Who makes you Drool debate

OldGoat

Some of these photographs are pushing the boundries of what I see as acceptable here in tGC. Reign yerself in Gentlemen. I am (makes a tiny tiny little gap between finger and thumb) this close to deleting the entire thread and banning photographs altogether.
And while I'm on a rant...
No more pictures of women in underclothing only. There are numerous photographs out there. Fapping material can be posted elsewhere.
No more 'Phwarrrrrr I'd do her' type comments. Act your age.
Keep the posted photographs SMALL.
I know that a lot of you like this thread and want to keep it but truat me on this, the thread is right on the limit of patience with the moderators and we are hovering with the scalpel, eager to excise it from the forum.

So, what say you?

hunter164

I don't think there was anything wrong with the pictures that were posted. After having just a quick glance through the thread in TLL on men who make them drool, I've seen a man in nothing but a towela and another of one in just his boxers. What was posted in the thread here was more or less on the same par.

Herbal Deity

Seriously, either close the thread or have a "no nipples, no vag" rule.

These cringeworthy, arbitrary and prudish standards are really annoying.

homerun_homer

I don't think there is anything wrong with posting pictures of women in lingerie that aren't NSFW or verging on pornish poses. Women all love drooling over calendars of topless fireman (to coin a tired stereotype) and the like so I don't see the harm in guys having a thread purely to just show off "what makes them drool".

There's nothing to say people won't post pictures of women at their most glam and classiest, but no one should be chastised for posting a pic of a woman in lingerie. After all, skim through any woman's magazine and you'll see plenty like it, advertising they call it. That's not deemed sick or pervy or out of line.

In terms of how big the pics should be in the thread, you should do as they do in the photography forum and list in the header that pics can't be bigger than a certain size. If they are then posters can link or attach them so they don't eat up slow internet browsers bandwith.

There's no need for the forum to be ruled with an iron fist. We are all gentlemen after all (I hope). The stricter the mods get the less traffic you'll find floating this way and you don't want to scare guys away from a guys forum. FFS there are more guys in TLL than here. That needs changing.

cowzerp

I'm embarrassed that we as men are talking about shutting down a thread that has ladies in bra's etc,, Down with this sort of thing mentality should have be left back in the dark ages, pathetic to say the least.

Khannie

Right. I have several problems with that thread and what I would consider over-moderation.

First off, that thread title needs to be changed IMO. Anywhere you see "please read mod note blah blah" there has been a catastrophic failure. Who the hell is going to go digging through a thread to read mod warnings before they can go posting in it like??? The only other place I've seen threads with titles like that has been tLL and those threads (which were once vibrant and fun) have died a horrible death since getting titles like that. Please do not do the same in tGC.

Your own post, which you quoted has several problems with it (all IMO) which I'm gonna go through now (sorry in advance, I hate disecting posts)

OldGoat wrote: »

Some of these photographs are pushing byond the boundries of what I see as acceptable here in tGC. Reign yerself in Gentlemen. I am (makes a tiny tiny little gap between finger and thumb) this close to deleting the entire thread and banning photographs altogether.

What?? Banning photographs altogether? Mental! You haven't stated which photographs are unacceptable or why!!!

OldGoat wrote: »

No more pictures of women in underclothing only.

Ludicrous! So this is ok, but this isn't? On what grounds? Some arbitrary line in the sand that hasn't been definied or sanctioned by anyone for any good reason?

OldGoat wrote: »

There are numerous photographs out there. Fapping material can be posted elsewhere.

Fapping material? Seriously? Come on. Nothing in that thread even approaching someting I'd be arsed fapping over.

OldGoat wrote: »

No more 'Phwarrrrrr I'd do her' type comments. Act your age.

Couldn't see any "Phwarr I'd do her" type comments.

OldGoat wrote: »

Keep the posted photographs SMALL.

Arbitrary and undefined. Also, Why? For whose benefit?

OldGoat wrote: »

I know that a lot of you like this thread and want to keep it but trust me on this, the thread is right on the limit of patience with the moderators and we are hovering with the scalpel, eager to excise it from the forum.

Eager to use your scalpel? Seriously, that one line really irritated me. I like this forum, A LOT, but that kind of thing makes me feel like a bold child who's being monitored by the teachers who are just waiting to pounce on him.

In short: :mad:

homerun_homer

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go post a pic of someone that makes me drool.

pikachucheeks

I cringe when I see most of the photographs in TLL thread, to be honest.
Most of the guys are semi-naked and it comes across as shallow.

I know it's supposed to be a bit of fun, but there's more to a person than having a abs like a washboard. Likewise, in here, there's more to a woman than having a great set of boobs.

However, in saying that, I see these threads and purely based on fantasy - an "I'd tap them if they knew I existed and still looked good without Photoshop" type scenario.
It's detached from normal life, normal people and normal standards.

I don't take offence to any of the pictures guys in here have posted or necessarily think there's anything wrong with it.
Provided the photos aren't taken TOO far (ie. NSFW), I think it's fine! Material should be kept too a PG-ish standard, or else it should be taken to PM.

Keano

Firstly, thanks for letting us have this out in this forum

I have said this in the past that all the images to date bar one (I didn't see the one) would appear in any magazine or daily newspaper. Yes, some of them are raunchy, but this forum, I thought was a place us blokes could come and natter about all things with other guys!

IMO to delete/close this thread would really be a sign that TGC really has no place. As someone has said there are more males in TLL than here

Khannie

I should add, I don't really care about that thread, but I do care about the kind of precedent that's being set in it.

Herbal Deity

Khannie wrote: »

I should add, I don't really care about that thread, but I do care about the kind of precedent that's being set in it.

Ditto.

homerun_homer

Khannie wrote: »

I should add, I don't really care about that thread, but I do care about the kind of precedent that's being set in it.

