NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I have a post thats under review by mods....I'm going to add this reply I made to Cog:

"I see.....so my picture is inappropriate but the endless pictures of women in bikinis and thongs with boobs and butts hanging out on the babe thread was ok. "

If I'm going to receive a warning for being "obscene" then I'm going to present the fact that it was a picture of an obese man apparently pretending to be a cute guy or girl online. The caption is 'why women shouldnt go into chatrooms" I dont see how this is inappropriate. I didnt find the picture on some sleezy porn site....it was on a pretty innocent looking humor site. As Cog pointed out-no private parts were visible. Like I said.....if THAT picture is inapprpriate and the revealing pictures of women on the babe thread werent...then theres a problem with fair judgement on here.

Thank you

btw- this picture was acceptable apparently.....

http://www.geocities.com/fhornsr/Julie.bmp

on the babe thread. my fat guy picture wasnt.....?

Okay, since this is really something that needs to be adressed by Cogitation, I'm going to ask that nobody else reply until he's had an opportunity to examine the facts and make his case; he's not about just now.

Please be patient.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Is that that picture where its got like a really fat ugly fuckin guy chatting online to this old bitch who's also pretty ugly, and they are bulshitting eachother, like saying "Im 6"2 Slim, Tanned, Strong"

?

Whoops. Sorry Tsraene didnt see your post.

The matter is still under review. No final decision has been rendered, as yet.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

btw- this picture was acceptable apparently.....

http://www.geocities.com/fhornsr/Julie.bmp

on the babe thread. my fat guy picture wasnt.....?
Sorry, this site is temporarily unavailable!
The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.
I can't judge the image if I can't access it.

Are there any other examples you want to bring to our attention? I haven't been regularly patrolling that thread.

You should listen to a song called "Hotel California", its a really good song.

Here

<snip>
Yes. It's a good song. I've heard it before. I like that song.

What, exactly, does it have to do with the matter at hand?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I can't judge the image if I can't access it.

Are there any other examples you want to bring to our attention? I haven't been regularly patrolling that thread.


Yes. It's a good song. I've heard it before. I like that song.

What, exactly, does it have to do with the matter at hand?

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation


Ok, heres a picture of it.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] No, I'm already aware of that image. that's the image under review. I was asking about something different. See my post below. [/modedit]


And its just a really really good song, so I thought I'd reccommend it. You can delete the post if you want.

Ok, heres a picture of it.

<modsnip>


And its just a really really good song, so I thought I'd reccommend it. You can delete the post if you want.
No, he meant the picture that Peechland was trying to link to in this thread, not the picture that the question was about.

Oh, and ewwwww. That's a gross picture.

Ok, heres a picture of it.

<snip>
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

That thing is the image posted by Peechland that is now under review.

Peechland was complaining about the babes thread, which I have not kept a close eye on. Peechland tried to cite an example from the babes thread, but the image wasn't accessible. What I'm asking for now is another example of an image from the Babes thread that Peechland would like to have evaluated by the Mods for violations of NS rules, as Peechland seems to think that there are numerous potential rules violations in the Babes thread. She may very well be right, but someone would have to point to some examples for me to judge.

And its just a really really good song, so I thought I'd reccommend it. You can delete the post if you want.
Yeah, I'll do that.

Please do not hijack topics.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

well Cog-it let me access it earlier but not now for some reason. heres are some that are similar but not quite as revealing as the geocities one. if it lets me access it from the babe thread again-i will send it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Aerou/Adriana%20Lima/adriana_lima21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/tyronethecrackaddict/TargetPreview21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/tyronethecrackaddict/TargetPreview29.jpg

for the record...the above pictures dont offend me, i think those women are beautiful. they arent naked, but neither was the picture i posted. my point is that if these pictures were acceptable to post, mine should have been also.


edit: Cog you said that i am stating there are potential offenses being made on the babe thread.....no, i am simply saying that if those pictures were acceptable.....the one i posted should be. he was disgusting yes-but that was the point of the picture.....to illustrate that there are disgusting people on the internet who surf for people to cyber with or god knows what else. that was the thread topic.. 'chatting crap" which obviously that picture was an example of

No, he meant the picture that Peechland was trying to link to in this thread, not the picture that the question was about.

Oh, and ewwwww. That's a gross picture.
Yes. Very gross. But, can "gross" qualify as "obscene"? This is the part I'm having trouble with and this is why a final decision hasn't been rendered, yet. I don't want to make a unilateral decision, here.

