Inappropriate picture?

rizzla

I recieved an infaracture for posting a picture a few days ago. Just wondering if it was justified. I won't repost it, but if you type Jessica Chobot (IGN reporter) into google image search you should see the one. It's her sitting on a toilet reading a magazine..

Just as a simple comparison here's a Pamper's Kandoo ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-504_rbsfho

Was the infraction justified?


EDIT: How do I add a poll?

Bob the Builder

Because we're all priests here, any showing of the legs is deeply frowned upon. Say one million hail mary's, and you will be forgiven my child (after I say so of course).

Which forum was it?

rizzla

nevf wrote: »

Because we're all priests here, any showing of the legs is deeply frowned upon. Say one million hail mary's, and you will be forgiven my child (after I say so of course).

Which forum was it?

The nocturnal forum.

zuroph

ridiculous IMO

Rabies

I can see where it could lead.
Slippery slope




/goes to google more


On Topic.

Have you got a link to the thread?
Was the image sending the thread off topic?

rizzla

Rabies wrote: »

I can see where it could lead.
Slippery slope




/goes to google more


On Topic.

Have you got a link to the thread?
Was the image sending the thread off topic?

Nope it was a thread about posting pictures of women or men who are goth/emo/scene. I'll find it now.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055378045&page=3

Rabies

The image wasn't emo/goth

rizzla

Rabies wrote: »

The image wasn't emo/goth

It was scene tough. There have been other photos accepted though, it's not fairly strict.

EDIT: video clip from American Psycho too. wtf?

brendansmith

fight the powah

Rabies

Its late at night in Ireland now. I'm sure one of the Noc mods will be over soon.

/waves

.0/

Kold

brendansmith wrote: »

fight the powah

row row row?

randylonghorn

Well, if this was where the post you were talking about went, this was the mod's public response at the time:

SDooM wrote: »

Lads.

Think about what you are posting before you do.

Posting "mod please delete if inappropriate" is of no help if someone opens the thread in work.

If you are posting NSFW images, clearly label and link to the image as opposed to displaying it here.

Whether he's being a bit over-cautious or not, I don't know, as pic is no longer there, but one way or the other he isn't exactly taking you out and beating you up, or sullying your reputation irretrievably, is he?

Don't really understand why people start Feedback threads about infractions at the best of times, anyway, unless they're totally and crazily off the planet ... they're about the equivalent of Father Ted going "careful now!" as far as I can see, unless you intend to gather up a rucksack full of them.

Have you actually attempted to discuss this with the mod in question, or did you just wait a week and then post a feedback thread?

orestes

I'll take this one

Did you pm a mod of the forum before you started this thread to try and sort it out in private? (I don't think you did but I'll give you the chance to prove me wrong)

The pic was deleted and you were infracted because the pic in question was deemed to be too close to the line.

Would you want your boss to be walking past your desk while that was on your screen?

rizzla wrote: »

It was scene tough. There have been other photos accepted though, it's not fairly strict.

EDIT: video clip from American Psycho too. wtf?

Actually, it is strict. There are limits, I don't care how "scene" you think the pic was, it's not suiable for the forum.

I like how you give out about the American Psycho clip like you're morallly outraged or like you are surprised by it. You qouted that clip and called it the best part of the film when it was originally posted, but after you got your knuckles rapped you reported it and now you bring it up here too, where it has zero relevenece apart from trying to get a shock reaction.

brendansmith

Kold wrote: »

row row row?

fight the powah?

rizzla

orestes wrote: »

I'll take this one

Did you pm a mod of the forum before you started this thread to try and sort it out in private? (I don't think you did but I'll give you the chance to prove me wrong)

The pic was deleted and you were infracted because the pic in question was deemed to be too close to the line.

Would you want your boss to be walking past your desk while that was on your screen?



Actually, it is strict. There are limits, I don't care how "scene" you think the pic was, it's not suiable for the forum.

I like how you give out about the American Psycho clip like you're morallly outraged or like you are surprised by it. You qouted that clip and called it the best part of the film when it was originally posted, but after you got your knuckles rapped you reported it and now you bring it up here too, where it has zero relevenece apart from trying to get a shock reaction.