I've posted there once before today (today's post only instigated by having to debate over it) and every pic I posted is of women with plenty of clothes on. Not all guys on the thread are there to perv, fapp or post "pervy" pics. What type of pic of the person/fantasy figure they post is of their choice and they should have that freedom as long as it's not taking the p1$$, bringing with it the wrath of an over-zealous mod.

pikachucheeks wrote:

there's more to a person than having a abs like a washboard. Likewise, in here, there's more to a woman than having a great set of boobs.

Unfortunately we can't post a picture of a personailty.

L31mr0d

I find the thread more interesting to see the different styles of beauty each poster finds attractive.

I don't really see what has prompted the additional mod attention as the images haven't really gotten that revealing (pretty much all of them will show up when you set Googles image search to "Strict" filtering) and I've seen worse in TV adverts during lunchtime

It all seems a bit prudish tbh.

pikachucheeks

homerun_homer wrote: »

Unfortunately we can't post a picture of a personailty.

Perhaps not. But you could post a picture of someone and explain in more depth what exactly you liked about them, if you wanted to

Herbal Deity

We could have a "Whose personality makes you Drool?" thread (complete with censorship of arbitrarily defined "provocative" personalities), but I doubt it'd be as popular...

homerun_homer

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Perhaps not. But you could post a picture of someone and explain in more depth what exactly you liked about them, if you wanted to

Aye, but drool is drool. Explains itself really:D
Now if someone posted a picture of Geena Davis or the like, then they'd need some explaining to do.

pikachucheeks

Herbal Deity wrote: »

We could have a "Whose personality makes you Drool?" thread (complete with censorship of arbitrarily defined "provocative" personalities), but I doubt it'd be as popular...

What's attractive about someone is entirely subjective, as can be seen from the variety of women featured in the drool thread.
So, my suggestion was that, if people wanted, they could include a reason why they liked the person, what made them appealing, if they wanted to.

Obviously, some pictures are just nice, obviously sexy pictures, but sometimes, there might be a deeper reason for finding someone attractive that a poster might care to explain.

Malari

I would have thought the main difference between what women are found attractive is their faces, not personality. Or perhaps style. Because let's be honest, they all have lovely bottoms in this thread. And no-one is going to post a picture and say "I think Angelina's lovely because she's such a great humanitarian".

I'm in this thread more often than the TLL one. I find it interesting to see the variety of women who are considered drool-worthy.

Herbal Deity

pikachucheeks wrote: »

What's attractive about someone is entirely subjective, as can be seen from the variety of women featured in the drool thread.
So, my suggestion was that, if people wanted, they could include a reason why they liked the person, what made them appealing, if they wanted to.

Obviously, some pictures are just nice, obviously sexy pictures, but sometimes, there might be a deeper reason for finding someone attractive that a poster might care to explain.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think many people are attracted to celebrities based on their personalities, I mean, it's pretty hard to judge someone's personality when you've never met them.

Anyway, this is WAAAY off topic.

donfers

back on topic,

I see the oldgoat is generally getting a pasting in this thread for his moderation of the drool thread.

First of all, fairplay to him for having the courage to debate his stance on moderating that thread.

Secondly, I agree with the majority that his stance is perhaps a tad over-zealous and needs to be defined in less arbitrary terms.

Thirdly, I understand the reasoning behind his stance which is, I believe, to prevent the kid of grot and sleaze that passes for humour/stimulation elsewhere becoming part of this forum.

Finally, with regard to the numerous posters who have cited the TLL thread as precedent - I would reject that comparison. They can do what they like on that site, let them off. They have different moderators/different standards/different aspirations/a different gender bias. If they are content enough to have threads about the oversexualisation of women in the media alongside a thread that displays oversexualised images of men then so be it.

I just think when you start going down that road of having a thread dedicated to images of purely superficial beauty then there is a danger of hypocrasy when discussing more serious issues in other threads.

Handsome Bob

donfers wrote: »

Finally, with regard to the numerous posters who have cited the TLL thread as precedent - I would reject that comparison. They can do what they like on that site, let them off. They have different moderators/different standards/different aspirations/a different gender bias. If they are content enough to have threads about the oversexualisation of women in the media alongside a thread that displays oversexualised images of men then so be it.

I agree with your sentiments, that the thread in this forum shouldn't be protected from criticism just because the thread in TLL is apparently okay. Personally I'm not interested in the thread, but the best thing that can be done is let the posters of this forum decide for themselves. Put up a poll and sort it out once and for all IMO.

krudler

pikachucheeks wrote: »

Perhaps not. But you could post a picture of someone and explain in more depth what exactly you liked about them, if you wanted to

There isnt much you can write about someone when the thread is purely based on physical attraction though, I cant stand Katy Perrys music, but she's gorgeous, thats why I like her. Talking about why you're attracted to celebrities is always going to be about looks first, nobody looks at Cheryl Cole and says "well she's got a lovely singing voice and that just makes her attractive to me" (not that she has, she cant sing worth a sh1te but thats beside the point) we dont know these people so talking about something aside from their looks isnt going to go far.

Im all for keeping it open, up until the last few posts its all been of normal pics, barely any underwear or overly provocative stuff, you'd see women wearing less in any nightclub any night of the week

trout

My tuppence:

Moderating these types of threads, from previous experience, is a piece of work. You can't please everyone; what one person finds salacious, someone else will find lewd, rude or crude.

The internet is full of pictures of people, all shapes & sizes, in every kind of clothed or nude state you can possibly imagine.

What is gained from a single thread here in this forum? Is it the pictures themselves, or knowing who other people find attractive? Is it the debate and differences of opinion?

I don't think what happens in the tLL thread is germane to this discussion.

Snowie

I was happy happy to see the thread go up but i did request could I start one cause i could see the possible sh1t storm bruing....

my standing on it is.. I did think it was good but to be honest now i dont really care its not that fun... now if we had a disscousin thread about one woman every week and why shes so good looking well then that maybe more fun
but tbh ... I dont really care... simpley because.... its kinda like well not really that interesting.....

so i think its pretty useless tbh....

