Oh fuck it, I’ll just come right out and say it. It’s breasts goddamn it. Offensive and despicable breasts. Two of 'em.
I’m a little confused here. Please help me out.
I just saw a great photo on www.drudgereport.com (the link to the photo is near the top in the right hand column if you are so inclined) of a very young Arnold Swarzenneger with a woman perched atop his shoulders. The bottom of the frame was about neck level of Arnold and the top of the frame ended just above the woman’s exposed breasts. A tasteful (if not downright tasty) pic if you ask me.
I was soon threatened with my posting priveleges for posting nudity and the thread was closed. Fine. I’m not going to argue about it, if them’s the rules, then them’s the rules (and FWIW I e-mailed the mod, apologized for my mistake, and promised to peruse the board rules again). No big deal.
I’ll be damned though, if I can find any mention of a rule prohibiting the posting of a link to any type of nudity. If it’s there and I missed it, I do apologize but if it’s not, just how in the hell was I supposed to know of this rule?
Just a couple more things and then I will shut up.
I was chastized for posting nudity on the board. I did not post nudity on the board, I posted a link (with a nudity warning) leading to exactly 1 picture of 2 breasts and 1 aspiring politician. Nothing more, nothing less. (in my opinion a tasteful picture as I mentioned before…)
What is it about my post that was any more inapropriate than the numerous threads talking about all manner of extremely mature subjects. It was a link, which led to a (IMHO) respected news website not a porn site. Nor did it show Monica with a cigar stuffed up her snatch and a puddle of spooge on her sleeve. (And am I the only one who wonders why that last statement is perfectly acceptable but my link was not? Doesn’t that strike anyone else as a bit odd?)
Lastly, I posted this to the pit because I could not find any such rule and did not know where else to post my rant but I would like to have a calm and rational discussion about this. As I see it, there is no need for anyone to get up in arms and start flaming.
No, you’re not the only one. I also found your statement to be incredibly odd.
Regarding the rest, I don’t know where the rule is written down, but in some sense it doesn’t matter. One rule that is definitely written down is that you agree to do what the mods tell you, and in this case they told you not to link to nudity. You weren’t banned, you were just warned. No big deal, now you know better. (I for one greatly appreciate the nudity rule, as I sometime look at this site from work and can get in trouble if I ever see nudity, even if it’s via a respectable news site.)
IIRC there is a two clicks rule to (potentially offensive) links.
If you linked to Drudge Report, that would probably have been fine.
But linking direct to the breasts pics isn’t fine - it’s not really “office safe”. Even if you put a warning, if someone clicked too quickly, and it popped up just as their boss etc walked past…
The fact that you describe the pic as “tasty” should be evidence enought that these particular breasts are in the realm of erotica/porn/titillation, compared with - for example - a link to a breastfeeding site that might feature a nursing mother. I expect (would hope) the mods would be ok with that.
It seems to me your post was for the purpose of showing nudity. The thread title, “The Arnold thread with boobies (nudity)” and the text of your post, “Just couldn’t resist sharing this one…it’s boobalicious!”
Considering the whole thing was directing readers to view breasts (however tastefully done the picture is) is probabky what got the mods panties in a bunch. This board is not about showing nudity, warnings about it or no. There are a few hundred thousand other places if you want to get that.
Now, if your thread had been about Arnie running for governor and you were making a case that he is unfit because he has naked women on his shoulders and you linked to a news site that discusses it and warned that clicking on a link through the other site contained nudity you probably would have been ok.
Some people post on this board from work, and don’t want to have to watch out for non-work-safe links. And some people here are under the legal age for viewing such material … both of these circumstances mean there’s a policy, pretty consistently enforced, of not allowing direct links to pictures of nudity. Lurk around, and you will see examples of this … or post incautiously, and you get to be an example yourself. (If in diubt about whether something’s appropriate, it can’t hurt to ask.)
I’ll expand here then, since you obviously didn’t have the patience to await my reply to your e-mail.
The rules with nudity and pornography aren’t entirely set in stone. Partially, they’re straightforward: pure porn is right out. Nudity - that’s where it gets confusing.
We’re not complete prudes, here. But we do like to keep the place tidy to an extend. If, during the course of an informative thread, someone links to a picture that contains nudity, we’d probably let it be if the picture served a purpose. Example: people are discussing some medical procedure, and pictures of the treatment get linked to - pictures that contain nudity, as well. Provided the pictures aren’t too gory, we’d let them be.
Now, nudity for the hell of it? That’s not as likely to remain untouched. Your link was quite simply put there for amusement value. It’s funny, I guess. But it’s also a one-click hazard for those who post from work.
So, in short: functional nudity is at times allowed, whilst nudity as eye candy or amusement is almost never allowed. For both cases, implementing a “two click” strategy is advisable, too prevent people getting in trouble.
Hope that helps. I’ll go and delete that e-mail reply I already half composed, now.
I merely made that statement to illustrate that people say all manner of offensive things here and and it is allowed, yet a simple picture of a breast is grounds for banishment. It is odd.
Of course it matters. If it is a rule then it should be duly noted for all to see. Not trotted out after the fact, when it will result in the sort of confusion we are experincing here in this thread. I suspect that this can not be the first such misunderstanding on this subject. Why not clearly state the rule and avoid all of this?
Sorry Coldfire, I did not mean to seem disrespectful, in fact thats why I deliberately left your name out of it.
I just thought a discussion might benefit some of the other members here in that they might avoid the same mistake I made, and also draw attention to the fact that the rules are far from clear on this subject.
I’m curious. Is there a “mod bullshit fund” paypal account I can throw a few bucks at just to cover a round of beers in some sort of recompense for the petty bullshit they have to put up wth?
The rules are deliberately vague. We’re not interested in defining nudity as “35% visible niple area” or somesuch. It’s always a judgment call. So, the golden rule is: ask a moderator or administrator, should you ever be in doubt.
Sorry, should have put a smiley – I was just teasing you about your choice of graphic statements. Sort of a funny thing to pull out of nowhere. ← extra one
I’m not the mod who censored/warned. That being said, yeah, there’s an unofficial two clicks rule here. Basically, we ask that you be mindful that other posters/lurkers may be reading the message board at work or at home with kids watching or just generally in a public place. This applies to sound as well as pictures. Also, we don’t allow posting pictures of boobies just because they’re boobies. Same goes for willies. I have, in the past, allowed a picture of a Tug-Ahoy (foreskin restoration device) in use, as I figured the pic was more educational than prurient.
I notice that you’re quite new here, SkyBum. so I do advise watching to see what’s acceptable and what’s not.