Yes I did pm the mod in question and he said he wasn't willing to discuss it and I should take it to the Feedback or Helpdesk forum. I like proving people wrong.

TBH most pics in that thread I wouldn't want my boss to see, a good portion seem quite fetish like. I quted the American Psycho clip before my pic was deleted, I thought it was all in good fun, but yet it was off topic and remained?!?

And I brought up the clip purely because someone asked me if the pic was taking the thread off topic.

Also, a good portion of the Asian girls being posted look very underage, they probably aren't but I think you'd have a harder time trying to explain that one to your boss.

orestes

rizzla wrote: »

Yes I did pm the mod in question and he said he wasn't willing to discuss it and I should take it to the Feedback or Helpdesk forum. I like proving people wrong especially when they think their so right.

TBH most pics in that thread I wouldn't want my boss to see, a good portion seem quite fetish like. I quted the American Psycho clip before my pic was deleted, I thought it was all in good fun, but yet it was off topic and remained?!?

And I brought up the clip purely because someone asked me if the pic was taking the thread off topic.

Fair enough. If you like proving people wrong when they think they are right, please provide me with a single reason why that pic did not deserve a warning?

Edit: we have very strict rules over pics of underage girls being posted. For someone who is so concerned I can't help but notice you have never reported posts.

Karl Hungus

rizzla wrote: »

Also, a good portion of the Asian girls being posted look very underage, they probably aren't but I think you'd have a harder time trying to explain that one to your boss.

Sour grapes much? Jesus lad, are you that bitter that your post was clipped? You got an infraction, a slap on the wrist really, a caution if you will. It means **** all in the big scheme of things. I'd take an infraction here and now if it'd make you happy, and stop you munching away on those grapes.

Sherifu

I was expecting a dj spider pic.

Welcome to nanny state boards OP.

What was the infraction for exactly? Link to picture would be good too.

rizzla

Apparently NSFW, posting this this (NSFW) pic.

brendansmith

rizzla wrote: »

Apparently NSFW, posting this this (NSFW) pic.

Theres not much wrong with that tbh!

Sherifu

rizzla wrote: »

Apparently NSFW, posting this this (NSFW) pic.

Lol.

Daithi McGee

Having seen the pic I don't know what to think.

If the lady in the pic is just having a little tinkle then it is kind of sweet in a pseudo erotic kind of way. But If she is dropping a big stinker of a log, which by reading the mag on the bog indicates, then it is disgusting and the OP should be site banned.

Just my 1.31498 Rupee.

Xavi6

Daithi McGee wrote: »

Having seen the pic I don't know what to think.

If the lady in the pic is just having a little tinkle then it is kind of sweet in a pseudo erotic kind of way. But If she is dropping a big stinker of a log, which by reading the mag on the bog indicates, then it is disgusting and the OP should be site banned.

Just my 1.31498 Rupee.

Everyone knows girls don't go number 2

Doctor DooM

1) You may notice if you check I went and did action something on the american psycho video. You know, the one you were saying was awesome before you reported it.

2) I have snipped an AWFUL lot of pictures from the thread. I had just had to close the original thread and create a new, cleaner one, and people immediately started posting stuff close to the line. I told you this in my second response. The alternative is to close the thread altogether. Thus infractions were handed out.

3) NSFW means not safe for work. If I have a picture of a girl on the toilet with her trousers down showing on a web report in work I am not going to be able to explain it.

4) It's an infraction. I didn't ban, you still have access.

5) I don't appreciate you painting it like I would not talk to you. I responded twice and you clearly couldn't get your head around the fact that just because there is not acres of skin on show doesn't necessarily mean it's not NSFW. Thats why I said go to feedback.

Other posters have gotten infracted on that thread and just gotten on with it dude. Seriously.

All that said, I don't want an argument. People weren't listening to me so I had to hand out infractions. The thread's now chugging along nicely with no issues. 1 week later I thought you had moved on, tbh.