Herbal Deity

trout wrote: »

I don't think what happens in the tLL thread is germane to this discussion.

I think it kinda is.

What the tLL thread appears to demonstrate is that Boards.ie as a whole does not seem to have a problem with pictures of people that are almost naked and in provocative poses.

Because of this, and the fact that there's never been a poll on the issue, it seems to me like the standards that are enforced here are simply the views of the mods, and don't necessarily reflect what the majority of the TGC community as a whole would find acceptable or what Boards.ie would allow.

I do agree with you that the picture thread is completely pointless when the likes of Google Image Search exist. However, I do think that the issue of what's acceptable and what's not in here and why should not be swept under the carpet. I welcome this debate thread as a result.

trout

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What the tLL thread appears to demonstrate is that Boards.ie as a whole does not seem to have a problem with pictures of people that are almost naked and in provocative poses.

I completely disagree with this statement. No one forum is representative of Boards.ie as a whole.

What is considered acceptable by the tLL forum/community/mods/regulars is of no consequence to what is considered acceptable by the Motors forum/community/mods/regulars, or the Mustard forum/community/mods/regulars.

Different forums, different ethos, different users, different norms.

OldGoat

hunter164 wrote: »

I don't think there was anything wrong with the pictures that were posted. After having just a quick glance through the thread in TLL on men who make them drool, I've seen a man in nothing but a towela and another of one in just his boxers. What was posted in the thread here was more or less on the same par.

As has been mentined by previous posters there is no corrolatin between tLL and tGC. What happens there and what happens here are not mirror images of each other.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Seriously, either close the thread or have a "no nipples, no vag" rule.
These cringeworthy, arbitrary and prudish standards are really annoying.

I agree with this to a point. I believe there should be clearly laid down rules for posting and that as a mod I've been lax in defining them. I also agree with your use of the words arbitary and prudeish. I would use cringworthy myself but from my side of the debate as thats how I see the thread in it's entirity - cringeworthy.

homerun_homer wrote: »

I don't think there is anything wrong with posting pictures of women in lingerie that aren't NSFW or verging on pornish poses. Women all love drooling over calendars of topless fireman (to coin a tired stereotype) and the like so I don't see the harm in guys having a thread purely to just show off "what makes them drool".

There's nothing to say people won't post pictures of women at their most glam and classiest, but no one should be chastised for posting a pic of a woman in lingerie. After all, skim through any woman's magazine and you'll see plenty like it, advertising they call it. That's not deemed sick or pervy or out of line.

In terms of how big the pics should be in the thread, you should do as they do in the photography forum and list in the header that pics can't be bigger than a certain size. If they are then posters can link or attach them so they don't eat up slow internet browsers bandwith.

There's no need for the forum to be ruled with an iron fist. We are all gentlemen after all (I hope). The stricter the mods get the less traffic you'll find floating this way and you don't want to scare guys away from a guys forum. FFS there are more guys in TLL than here. That needs changing.

Yes, some people see no harm in posting a few pictures and some women oggle over mens pictures - but not everyone does. There are people in this forum who don't see thing the same way you do and their requirements in the forum as just as valid as yours. Hence to allow the picture thread to go ahead there is a need to keep it as modist as possible. Thats is part my reasoning for being the prudish nannyish moderator.
Seeing women in lingerie is commonplace as you say, TV, magazines, sides of buses and you are right, it's not sick or perverted to admire the physic of those models. But this thread is not about lingerie, it's about women. There are so many other places to see semi naked women why do we have to drag a thread here down to be just like all the others. The OP has stated that it was not the reason he started the thread in the first place. The images of women in lingerie is frankly more suited to a thread called "What makes you drool" rather then "Who makes you Drool". The pictures that I riled against have little to do with the woman herself and are all about titilation in the guise of admitration.

Agree with you on the picture re-sizing protocol.

Khannie wrote: »

Right. I have several problems with that thread and what I would consider over-moderation.

First off, that thread title needs to be changed IMO. Anywhere you see "please read mod note blah blah" there has been a catastrophic failure. Who the hell is going to go digging through a thread to read mod warnings before they can go posting in it like??? The only other place I've seen threads with titles like that has been tLL and those threads (which were once vibrant and fun) have died a horrible death since getting titles like that. Please do not do the same in tGC.

Your own post, which you quoted has several problems with it (all IMO) which I'm gonna go through now (sorry in advance, I hate disecting posts)

What?? Banning photographs altogether? Mental! You haven't stated which photographs are unacceptable or why!!!



Ludicrous! So this is ok, but this isn't? On what grounds? Some arbitrary line in the sand that hasn't been definied or sanctioned by anyone for any good reason?



Fapping material? Seriously? Come on. Nothing in that thread even approaching someting I'd be arsed fapping over.



Couldn't see any "Phwarr I'd do her" type comments.



Arbitrary and undefined. Also, Why? For whose benefit?



Eager to use your scalpel? Seriously, that one line really irritated me. I like this forum, A LOT, but that kind of thing makes me feel like a bold child who's being monitored by the teachers who are just waiting to pounce on him.

In short:

Phew. OK and I know what you mean about editing a comment line by line but like now it cuts to the core of everything.
Before I reply to your points I should point out that I did respond on the original thread with a hasty response - a rant - rather then a planned thought out and measured post. However that does not invalidate my intent.

Changing the title would make thing worse in my opinion. I see the Mod Note as a useful modding instrument. Anyone seeing the title will know that the mods are watching and trying to control the thread. Reading through the thread posters can't help but notice that it is being heavly (and intentionally) modded.