Even if their privates aren't visible, I don't like seeing pictures of drastically obsese people. But then, is there a rules-justifiable difference between scantily-clad pretty people and scantily-clad fat people? I don't know. It could just be that that's my personal biases taking effect. So, I don't want to make a final decision based on my judgment alone.

well Cog-it let me access it earlier but not now for some reason. heres are some that are similar but not quite as revealing as the geocities one. if it lets me access it from the babe thread again-i will send it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Aerou/Adriana%20Lima/adriana_lima21.jpg

<snip>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/tyronethecrackaddict/TargetPreview29.jpg
The first and third are fine. The second image has barely visible nipples. Not serious enough that I'll issue a warning, but I do need to go and remove it. Please link me to the affected post.

for the record...the above pictures dont offend me, i think those women are beautiful. they arent naked, but neither was the picture i posted. my point is that if these pictures were acceptable to post, mine should have been also.
Your argument has merit... which is why I haven't issued a warning against you nor made a final decision.


edit: Cog you said that i am stating there are potential offenses being made on the babe thread.....no, i am simply saying that if those pictures were acceptable.....the one i posted should be. he was disgusting yes-but that was the point of the picture.....to illustrate that there are disgusting people on the internet who surf for people to cyber with or god knows what else. that was the thread topic.. 'chatting crap" which obviously that picture was an example of
Ahhh... yes, I see what you mean.

Well, I'm probably not going to issue an official warning in this case, anyway. I just need to get a second opinion on whether or not the image can stay. Like I said, I think my personal biases are involved, so I do't want to make a final decision.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

those chicks are freakin hot


and im still kinda confused. whats getting in trouble the fat ugly dude of the hot chicks?

those chicks are freakin hot


and im still kinda confused. whats getting in trouble the fat ugly dude of the hot chicks?
The fat ugly dude is under review. One of the hot chicks needs to be removed because her nipples are barely visible through her shirt. I've asked Peechland for a link because she knows where the image was posted.

I'm not staying online much longer. When you find the link to the post, Peech, just post it here. Another Mod will get around to removing it.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391792&page=7&pp=15

post #94


and it does seem that maybe it is your interpretation of whats obscene. If the first and third were acceptable and mine wasnt...explain please. The obese man is big and ugly. OK.....so we are only allowed to look at pretty people? It was just a fat man. Thats all. Not his penis or scrotum or backside. I certainly would not have posted it had I thought it was inappropriate. I understand that you, personally think it is obscene. But I think pictures of POW's and the Jewish people who were in Concentration Camps are obscene too. Not obscene by way of being offensive, but because it makes me sick to know how much those people were tortured and mistreated. Obscenity covers a lot. I still do not believe this merits a warning. I appreciate the responsibilities the mods have and I dont want my name to have some red flag beside it that labels me a 'trouble maker". I am simply expressing my side of this and if it appears as argumentative, so be it. I shouldnt have to worry that I am going to be under a microscope because you and I differ in our opinions here. Thank you Cog.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391792&page=7&pp=15

post #94
Removed.

and it does seem that maybe it is your interpretation of whats obscene. If the first and third were acceptable and mine wasnt...explain please. The obese man is big and ugly. OK.....so we are only allowed to look at pretty people? It was just a fat man. Thats all. Not his penis or scrotum or backside. I certainly would not have posted it had I thought it was inappropriate. I understand that you, personally think it is obscene.
Noted. I'm probably not going to issue a warning for this, but I still need a second opinion from another Mod on whether the image stays.

But I think pictures of POW's and the Jewish people who were in Concentration Camps are obscene too. Not obscene by way of being offensive, but because it makes me sick to know how much those people were tortured and mistreated.
Do you have a specific NationStates post in mind?

Obscenity covers a lot. I still do not believe this merits a warning. I appreciate the responsibilities the mods have and I dont want my name to have some red flag beside it that labels me a 'trouble maker". I am simply expressing my side of this and if it appears as argumentative, so be it. I shouldnt have to worry that I am going to be under a microscope because you and I differ in our opinions here. Thank you Cog.
[Emphasis mine.]

Agreed. Moderators are not supposed to officially act on a bais. Again, this is why I haven't made a final decision.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

No- no post on the concentration camps....I was just saying for my general obscene interpretation.Thank you.


I'm done.

Its cuz that guy was an ugly fuck and the chick was hot. Hot chicks aren't traumatising like ugly fucks are.

hmmm intresting...

Yes. Very gross. But, can "gross" qualify as "obscene"? This is the part I'm having trouble with and this is why a final decision hasn't been rendered, yet. I don't want to make a unilateral decision, here.

Even if their privates aren't visible, I don't like seeing pictures of drastically obsese people. But then, is there a rules-justifiable difference between scantily-clad pretty people and scantily-clad fat people? I don't know. It could just be that that's my personal biases taking effect. So, I don't want to make a final decision based on my judgment alone.


The first and third are fine. The second image has barely visible nipples. Not serious enough that I'll issue a warning, but I do need to go and remove it. Please link me to the affected post.