Nerin

Sour grapes are sour. You were fine with everything until you got told off,then moral outrage kicked in. Grow up. You aren't the first to post pictures that were snipped,and you won't be the last. Find something else to whine about,its a bloody infraction.

zuroph

jesus, attack the poster much mods?! "sour grapes" etc. how about growing up and addressing his concerns?! there was nothing wrong with the pic, thats why he asked. it even took him a few days to ask why. row row row fight the powah.

edit: not directed at sdoom obv, but everyone else.

kaimera

lock the thread or else send it to slydice tbh.

more hassle than it's worth it seems.

Karl Hungus

How in the name of god is "Sour grapes" an attack on the poster?

kaimera wrote: »

lock the thread or else send it to slydice tbh.

more hassle than it's worth it seems.

It shouldn't have to be locked, there's only one person making hassle.

zuroph

its the whole tone of the replies. quite immature really.

Nerin

zuroph wrote: »

its the whole tone of the replies. quite immature really.

immature is the attitude that when he got in trouble he didn't want to be the only one in trouble. And if sour grapes is your idea of attacking...Wtf?!

Nerin

Karl Hungus wrote: »

How in the name of god is "Sour grapes" an attack on the poster?



It shouldn't have to be locked, there's only one person making hassle.

tbh,i wasn't keen on the original thread,but once the mods got together and decided rules,it was easier to manage. Nuking it wouldn't bother me, but the guys (and girls one must add) are just having the craic with it. But it does only take one or two users to completely ruin it. If people want it nuked i'll nuke it,but either way,the infraction given (by one of my fellow mods,and not me i might add) stands. Its only an infraction,and noobs to the forum usually get the benefit of the doubt. Get over it.

kaimera

Karl Hungus wrote: »

How in the name of god is "Sour grapes" an attack on the poster?



It shouldn't have to be locked, there's only one person making hassle.

I was going on part 2) of Dooms post above karl.

Karl Hungus

zuroph wrote: »

its the whole tone of the replies. quite immature really.

Sorry, the 'tone'? You're looking for something that's simply not there as far as I can see.

As for immaturity, please elaborate, don't just make a vague statement like the above. Rizzla is quite obviously bitter over being infracted, and is feigning outrage over my posts in response, so saying it's a case of sour grapes is simply calling it like it is. If that's somehow attacking the poster, or unbecoming of the mature, then we are on completely different wavelenths here.

Whether you like it or not, telling Rizzla to get some perspective on the infraction is dealing with his concerns. The infraction is something minor, barely worth concern.

Nerin

Basically its mod discretion on any thread. And theres rules. Other than that what do you want? The asian pics,well tbh,i thought they looked young,but as karl pointed out,drinking age etc,they aren't. Again,i'm painfully aware we're arguing about pictures of people ye think are hot. Which is sad,especially on a freakin monday. The five of us have been keeping an eye and discussing it behind the scenes,anything dodgey is snipped,and gets users an infraction or banned,depending on the pic.

6th

I've seen this picture and seen in refered to here as being "close to the line" ... should it not cross a line to deserve to be acted upon? If there is no way for people to really know what is and isn't allowed (bar the obvious) then a thread like this seems like an invitation to get infracted/banned.

I know not everything is Black & White and the mods do a great job but as I said "close to the line" is not crossing a line.

Nerin

6th wrote: »

I've seen this picture and seen in refered to here as being "close to the line" ... should it not cross a line to deserve to be acted upon? If there is no way for people to really know what is and isn't allowed (bar the obvious) then a thread like this seems like an invitation to get infracted/banned.

I know not everything is Black & White and the mods do a great job but as I said "close to the line" is not crossing a line.

i think doom meant that other people started posting stuff close to the line,so bans and infractions were threatened-and that rizzlas pic would be a serious pain to try explain in work,hence he got an infraction. Well,thats what i got from dooms post.

6th

orestes wrote: »

The pic was deleted and you were infracted because the pic in question was deemed to be too close to the line.

Maybe I'm just being picking but it might help everyone in the future if it was a little more clear cut. Even something as saying it did cross the line would help, then maybe tell people where the line is. I know mods have to use their discretion though and this case doesnt exactly reek of singling someone out.

zuroph

i just think its sad that, in a world where ads on tv can show a mans naked arse, ur too scared to let a photo of a girl posing sitting on the toilet, with no more than a tiny bit of leg showing, too offensive to let slide. if she had been sitting on a chair, or in a mini skirt, or wearing a top that showed cleavage?!? and dont give me the NSFW argument, because i think any boss would be a little more worried about the fact that the employee was browsing a list of photos of young looking japanese girls.

in short, grow up, and lighten up.