Yes, threathening to ban photos altogether was a hasty remark and one I'll retract immidatly.
As to the content of the photos and what is accecptable I reacted to an image of a woman who is deemed to be droolworthy yet if her name wasn't on the pic there is no way anyone who know who she is. Just another body in stockings. I fail to see the point in that image.
As a mod I err on the side of caution. I anticipate where the thread is going and I clamp down before it gets out of hand. I see that a good moderation practice. Proactive rather then reactive if you'll forgive the horrendous bizspeak.

The Fapping ramark was to warn future posters not to post images any more risque they those already posted. If I say the limit is 'B' posters will push the limit to 'C' so i post a warning at 'A'. If the posted road speed is 70 the actual safe roadspeed is 80 but the nannystate knowing that someone will push the bounderies telly you to drive at 70. (Sorry for belabouring the point but neither explanation indivudaly made clear what I ws trying to say) I also include the 'Phwarr' aspect of my post here. I'm sure if I were to go through the entire thread I could come up with something similar but the idea ws to get the point made again in the thread about what should be there.

I agree that my choice of picture size as 'small' was less then useless. I posted in haste as I was rushed for time. Sizing of photographs for this thread is something the mods have bveen discussing over the past weeks. Everything about this thread is under discussion amongst the mods over the past few weeks. We are thrashing out what is acceptable and what is not. I jumped the gun and posted vague instructions as the final draft of what we want to see is not yet polished. The re-sizing of and asking posters not to re-post the same image when quoting are amongst the points we are talking about. In my haste to rant I did't remember the size agreed on. As homerun_homer above suggests a system similar to the Photography forum should be adapted.

Khannie, it was not my intent to make anyone here feel like a child. It was however intended to have a moderators tone. Should I have used a Bold font instead? Though I have to saay that what I said, how I phrased it is the way I speak. I'm a wordy peson.

Khannie wrote: »

I should add, I don't really care about that thread, but I do care about the kind of precedent that's being set in it.

Appricated. This is where the overall feel of the forum will be shaped, in thread like this.

homerun_homer wrote: »

I've posted there once before today (today's post only instigated by having to debate over it) and every pic I posted is of women with plenty of clothes on. Not all guys on the thread are there to perv, fapp or post "pervy" pics. What type of pic of the person/fantasy figure they post is of their choice and they should have that freedom as long as it's not taking the p1$$, bringing with it the wrath of an over-zealous mod.

Yep, all your pics were fine and you are not perving...but as you say you are not the only person on the thread. However someone did take the piss and bring on my wrath and I moderated the thread with a warning. A rantish warning but a warning none the less.


So...
It's because of this heavy handedness that the thread has managed to stay alive so far. Given free reign some non-regular poster would start posting NSFW images and the thread would have been closed a lot earlier. I believe the prudish modding perhaps prolonged the life of the thread. So, in response to being over-zealous and prudish I say yes, I am. I'm the nanny looking over your shoulder making you uncomfortable. I'm the prude being sure you keep those nipples under cover. I'm the zealiot trying to keep the forum suitable for everyone who wants to post here - including myself. I am the moderator making decisions based on the forums standards not my own. It's what mods do.


Edit. Sorry not not proofreading or spell checking. Tired and hungry.

hunter164

OldGoat wrote: »

As has been mentined by previous posters there is no corrolatin between tLL and tGC. What happens there and what happens here are not mirror images of each other.

There are parallels between the two though especially the thread in question. As long as there is no nudity in a picture then I don't see why it can't be posted. I haven't posted in the thread and I won't ever but I think that it is being moderated too much.

Herbal Deity

trout wrote: »

I completely disagree with this statement. No one forum is representative of Boards.ie as a whole.

Sorry, I phrased that badly. I meant exactly what you've said in your post, that there doesn't appear to be a sitewide policy of not allowing provocative pictures, it's determined by the community/regulars/mods.

My point was that the mods are not enforcing a sitewide policy, and have never asked the regulars their opinion, so it's just their opinions rather than the feelings of the community as a whole. However, with this thread you are allowing debate on the issue, and as I said, I really welcome that.

Khannie

I respect that you're willing to have this discussion / debate in the open. Fair play.

Thanks for taking the time to write that reply. I'm jumping in on just one thing (I'll give a more detailed response when I've had a chance to eat my delicious dinner).

OldGoat wrote: »

As homerun_homer above suggests a system similar to the Photography forum should be adapted.

No it shouldn't and for a very good reason: Photos in the photography forum come from users computers so they need to be hosted somehow anyway. Photos in threads like the drool one are hotlinked. Having a size requirement would mean I would have to download the image, resize it, then have it hosted somewhere. That's 3 seconds of effort (hotlink) versus about 60 (download, resize, upload to image hosting site then hotlink) (edit: and potential copyright infringement).

I think the benefit of not having to moderate image size makes everyone feel better (less moderation ftw) for very little downside (the occasional image that's a bit too big). I don't particularly like large images but they don't break my bandwidth limit either.

Wibbs

donfers wrote: »

back on topic,

I see the oldgoat is generally getting a pasting in this thread for his moderation of the drool thread.

First of all, fairplay to him for having the courage to debate his stance on moderating that thread.

+1000

I just think when you start going down that road of having a thread dedicated to images of purely superficial beauty then there is a danger of hypocrasy when discussing more serious issues in other threads.

How so? Im being serious BTW. I think the vast majority can compartmentalise one thread from another. So its purely superficial? Unless we want a debate on the whys and wherefores* that's not so much an issue for the forum itself. OK its superficial unlike more serious threads. So are off topic threads in every social(and others) forum around. Should they go the way of the flesh too as they're less "serious"?


I'd personally say the same of the respective LL thread too BTW. I've seen the same poster go "oh Id have [insert man hunk here)" then get into a debate on cervical cancer vaccine and follow it up with "I had a shíte day in work" in the OT thread. Best kinda posters IMHO.

I agree there is a balance and no mistake. The balance between Serious/chatty/daft/superficial content. It is a hard one to strike, that much I know and there can be unhappy bunnies, but IMHO the best groups of people can encompass all of those angles.

