Banned....

[rhino55]

It makes me sad when a forum is so busy on the weekend

[fatback]

 

Yes, that would indeed be a fine topic to discuss, and I'm sure Motorik will be right there with me, arguing semantics until everyone's forgotten why the hell we're even discussing this.

 

 

Ok fine with me - meaning is an important issue. The accusation is that double standards exist. You wanted evidence and The Virgin Witch advertisment has been presented. Now if you could show us why it is different then all will be well. We will understand that adverts for porn movies are acceptable and pictures (photos) of nipples are not.

 

Phil

[Yngtchie Blacksteen]

 

Ok fine with me - meaning is an important issue. The accusation is that double standards exist. You wanted evidence and The Virgin Witch advertisment has been presented. Now if you could show us why it is different then all will be well. We will understand that adverts for porn movies are acceptable and pictures (photos) of nipples are not. Phil

No, I'm not gonna do that, because I think this charade has gone on for too long already. Motorik has explained his actions, I've expressed my views, and the people who've been banned will not suddenly be unbanned no matter how much you pick apart every aspect of every HCGJ rule or Motorik's posting history. It's a silly labyrinth of more and more intricate little details that no one outside this thread will have any idea why we're discussing it, and the only goal is apparently to be able to prove something, to say: "Aha! I've got you cornered, you can't argue your way out of this!"

 

If someone wants to call this a victory, by all means do so. This is a forum for grown-ups, so I would expect no less. Ta ta for now.

[fatback]

No, I'm not gonna do that, because I think this charade has gone on for too long already. Motorik has explained his actions, I've expressed my views, and the people who've been banned will not suddenly be unbanned no matter how much you pick apart every aspect of every HCGJ rule or Motorik's posting history. It's a silly labyrinth of more and more intricate little details that no one outside this thread will have any idea why we're discussing it, and the only goal is apparently to be able to prove something, to say: "Aha! I've got you cornered, you can't argue your way out of this!" If someone wants to call this a victory, by all means do so. This is a forum for grown-ups, so I would expect no less. Ta ta for now.

 

But you said this was a fine topic to discuss.

 

Are the size of the nipples of importance or are we really just saying the law is the law and question of double standards are irrelevent to the topic?

 

Phil

[FretFiend.]

 

Why does everyone continue to argue with this clown??

[guildfire]

Why does everyone continue to argue with this clown??

 

He asked for evidence of a double standard, so I just pointed out his buddy's Virgin Witch avatar and asked if that was ok for viewing by kids, wives and bosses. He knows it's a double standard but can't justify it.

[Samilyn]

EVERYBODY PLEASE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW !!!!!!!

[Samilyn]

Now that I have your attention, people..........

 

 

I started this thread with only the most lighthearted of intentions. We often poke fun at each other, and sometimes at other forums.

 

However, things have escalated to the point of the worst ugliness I've ever seen here at AG. While there are some valid issues at hand, there is simply too much ugliness that is not germane to what I consider to be real issues.

 

Now, I am going to address Motorik's comments and will ask all of you to refrain from posting. Please.

 

Afterward, I am going to ask any available Mod or Admin to lock this thread. This has gone far enough.

 

Thank you.

[Cheese Grits]

 

Now that I have your attention, people.......... I started this thread with only the most lighthearted of intentions. We often poke fun at each other, and sometimes at other forums. However, things have escalated to the point of the worst ugliness I've ever seen here at AG. While there are some valid issues at hand, there is simply too much ugliness that is not germane to what I consider to be real issues. Now, I am going to address Motorik's comments and will ask all of you to refrain from posting. Please. Afterward, I am going to ask any available Mod or Admin to lock this thread. This has gone far enough. Thank you.

 

 

That's pretty hilarious coming from someone with this in her sig: "Posting at GJ forum is like walking through an overcrowded dog kennel. Can't be done without stepping on a turd or two or three....."

 

Carry on.

[12er]

 

No, it's a truthful observation. He has repeatedly made an untrue statement about the rules and regulations of Guitar Jam. That's called a lie, and repeated lies makes you a liar. Pretty simple, eh?

 

 

Ohhhhh, you mean like yourself! Ok, I got it now.