Karl Hungus

zuroph wrote: »

in short, grow up

I asked you to explain your statement about immaturity before, and you didn't, so I'm beginning to think you're trolling. I can't see any signs of immaturity by myself or anyone else who has posted in this thread, it just boggles the mind, like your relation of sour grapes to an 'attack', and doesn't have anything to do with the thread at hand.

The issue is whether or not the pic Rizzla posted is NSFW, and making vague statements about maturity or inexplicably telling people to grow up shouldn't come into it. Are you trying to sabotage this thread to spite the moderators? Because I cannot see how some of your comments are relevant at all. So would you perhaps consider adding something of value to this thread?

Nerin

Zuroph-if you have a problem with whats allowed on that thread and what isn't,go google search some fap pics for yourself. Or even better,start your own site. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you-but its mod discretion,and the mod felt that it was too dodge and got rid of it. Ok? Ok. In reply to 6th,personally,if it was me,i'd delete it even if it was in link form,and pm/message the user that i did it,and i was going to ask the other mods what they think. Personally, i don't think i'm great for modding that thread in particular,and doom,kharn,orestes and watna have been doing a great job. I give my opinion on it,and say if i remove something,because i feel my personal judgement wouldn't be as good as theirs on that thread. I could be too heavy handed or too lenient in some cases. I'm only (semi) human. In this case the user got a slap on the wrist,and then,started reporting posts that before the slap,he didn't have a problem with,hence he's getting these responses. It stinks of a kid getting in trouble and then trying to bring people down with him tbh.

MizzLolly

rizzla wrote: »

Apparently NSFW, posting this this (NSFW) pic.

That's not scene, emo or goth! It's a girl sitting on the loo!

Karl Hungus

MizzLolly wrote: »

That's not scene, emo or goth! It's a girl sitting on the loo!

What puzzles me is the fact that this wasn't the pic posted.

YULETIRED

I've looked at the picture and it is indeed disturbing....notice there is no toilet roll. :eek: ALSO what is she doing with the mag and her finger. This is disturbing and I can't stop thinking about it.

zuroph

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I asked you to explain your statement about immaturity before, and you didn't, so I'm beginning to think you're trolling. I can't see any signs of immaturity by myself or anyone else who has posted in this thread, it just boggles the mind, like your relation of sour grapes to an 'attack', and doesn't have anything to do with the thread at hand.

The issue is whether or not the pic Rizzla posted is NSFW, and making vague statements about maturity or inexplicably telling people to grow up shouldn't come into it. Are you trying to sabotage this thread to spite the moderators? Because I cannot see how some of your comments are relevant at all. So would you perhaps consider adding something of value to this thread?

you quoted the last line form my post, not the long paragraph about why i thought the image wasnt nsfw. The immaturity was in regards to telling the poster to stop munching on sour grapes, rather than address his concerns. At least sDoom had the courtesy to do so, which should be considered part of the duties of being a mod.

Nerin wrote: »

Zuroph-if you have a problem with whats allowed on that thread and what isn't,go google search some fap pics for yourself. Or even better,start your own site. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you-but its mod discretion,and the mod felt that it was too dodge and got rid of it.

^^immaturity. come see the immaturity. To tell me to google some fap pics is an insult, and i shall be reporting the post. I was not aware of the thread before the complaint, and are you suggesting its a "fap" thread? keep your masturbation comments to yourself. how about next you comment on my sexuality, or discuss the obesity of "YORE MA!".

Feedback is for questioning Mod's discretion, and this is what the OP did. And several members have agreed with him. "mod discretion" is not a golden ticket to end every argument, otherwise there would be no need for a feedback section. mods are only human too, and as is only too obvious from reading back through the archives here, make plenty of mistakes and bad calls themselves.

zuroph

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What puzzles me is the fact that this wasn't the pic posted.

heaven forbid, theres even more skin on show there! :pac:

Karl Hungus

zuroph wrote: »

you quoted the last line form my post, not the long paragraph about why i thought the image wasnt nsfw.