That's the issue I would have with dropping a thread like this. Especially for dare I say it "right on" reasons. Yes no fapping stuff and yes it needs a careful eye, but otherwise play on I'd say.

My 3 cents anyway.

*Beauty in this case is superficial. That's the way it is. No one's gonna post up a pic of Mother Teresa and go "I drool over this". Nature of the beast really.

Khannie

I'm trying not to disect, but some of the things that you said deserve to be responded to as individual points. If it's bugging you let me know and I'll change.

OldGoat wrote: »

to allow the picture thread to go ahead there is a need to keep it as modist as possible

That is simply wrong and there has not been one person on here who has said that the thread crossed any line of decency that has been agreed upon (by anyone!).

OldGoat wrote: »

There are so many other places to see semi naked women why do we have to drag a thread here down to be just like all the others. The OP has stated that it was not the reason he started the thread in the first place. The images of women in lingerie is frankly more suited to a thread called "What makes you drool" rather then "Who makes you Drool". The pictures that I riled against have little to do with the woman herself and are all about titilation in the guise of admitration.

The OP doesn't necessarily decide the tone of an entire thread. Threads are living, evolving things and this one has evolved as we all knew it would. You very clearly don't like it. That's fine. Not mad about looking at endless pictures of ladies in lingerie, but I defend other gentlemens right to do so once it is SFW. We don't need a thread like it in here, but there again there's no *need* for any of the threads in here. It's supposed to be a relaxed place of gentlemanly banter and it generally has that feel to it, but that feel is very quickly waning for me.

OldGoat wrote: »

Phew. OK and I know what you mean about editing a comment line by line but like now it cuts to the core of everything.
Before I reply to your points I should point out that I did respond on the original thread with a hasty response - a rant - rather then a planned thought out and measured post. However that does not invalidate my intent.

Changing the title would make thing worse in my opinion. I see the Mod Note as a useful modding instrument. Anyone seeing the title will know that the mods are watching and trying to control the thread. Reading through the thread posters can't help but notice that it is being heavly (and intentionally) modded.

While it is a useful moderating instrument it serves to make users of the forum feel overly moderated. Notes like that are one of the reasons I have ceased posting in or visiting tLL. From a users perspective they absolutely suck and it can be difficult to see that when you're a moderator because the benefit to you is obvious. As a moderator it allows you to let people know that there have been some warnings issued in thread that you don't want to re-issue. I would say the overhead of re-issuing the warning from time to time has a massive benefit (no nanny state staring you in the face every time you visit the forum) for a relatively low cost (occasional need to reiterate yourself or remove offending posts).

I really feel very strongly about those "MOD NOTE POST BLAH BLAH" things. They set a horrible, nasty tone in what is growing into a super forum.

The thread title would be much better as:

"Who Makes You Drool? - Clean images please" or something simlar. It is much gentler.

On the overhead thing: I would much rather you add another person to the moderating team to spread the load and reiterate yourself from time to time / remove offending posts rather than be faced with those mod notes. I'm sure all of the gentlemen here would agree to report any NSFW stuff to make your life easier if necessary.

OldGoat wrote: »

Yes, threathening to ban photos altogether was a hasty remark and one I'll retract immidatly.
As to the content of the photos and what is accecptable I reacted to an image of a woman who is deemed to be droolworthy yet if her name wasn't on the pic there is no way anyone who know who she is. Just another body in stockings. I fail to see the point in that image.

I don't think that's relevant in the slightest. It is very clear the consensus here is that the thread has been over moderated, whatever the goal was. So you can't see her face. So what? The guy likes her bottom. For some people that's their best feature. Not mad about the picture, but there's nothing that would cause me to avert my eyes there either.

OldGoat wrote: »

As a mod I err on the side of caution. I anticipate where the thread is going and I clamp down before it gets out of hand. I see that a good moderation practice. Proactive rather then reactive if you'll forgive the horrendous bizspeak.

The Fapping ramark was to warn future posters not to post images any more risque they those already posted. If I say the limit is 'B' posters will push the limit to 'C' so i post a warning at 'A'. If the posted road speed is 70 the actual safe roadspeed is 80 but the nannystate knowing that someone will push the bounderies telly you to drive at 70. (Sorry for belabouring the point but neither explanation indivudaly made clear what I ws trying to say) I also include the 'Phwarr' aspect of my post here. I'm sure if I were to go through the entire thread I could come up with something similar but the idea ws to get the point made again in the thread about what should be there.

I agree that my choice of picture size as 'small' was less then useless. I posted in haste as I was rushed for time. Sizing of photographs for this thread is something the mods have bveen discussing over the past weeks. Everything about this thread is under discussion amongst the mods over the past few weeks. We are thrashing out what is acceptable and what is not. I jumped the gun and posted vague instructions as the final draft of what we want to see is not yet polished. The re-sizing of and asking posters not to re-post the same image when quoting are amongst the points we are talking about. In my haste to rant I did't remember the size agreed on. As homerun_homer above suggests a system similar to the Photography forum should be adapted.

Khannie, it was not my intent to make anyone here feel like a child. It was however intended to have a moderators tone. Should I have used a Bold font instead? Though I have to saay that what I said, how I phrased it is the way I speak. I'm a wordy peson.

My problem was that you were eager to clamp down. The sentence was very police-state-ish and set a tone that I have a real problem with as a contributor here (I know I haven't been around much over the last two months, but that's just new baby related).

I take your point that it was a rant. We all have them and fair play for putting your hands up.

OldGoat wrote: »

Appricated. This is where the overall feel of the forum will be shaped, in thread like this.

The very fact that this thread exists is testament to the tone you're trying to set. However other things fly in the face of a pleasant end user experience and the over-moderation of that thread (without a mandate from what I can tell) and mod note thread title are the two biggies from my perspective.

OldGoat wrote: »

I'm the nanny looking over your shoulder making you uncomfortable.