[Misha]

Well, everybody re-read the first pages and tell me you didn't have a laugh!

[guildfire]

It was pretty funny. I never took it too seriously.

[Heartstring]

But you said this was a fine topic to discuss. Are the size of the nipples of importance or are we really just saying the law is the law and question of double standards are irrelevent to the topic? Phil

 

Are the nipples very large, coarse, and grainy, or small, tight, and chiseled?

 

Seriously, there hasn't been this much traffic on AG that I can remember!

 

Perhaps, it's all good!

[fatback]

 

Now that I have your attention, people.......... I started this thread with only the most lighthearted of intentions. We often poke fun at each other, and sometimes at other forums. However, things have escalated to the point of the worst ugliness I've ever seen here at AG. While there are some valid issues at hand, there is simply too much ugliness that is not germane to what I consider to be real issues. Now, I am going to address Motorik's comments and will ask all of you to refrain from posting. Please. Afterward, I am going to ask any available Mod or Admin to lock this thread. This has gone far enough. Thank you.

 

 

This is light hearted.

[fatback]

Are the nipples very large, coarse, and grainy, or small, tight, and chiseled? Seriously, there hasn't been this much traffic on AG that I can remember! Perhaps, it's all good!

 

Thats the trouble when you try to adjust the size of things. You can make em larger but the definition suffers.

 

Phil

[Hoddy]

Viva La Revoluci

[Samilyn]

{brevity snip} I'm posting my reply here rather than in a PM as my reply is rather lengthy {brevity snip} Thank you for PMing me to ask for my side of the story, something that no one else on Acoustic Guitars has saw fit to do until now (despite...{brevity snip}

 

I admit that I thought you were probably reading the threads pertinent to this issue, so would disregard a PM. I do know that at least one AG-er PM'd you on behalf of those banned, but the PM did not explicitly ask for your side of the story.

 

At GJ -- and indeed most of the other HC sub-forums such as {brevity snip} -- we have a hard and fast rule regarding the posting of photographs of women's nipples. The rule is simple: don't do it.

 

The rule explicitly states: 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.

 

The keyword here is "pictures." The rule does not specify any particular medium. Therefore, if that rule is hard and fast, then any rendering in any medium of any exposed genitalia are in violation.

 

In that vein, I strongly disagree with allowing the Venus and David pictures to remain.

 

If someone is genuinely ignorant of that we'll cut them some slack. We'll remove the photograph, and we'll add a note reminding them that it's against the GJ forum rules which are stickied on the front page. If someone then breaks the rule again in full knowledge that they're doing so they'll get a ban. The ban might be a 3-day ban for a first offense, it might be longer if they're a repeat offender. {brevity snip} When Garthman made a point of re-posting the Electric Ladyland cover he was doing so knowing full well that he was setting himself against the official GJ forum rules. That's why he got what was then a 3-day ban. He should have sat it out, he'd have been back by now, and this whole situation would have been avoided.

 

My objection was to the additional sentence given to Garthman due to a post made by another man.

 

As I stated before, I do know who Madhenry is, though I didn't at first recognize him by his screen name. He uses the computer at the community center where Garth works. I know Garthman wouldn't prod him to make a post. It's actually quite like the fellow to imitate Garthman's action because he looks up to Garthman and gave no thought to the consequences of his action.

 

If the AG forumites felt strongly about his ban they should have contacted me to discuss it rationally, they would have found I am amenable to discussion.

 

As I said above, about PM-ing you.

 

Instead of talking to me like adults they decided that I was in the wrong for enforcing the official rules of GJ......

 

My issues concern your interpretation of the rule as it is written, not your enforcement of it per se. The enforcement concern that I have is that if the rule is cut and dried, then the poster of the pictures of the works of art should have also been reprimanded and the pictures either censored or removed. In your words, the rule is "hard and fast".

 

....and set about reposting the pic. They can't claim ignorance of the rules, they knew they were breaking them. Their first mistake was in assuming that 'he can't ban all of us', I will ban anyone who posts the pic when they do so to purposefully break the rules.