That's because I wasn't replying to the paragraph about why you thought the image wasn't nsfw. I replied to the part I quoted, because I take issue with it, and feel it's an aside to the thread, as well as the whole idea of 'sour grapes' being an attack. I don't take issue with your opinion of the imagine, and would actually argree with you on that part.

zuroph wrote: »

The immaturity was in regards to telling the poster to stop munching on sour grapes, rather than address his concerns. At least sDoom had the courtesy to do so, which should be considered part of the duties of being a mod.

But it is addressng his concerns. He's bitter over an infraction, and is trying to drag me down too because of it. It's sour grapes. So is this to say that any address that isn't to the satisfaction of yourself is immature?

And quite frankly, I don't know what you expect me to address, aside from what I already have. I'm not a mod on the Nocturnal Forum, I have no say in what is or is not allowed there, and I have had no part in the infraction that Rizzla recieved. Yet I've been dragged into this because the user feels bitter over an infraction, and thinks I deserve one too, so I'm here as an aggrieved party.

Now, my original response is completely on the level. The infraction is minor, and if it would placate the situation (seeing as you find the term sour grapes offensive, placate the situation would be a more apt description), I'd accept an infraction.

So, can we put this immaturity to bed?

Karoma

It is not an issue of showing skin - it's an issue of the activity being portrayed. It's a matter of taste and a subjective issue. It'd offend some people, it won't offend others. The moderator chose to keep a high standard. People expect to that there may be scantily clad people when they click on the thread; they don't expect to see people sitting on a toilet.
So far, from a horny male perspective: the thread disappoints. From a moderating perspective: WTF is the thread doing there to begin with? And what the hell am I doing staring at some non-particularly-emo-or-goth-woman sitting on a toilet?!
It's an infraction, not a ban. It's a slap on the wrist to ensure the thread doesn't go a dodgy path.

For what it's worth, comparing it to that Kandoo advert was a bad idea; that's just a creepy advert.

MizzLolly

Karl Hungus wrote: »

What puzzles me is the fact that this wasn't the pic posted.

Hahaha that one is a nice one!

zuroph wrote: »

heaven forbid, theres even more skin on show there! :pac:

At least it fits into the thread, she looks more ''scene''/goth/emo (whatever!) than the 'toilet' pic!


Well, for what it's worth, I remember seeing a pic in there that did bother me (self harming pics) and before I even had the chance to say anymore on it, the nocturnal mods had removed it. I think they've been controlling it well.

.o/

randylonghorn

At the risk or repeating myself:

randylonghorn wrote: »

Don't really understand why people start Feedback threads about infractions at the best of times, anyway, unless they're totally and crazily off the planet ... they're about the equivalent of Father Ted going "careful now!" as far as I can see, unless you intend to gather up a rucksack full of them.

zuroph wrote: »

Feedback is for questioning Mod's discretion, and this is what the OP did. And several members have agreed with him. "mod discretion" is not a golden ticket to end every argument, otherwise there would be no need for a feedback section.

Feedback is for feedback, and discussion, and yes, that may include agreeing or disagreeing with a mod's actions, no worries, but it's meant to be a hell of a lot broader than that.

As a matter of interest, zuroph, have you ever actually made a post agreeing with a mod's decision? Can you link us to an example?


This is yet another Fb storm in a teaspoon tbh. The worst possible interpretation that could be put on the situation is that the mods of a relatively new forum with a high percentage of younger users are being a bit overly cautious, and have handed the OP a minor warning (infraction) as a result.

Well, whoop-de-doo, someone call in the US marines, I can feel my civil liberties disappearing into the ether as I type! :rolleyes:

Shiminay

I have made a rather big shouty announcement in that thread. I really hope it helps to clear up any future confusion.

zuroph

randylonghorn wrote: »

At the risk or repeating myself:


As a matter of interest, zuroph, have you ever actually made a post agreeing with a mod's decision? Can you link us to an example?

yes, i have, but if im to trawl back through several hundred post for them then no ta.