Please don't be, because I'm not in the habit of visiting places where there are nannies looking over my shoulder making me feel uncomfortable and I very much like this forum. I want to come here and feel comfortable all the time. I really don't want to know that you're here as a moderator, only as a contributor (I don't mean that in a bad way, I just mean I'd rather that 98% of your posts in the forum were as a contributor instead of as a moderator).

Dr Galen

Ok, here's my initial thoughts on this. I'm going to break it down into sections as its easier for me to think it through that way.

Firstly on the over-moderation comments. That thread is a contentious one. Its going to cause issues no matter what we say, do or agree as a group of posters. So far its 5 pages long, its has 148 posts and has been viewed over 11 thousand times. there has been 1 picture deleted. There have been a few Mod directions made, 2 of which where deemed important enough to be listed in the thread title. Maybe I'm biased here, but thats hardly over moderation in such a thread?

For anyone to come here and claim that we use a heavy hand in this forum is crazy imho. Ask any of the regulars here, and they'll tell you we don't take that tack. We're about the soft hand on the shoulder type of modding, the friendly PM in the ear, not that banhammer shoite. We might make a laugh about it from time to time, but seriously, people who post here even semi-regularly know us better than that surely, don't you?

As for the thread itself. Well, I'm not a fan of it tbh. Don't get me wrong, I ain't no prude. SlyDice is in my subbed list for a reason. I'm as much an admirer of the female form as you all, in fact possibly more. Its not about that at all. Its about suitability in my eyes. I would hate for the forum to become the FHM of boards.ie. With a descent into that kind of territory. Its not man-AH in my eyes either. After this thread, where do we draw a line on the threads that get posted.

Another poster made a good comment about site-wide policy. I think its a good one. Maybe we need some clearer definition on what is and isn't acceptable on this site outside of the SlyDice forum. Thats not trying to absolve responsibility on this. I don't want a get out clause here, but I was under the impression that there was a home for images like some posted in the thread and it was private because it wasn't deemed to be suitable for general viewing on the site. That said there are lots of images in that thread that couldn't cause anyone offense. The issue as others have said is that some smartarse always comes in and wants to push the envelope a bit further, then cry fight the powah when they get pulled up on it. I'd be pretty confident that many of the people posting in this thread wouldn't cause grief, once they knew what was and wasn't acceptable. I'm not concerned by you, its others I worry about.

I'll obviously have more to say, but I notice recently that I'm transforming into Wibbs-esque type wordsmith.

As a final question though, can someone put forward a proper argument as to why they want the thread, one not based on tLL have one (because frankly I don't give a damn, they can do what they like it's a different forum), or how you can see worse in the Evening Herald, (because again, I'm only concerned with standards in here). I want someone to sway me on this, and as yet no-one has.

Dr Galen

Khannie wrote: »

I'm trying not to disect, but some of the things that you said deserve to be responded to as individual points. If it's bugging you let me know and I'll change.

I'm going to play your game.......:D but only because I think you make good points that deserve a coherent answer, and I want to make sure I catch them all.

I really feel very strongly about those "MOD NOTE POST BLAH BLAH" things. They set a horrible, nasty tone in what is growing into a super forum.

To clear this up. I posted that in the thread title. I also don't like it, and never really do it. I'll explain why though, and it might make you feel a little better dude.

I knew we as a Mod group were discussing the thread etc at the time. I issued the warning, and tbh, wanted to make sure that no-one, particularly anyone new to the forum, didn't know it was there, and then went against it. It was specifically do to with not arguing Mod decision in thread, so not actually to do with the thread content. I didn't want anyone to get a silly warning/infraction etc over something we could have had sorted shortly after. You get me?

It is most definitely not something I will be making a habit of, mostly because I agree with your own thoughts on it. That includes whatever thread (if any) comes from this discussion.

On the overhead thing: I would much rather you add another person to the moderating team to spread the load and reiterate yourself from time to time / remove offending posts rather than be faced with those mod notes. I'm sure all of the gentlemen here would agree to report any NSFW stuff to make your life easier if necessary.

It may well be something we have to look at. Its getting busier and busier in here. There are a lot more reported posts to deal with etc. As I said already, I would have confidence in many of the core group of posters in tGC that they would report any crapola.

I don't think that's relevant in the slightest. It is very clear the consensus here is that the thread has been over moderated, whatever the goal was.

I'm obviously in disagreement on this, as you can see from my previous post. I would say though, that what you and I think doesn't matter that much. Its all about individual perception really isn't it. At the end of the day its what the person takes from it that matters. To those who do think that I over-moderated, all i can say is that that was never my intention. If it becomes an issue for you again in the future, drop me a PM, and I'll explain my thinking.

trout

I don't think the thread has been heavily moderated, but I'm aware afraid there will never be consensus on this ... you really can't please everyone on this topic.

Should we keep this debate more centered on the topic at hand?

Can we identify posts / themes / arguments that encapsulate the pro's and con's of this type of thread, in this forum? Who can argue FOR this type of thread? By argue, I mean convince a skeptic that there is a purpose served by hosting these pictures and discussions ... ideally with some suggested boundaries. Simply saying "tLL have a thread, we should have one" is not a compelling argument to me.

Cards on the table; my own view is well known, the internet is full of pictures, take yer pick ... I don't see why a thread is required here. I'm happy to be convinced by rational arguments though.

So ... if we could do that, identify posts for and against ... we could raise a poll ... and let people vote, rather than broaden the discussion into heavy moderation, or what tLL do; those can be other topics, for other threads, on another day.

How does that sound?

Who can argue for, and against?

deadhead13

A poll might be an idea alright

trout

deadhead13 wrote: »

A poll might be an idea.

I'm all for a poll ...I just want to make sure the poll options are sensible, and representative of opinion.