 

No, their first mistake was thinking you'd see it as humorously as they did. They were prepared to accept bans in the interest of banter and a bit of fun. Childish, yes, but relatively harmless. Did we not laugh and poke fun at the Captain & Tennille album cover you posted in place of one?

 

Their second mistake was in thinking because the first poster got a 3-day ban then that was the standard punishment I would apply. Wrong. Multiple forumites were lining up to post it egged on by the author of the thread.....

 

Wrong. I never egged anyone on. The first to egg on a poster was, in fact, someone from your own forum, Perfect Tommy in Post #21.

 

When one humorously decreed "Cover me, guys, I'm goin' in", I in fact told him not to and warned him about the escalating bans.

 

.....and there was talk about getting as many people in AG as possible to join in.

 

True, that, in our typical "circle the wagons" fashion, but knowing the poster as I do, I can honestly say that it was meant good naturedly, not as an actual attack on another forum.

 

There was even talk of enlisting EG forumites.

 

No, not enlisting, merely a musing as to what our boobie-loving brethren at EG would think of such a situation. If I'd wanted to enlist anyone, I'd have gone there and made a post. They love boobies as much as they love their gits.

 

We don't entertain forum wars in GJ. If you read my posts from that time you'll see me telling GJ forumites that fomenting a 'forum war' is in itself a temp-ban offense in GJ (as in most of the other high-traffic HC forums).

 

There was never meant to be a war and I'm pretty sure none of us have spent enough time at GJ to have read your posts regarding any other forum war.

 

With multiple AG posters deciding 'hey, I can sit out a 3-day ban, it might be fun, I'm going to disrupt GJ' I instigated a series of rising bans.

 

I'm sure they were thinking just that, only around 7 days, IFIRC. However, a post by you warning of the escalating bans would have nipped all that in the bud. Your comrades have spoken of your humor and fairness, but in this case, I saw no indication of such.

 

If a 3-day ban doesn't put off a flood of people breaking a rule then the next ban will be 7-days, then a month, then 3-months etc until an equilibrium is achieved. Eventually it doesn't seem like fun any more to the rule breakers. This is what happened. No one is posting the pic any more. If other AG forumites felt that my actions were unfair a calm, collected, considered PM would have gone a long way towards moving things forward. Did no one consider that?

 

I already addressed the subject of sending you a PM.

 

Instead a number of AG forumites went about things in the worst way possible by refusing to accept that GJ has clear rules and that their friends broke them. Engaging in sophistry over what constitutes 'art', how people use the f-word a lot on GJ, or whether or not Graeco-Roman sculpture is equivalent to photographs of topless women butters no parsnips with me. This was explained to them by other moderators.

 

I rather dislike parsnips , but at any rate...

 

Yes, many of us went about things in a bad way. This was all meant to be banterish and lighthearted, but soon escalated into something very ugly.

 

As to the works of ancient art as opposed to photographic art, I stand by my conviction that if a rule is "hard and fast" (your words) then it should apply to genitalia rendered in all mediums.

 

They'd have been better putting their hands up and saying 'you know what, our friends did break the GJ rules, and we're sorry for egging them on and getting them banned'.

 

Though I did not egg them on, I will be the first to publicly apologize for starting this outrage of a thread and for the actions of my comrades. As I said, it was indeed meant to be relatively lighthearted, with perhaps a few :poke: here and there, but it did not remain in that spirit.

 

Instead they'd rather engage in speculation over what particular type of monster I am. Personal insults are water off a duck's back to me, but they don't make the person making the insults look any better in my eyes.

 

I have to admit, your av and some of the things I saw in GJ lead me to believe you're rather monsterish. However, if what your comrades say is true, then is it perhaps possible for you to be a benevolent monster and consider all that has happened and the spirit in which it was started?

 

As for your friend OGP, he was not banned for posting the Electric Ladyland cover photo. He was banned for posting a picture of a woman with her vagina on show. Now that is a perma-ban rule breach in GJ, and every other forum in HC. There can be no explaining that one away. It's a cut-and-dry case, and It's a shame he felt he had to commit 'forum suicide' in such a manner.

 

In this case, I wholeheartedly agree, and expressed my disapproval of what he did, albeit less than as strenuously as I should have.

