guys over in GJ should ask yourselves, "Are our references to satan worship and the dark side of life, and our explicit profanity appropriate for the workplace?" (or to children?) (or to advertisers and sponsors?)

[Phlat Phive]

 

It's still pointless to argue because, IMO, a nipple is a nipple is a nipple, regardless of what medium it's rendered in. The rules specify nipples - only nipples - not which medium they're rendered in. Therefore, all nipples are in violation of the rule. Pretty cut and dried. Your interpretation of the rule is obviously different. But FWIW, since you refer to "Venus de Milo", a little clarification is in order for those who may not be well-versed in fine art: The painting in question is "The Birth of Venus" by Botticelli. Venus is the Roman name for Aphrodite. "Venus De Milo" is a statue by Alexandros depicting Aphrodite (The Greek name for Venus.)

 

 

Right; I have images turned off, didn't see the image sonik posted, and assumed it to be Venus de Milo (no need to lecture me on the names of Greek and Roman gods though).

[Yngtchie Blacksteen]

It's still pointless to argue because, IMO, a nipple is a nipple is a nipple, regardless of what medium it's rendered in. The rules specify nipples - only nipples - not which medium they're rendered in. Therefore, all nipples are in violation of the rule. Pretty cut and dried.

It's a case of common sense. And honestly, the only reason you're even suggesting enforcing such an absurd take on the rules is because of those people who voluntarily got themselves banned.

[Phlat Phive]

You guys over in GJ should ask yourselves, "Are our references to satan worship and the dark side of life, and our explicit profanity appropriate for the workplace?" (or to children?) (or to advertisers and sponsors?)

 

 

You should ask yourself, given the context of browsing GJ from a public place; who's going to look over your shoulder and read what's on your screen?

 

You should ask yourself; do you really think the references to satanism are in any way serious?

 

As for the advertisers and sponsors, if they want to pressure HC's owners to impose on ban on satanism, they should go ahead and do it.

[FretFiend.]

 

...I understand your point of view, but this is business-oriented website with rules defined by the business owner, not a parliamentary democracy, and this is just the internet. No one's human rights have been violated and there's no need to make this much of a fuss, and those that aggravated the issue by reposting the same image, or OGP with his vag shot, brought it on themselves...

 

 

I suspect that were it you who was on the receiving end of an excessive judgment from a heavy handed and biased moderator, you would speak differently.