Would you vote For or Against? Can you articulate why?

star-pants

Okies - random lady input

I don't frequent tLL at all, nor do I give a toss what's allowed/not allowed in there.
When I come into a forum I'm aware said forum will have different rules and different moderation to others. tGC is a fairly gentle-handed-modded forum as far as I can see, people are nudged in the right direction, as said a pm in their ear or whatever.

Regarding the thread - as a female I'm not too pushed about posting, I will admit I will browse occasionally because well, I'm female and I'm curious to see what guys find attractive. I find it interesting that some posters will post up a gorgeous shot of a female where she doesn't have to be wearing dental floss, and others seek to find ones in scant underwear instead. Whilst neither particularly bother me, I think that there should be some form of gentle line should be laid down as to what's acceptable and what's not.

My personal taste says to me that some of the photos are a smidge too revealing but I don't have to click on the thread if I don't want to.

Regarding what was said about not having 'phwar' type comments, well, I agree to an extent. There's one thing saying 'she's fine' and another saying 'I milk myself dry to that' (a similar comment was actually posted in the thread IIRC) it's a lil bit TMI really. So I'd say that's where Oldgoat is coming from regarding comments.

Again, I don't post in that thread, but just thought I'd throw in my lil 2c.

Khannie

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

It is most definitely not something I will be making a habit of, mostly because I agree with your own thoughts on it. That includes whatever thread (if any) comes from this discussion.

Nice one. Thanks. That makes me feel a lot better.

trout wrote: »

I don't think the thread has been heavily moderated, but I'm aware afraid there will never be consensus on this ... you really can't please everyone on this topic.

In fact there is a very clear consensus. Every non-mod who has spoken on the subject has voiced an opinion of over-moderation. Every mod who has spoken on the issue has said that they disagree. What we have is a clear division between the moderators and the moderated.

trout wrote: »

Can we identify posts / themes / arguments that encapsulate the pro's and con's of this type of thread, in this forum? Who can argue FOR this type of thread? By argue, I mean convince a skeptic that there is a purpose served by hosting these pictures and discussions ... ideally with some suggested boundaries. Simply saying "tLL have a thread, we should have one" is not a compelling argument to me.

Cards on the table; my own view is well known, the internet is full of pictures, take yer pick ... I don't see why a thread is required here. I'm happy to be convinced by rational arguments though.

So ... if we could do that, identify posts for and against ... we could raise a poll ... and let people vote, rather than broaden the discussion into heavy moderation, or what tLL do; those can be other topics, for other threads, on another day.

How does that sound?

Who can argue for, and against?

I don't see why there should be a need to argue for a specific thread. The thread exists. It is popular. There is demand for it. It is not in breach of the charter. That in itself should be reason enough for its continued existence.

deadhead13

trout wrote: »

I'm all for a poll ...I just want to make sure the poll options are sensible, and representative of opinion.

Would you vote For or Against? Can you articulate why?

Within the parameters of the forum charter the posters ultimately dictate what direction a forum takes. The thread in question has had 150 posts and 11,000 views . I'm not particularlly excerised about whether it stays or goes, but would vote for it to stay on the grounds of - if a you dislike the contents of a thread you always have the option of not entering it.

trout

Khannie wrote: »

In fact there is a very clear consensus. Every non-mod who has spoken on the subject has voiced an opinion of over-moderation. Every mod who has spoken on the issue has said that they disagree. What we have is a clear division between the moderators and the moderated.

I disagree. Can you show me the specifc posts in that thread that display heavy handed moderation?

Khannie wrote: »

I don't see why there should be a need to argue for a specific thread. The thread exists. It is popular. There is demand for it. It is not in breach of the charter. That in itself should be reason enough for its continued existence.

Fair enough ... but why is this thread required?

The thread exists. Fair enough. It is popular, well ... that's subjective. There is demand for it ... maybe that's subjective too, I'd really like to see that demand articulated. A poll could measure opinion in a fair and transparent manner. To do a proper job, I think the poll should be representative.

I'm not picking a fight, I haven't moderated that thread, I don't see the value of it ... but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

Herbal Deity

But no threads are "required", threads exist because the users of a forum want them to.

Khannie

trout wrote: »

I disagree. Can you show me the specifc posts in that thread that display heavy handed moderation?

The first post in this thread quotes the post that I have most issue with. I broke down my problems with it on a point by point basis early in the thread. Maybe go back and have a look (not being smart). As I also said I have a very strong dislike for the "mod note" in the thread title. MM has said he doesn't intend using that particular tool on an ongoing basis so I'm happy out about that.

trout wrote: »

Fair enough ... but why is this thread required?

The thread exists. Fair enough. It is popular, well ... that's subjective. There is demand for it ... maybe that's subjective too, I'd really like to see that demand articulated.

The articulation of the demand is the fact that it's on the front page and has a lot of posts and a lot of views. Why should this thread need someone to defend it and another thread does not? If it gets sufficiently boring / demand wanes enough it will drop off the front page and out of existence.

trout wrote: »

A poll could measure opinion in a fair and transparent manner. To do a proper job, I think the poll should be representative.

Honestly, I think polls are mostly a load of rubbish. Sorry.

trout wrote: »

I'm not picking a fight, I haven't moderated that thread, I don't see the value of it ... but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

I don't think it should need to have a value to exist. I don't think I (or anyone else) should need to convince you of the merits of a thread that is not in breach of the forum charter so I wont argue for the thread on its merits and I hope nobody else does either.

Khannie

Lads, I just want to add that I think ye do a great job around here in general. I very much like this forum.

trout

Herbal Deity wrote: »

But no threads are "required", threads exist because the users of a forum want them to.

Some users want this thread ... I'd like if one of those users could explain why they want it.

Khannie wrote: »

The first post in this thread quotes the post that I have most issue with. I broke down my problems with it on a point by point basis early in the thread. Maybe go back and have a look (not being smart). As I also said I have a very strong dislike for the "mod note" in the thread title. MM has said he doesn't intend using that particular tool on an ongoing basis so I'm happy out about that.