 

It was put forth in another thread that he might possibly have had too much to drink, and I'm willing to entertain that thought because it was very out of character for OGP.

 

However, if that was indeed the case, then I have to leave it up to OGP to make his explanations and apologies on his own. I can only hope that he might be permitted to return to our community if his faculties and judgment were indeed impaired by an intoxicating substance.

 

Now that I've explained myself I'd hope that the Acoustic Guitars community would ponder this question: Q.'Has anything you've done so far made the situation better?' Think about it.

 

Now, in light of my explanation of the spirit of the album-cover postings, I respectfully ask that you at least consider reducing the ban length for my brethren.

 

I can't apologize for lightheartedness, banter, and some pokes, but I am again apologizing for what this has escalated into.

 

I am not only apologizing to you personally, and your brethren at GJ, but to the community at large. This was never meant to become a $h*tstorm of epic proportions.

 

Additionally, I'm going to return my sig to what it was before. Dragon quotes are harmless, methinks.

[gitnoob]

I'm not sure I get the idea of a work-safe guitar forum. I've never worked anyplace where surfing the net and hanging out at a guitar forum was considered kosher corporate-wise.

 

Just curious -- where do you guys work that guitar forums are OK, but nipples are verboten?

[Chicken Monkey]

 

I'm not sure I get the idea of a work-safe guitar forum. I've never worked anyplace where surfing the net and hanging out at a guitar forum was considered kosher corporate-wise. Just curious -- where do you guys work that guitar forums are OK, but nipples are verboten?

 

 

I've been browsing the forum on a computer at the public library during a porn attack. Had someone witnessed the images that came up on the screen, I think I could have been charged with intent to expose a minor to pornography. Accessing pornography is explicitly forbidden in the terms you agree to when logging in to the library computer, but I never paid much attention to it, as I had no intent to get anywhere near that sort of material on a public computer.

 

Other people are salaried employees who are getting their job done despite wasting time on guitar forums. Others are people who are committing "time-theft" by goofing off on the clock. I'm sure the penalty for checking out a guitar forum at work is a lot less severe than the penalty for cruising for porn.

[StringJunky]

 

Just curious -- where do you guys work that guitar forums are OK, but nipples are verboten?

 

 

I'm a stoker at the Victorian Morals and Guitarist Society. G'day, guvnah.

[Hart]

So umm, being new around here and all I just gotta ask. Is this sort of drama normal around here or am I witnessing a sort of once in a blue moon event with the whole Jimi/nipple/devolve/forumwar/thing? Just curious.

 

Meh.

 

Back to reading about barre chords, bridgepins and watching all your wonderful youtube videos.

[FretFiend.]

IMHO, it's the full moon.

[Etienne Rambert]

 

So umm, being new around here and all I just gotta ask. Is this sort of drama normal around here or am I witnessing a sort of once in a blue moon event with the whole Jimi/nipple/devolve/forumwar/thing? Just curious. Meh. Back to reading about barre chords, bridgepins and watching all your wonderful youtube videos.

 

 

At HCAG we fight zee stinking machine every day -- every minute!

 

We fight for zee pippul!

 

We are human beings, made of flesh & blood. We are not zee stinking robots!

 

We sweat. We bleed!

 

We try out new bridge pin combinations.

[Sangemon]

 

I admit that I thought you were probably reading the threads....

 

 

Well said, Sammi!!

[gitnoob]

 

I've been browsing the forum on a computer at the public library during a porn attack. Had someone witnessed the images that came up on the screen, I think I could have been charged with intent to expose a minor to pornography. Accessing pornography is explicitly forbidden in the terms you agree to when logging in to the library computer, but I never paid much attention to it, as I had no intent to get anywhere near that sort of material on a public computer. Other people are salaried employees who are getting their job done despite wasting time on guitar forums. Others are people who are committing "time-theft" by goofing off on the clock. I'm sure the penalty for checking out a guitar forum at work is a lot less severe than the penalty for cruising for porn.

 

 

Right. The "no porn" aspect is covered pretty well in the site's TOS.

 

I guess part of the problem is that some subforums go a bit further and try to define "porn" with language like "no nipples."

 

So a mod feels that he has to enforce the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law.

 

Is that the root of the problem?