I did read that post ... I still disagree with you that the thread has been heavily moderated.

Khannie wrote: »

The articulation of the demand is the fact that it's on the front page and has a lot of posts and a lot of views. Why should this thread need someone to defend it and another thread does not? If it gets sufficiently boring / demand wanes enough it will drop off the front page and out of existence.

I do think the thread needs someone to defend it, I personally don't like the message it sends out about the forum. I think it says a lot that there have been so many views, but so little debate.

Khannie wrote: »

Honestly, I think polls are mostly a load of rubbish. Sorry.

They have their place. See the recent search discussions / decision in this forum. A poll is at least clear and transparent. What's the alternative?

Khannie wrote: »

I don't think it should need to have a value to exist. I don't think I (or anyone else) should need to convince you of the merits of a thread that is not in breach of the forum charter so I wont argue for the thread on its merits and I hope nobody else does either.

It exists, therefore it should be supported ... I don't think so, I'm inviting people to convince me otherwise, all sophistry aside.

Referring to the charter.

This forum is for discussion on any issue relating to general men's health, mental health, sexual health, the role of men in modern society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man.

We'd like posters to be aware that sometimes people really are looking for help or really want to discuss an issue seriously. There's nothing wrong with a bit of banter and having a laugh but please consider that a thread on 'penis size' or 'hairy back' may be a matter of great merriment for you but the original poster may really want some serious answers and discussion. Just take every thread on a case-by-case basis.

.
.
.

No graphic, explicit or unsuitable images. Adding 'NSFW' is not enough.

I think taking this particular thread as a case in point, there is a case to be made for asking people who are in favour of the thread, to state why they are in favour, and how exactly they see it in the best interest of the forum.

"Discussion of issues" ... to me is something other than a thread of pictures of people that other people find attractive.

Dr Galen

Herbal Deity wrote: »

But no threads are "required", threads exist because the users of a forum want them to.

Obviously there are limits to this as a way of doing things, but in the main I have to agree with you. I think the fact that even though the Mods of tGC aren't fans of the thread in question, we're totally cool with the discussion about it, and we've gone on record to say that we're open to having our opinions changed, show that we agree with this notion

Khannie

trout wrote: »

so little debate.

First off, it's Friday night. I'm only on here giving it socks because:

a) I like this forum a lot (it is the only forum that I have in my bookmark toolbar that I do not moderate) and it took a big fat nosedive in my estimation today
and
b) I have no life

Also, I think you and I have been reading different threads....

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm embarrassed that we as men are talking about shutting down a thread that has ladies in bra's etc,, Down with this sort of thing mentality should have be left back in the dark ages, pathetic to say the least.

homerun_homer wrote: »

I don't think there is anything wrong with posting pictures of women in lingerie that aren't NSFW or verging on pornish poses.

homerun_homer wrote: »

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go post a pic of someone that makes me drool.

Keano A Legend wrote: »

IMO to delete/close this thread would really be a sign that TGC really has no place.

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I think it's fine!

That's just the first page.

As I said, not one single non-moderator has stepped up to say that they think the moderation in that thread was spot on. Everyone who has commented on it (who is not a moderator) has the thread is grand (maybe with one or two minor issues) and should be left running.

As I said, I don't really care about the thread. I care about the precedent that's being set by it. That you're standing up to defend that precedent (despite the moderator in question admitting that he was going off on one) is a very bad sign to me (and others who have said that it is "pathetic" and that removal of it would call into question the very existence of tGC!!).

I should add that I take your point about it sending out the wrong message. I think it's far more important not to be over-moderated though. We're in a lose-lose scenario now. I think the greater good is served by leaving the thread in place.

trout wrote: »

"Discussion of issues" ... to me is something other than a thread of pictures of people that other people find attractive.

So the record player is ok but this one needs someone to stand up and justify it or you'll close it down? Double standards ahoy!

deadhead13

trout wrote: »

Referring to the charter.


"Discussion of issues" ... to me is something other than a thread of pictures of people that other people find attractive.

Couldn't the same thing by said of the "The Centlemen's Club Record Player" thread or the relatively new "Who do you have a man crush on" thread? Should their existence be debated on the same grounds?

Dr Galen

@Khannie

Ok

The drool thread aside, I'm more concerned that you seem to think there is a moderation issue in the forum. Am I reading you wrong? Is this sense of unease linked specifically to the thread we are discussing here or a wider issue.

If its linked specifically to the drool thread then what can we do to settle this, or have we done it already?

Khannie

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Is this sense of unease linked specifically to the thread we are discussing here or a wider issue.

Just that thread. I think you guys do a really good job here. I got fairly concerned with OG's post on a few grounds. That the thread (which is fairly tame) was right on the limits of moderators patience levels was a bit shocking and implied that there was consensus on it being on the edge. Couple that with the mod note title and I thought things were going downhill fairly rapidly.

I still think that there's a very strong disconnect between what regulars have expressed as their desire for a bit of common sense and what the moderators have said is not over-moderation in that thread (no underpants = very obvious over moderation and very obviously not in line with how posters feel).

As I said, I actually don't really care about that thread but I do care about this forum. I take Trouts point that it sends out a bad message or whatever, but I can't see any good reason for closing it down. There's just nothing wrong with anything in that thread (with a possible few very minor issues). I can't believe there's been such a big hoo-ha over a few bras and underpants in the year 2010 to be honest.

Anyway...I haven't slept in 8 weeks. So what the hell would I know?

edit: Thanks for taking the time to ask though.

Dr Galen

Ok so next question

have any of the issues your taking about having been resolved enough for you to be happy/happier?

That goes for everyone btw. The only way we can sort thus issue out for the future is if we can move on from the past and the thread as it stands and all it's issues. If there is a fundamental issue with moderation then regardless of who is in their bra or not, then we've a problem that needs sorted. Then we can move onto a solution for ladypics thread