Your argument has merit... which is why I haven't issued a warning against you nor made a final decision.



Ahhh... yes, I see what you mean.

Well, I'm probably not going to issue an official warning in this case, anyway. I just need to get a second opinion on whether or not the image can stay. Like I said, I think my personal biases are involved, so I do't want to make a final decision.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Do nipples count as obscene? Being an ex-Englishman, and seeing that jolt hosts out of England, and also allow allowing for the fact that we Brits don't consider nipples obscene (they appear in television and newspaper advertising fairly routinely) - what standard is being used for obscene?

I don't consider the naked guy appealing... but I don't really see 'obscene', either... but then, bare nipples aren't sending me running for the hills either.

This IS a moderator matter - so, I have no real input... just presenting some thoughts.

Odd ... in the grand scheme of things, I don't see what's so terrible about the 'nipple-y' pic either, overall. I mean, so it shows a bit through her shirt. Nipples tend to do that now and then.

I think there are some images out there which are clearly 'out of bounds' - things like tubgirl and the like, or full nudity given the rules and all, or over-the-top scenes of gore or some such, but honestly - are we going to spend time fussing over whether or not a nipple stands out in a photo or not?

I don't see the point in that sort of thread to begin with, granted - you want to see scantily-clad women, go Google for 'em or something. But still ... it seems a tad overboard there, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

Jeebus, boyo - in looking again, I seriously fail to see why the one you pointed out is 'worse' than those other two. Honestly now. Reality break - they're all 'suggestive'. Now if 'suggestive' as opposed to 'pornographic' is going to get folks nailed here nowadays, you'd best lay it out across the board rather than get hung up on niggling points (no pun intended) like 'nipples'.

Since 58% probably higher now are under 21 on this site. A large portion of them being under 18. I think the whole "Babe thread" is not appropriate for the site. In most countries, there is a legal age you must reach before you can buy sexy girl magazines. I'm sure 90% of these kids parents would not approve of the content in that thread. While boys maybe boys, we always use to have a policy of not enabling things such as this and tried to keep the site as "minor" friendly as possible.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/survey4.jpg


I suppose if Nationstates endorses the view that is denigrating towards women, so be it. But do keep in mind that is what it is. I am a woman who has respect for herself and other women, Perhaps some women don't have respect for themselves and see nothing wrong with women in general being treated as mere objects for men to drool over. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was that kind of site. At least it never use to be.

Just my $0.02

Oh and for those of you who think I maybe uptight and am the only one who thinks like this, perhaps if I shoot off an email to NOW (http://www.now.org/) or any woman's rights groups. In fact maybe I'll send an email to them all. And pointed out the stats on how many minors are on this site and the thread in question, you may find quite quickly a lot of mothers who feel just as strongly on the subject as I do. If this was an adult site, I would still think it tasteless, but wouldn't say a word. But it's not!

Oh and for those of you who think I maybe uptight and am the only one who thinks like this, perhaps if I shoot off an email to NOW (http://www.now.org/) or any woman's rights groups. In fact maybe I'll send an email to them all. And pointed out the stats on how many minors are on this site and the thread in question, you may find quite quickly a lot of mothers who feel just as strongly on the subject as I do. If this was an adult site, I would still think it tasteless, but wouldn't say a word. But it's not!
steph your probably right you send an email the they send a link to thier members showing a small (and biased) snipit of nationstates, along with a link to a cokie cutter e-mail directed at max or ns admin. how do i know you may ask, i get emails from the AFA all the time. also i think you may be acting kinda librial on this. most parents arnt stupid enough to let thier kid surf the net alone its just that some dont care what thier kids see, and if they do they should pay more attn. to what thier kids are looking at. also if it against the law for these kids to view this stuff the it is thier fult for looking at it, think about it weed is not alowed in the us yet there are many ns flags with pot leaves and fourm threads about being stoned


(thank god for crapy half time shows)

Ah, the valiant crusaders, so concerned with the freedom of speech and expression in some areas, and yet so determined to cause a fuss in others. Where was all the righteous rage when the thread was opened and continued? Is it only now, when such content - which has long existed on the forums in one form or another - comes into question in opposition to another decision that it becomes 'in vogue' to cry foul?

Whether or not I personally find the images 'degrading' to women is beside the point when looking at the bigger picture:

The 'over 21' bit doesn't apply here, as it isn't anything any worse than you could see on most tv anymore or in adverts both there and in non-adult magazines everywhere. Not all women, or men, think the way you apparently do, and not all people are offended at the content. Considering some of the things that get posted on a regular basis to the forums - such as the language, the violence, the torture, the blatant sex, whether it be General, the RP forums or elsewhere - where do we start making the cuts? Of course it's easy to stir up a response from groups designed to rage and cause a fuss any time they come across something they dislike, if that's what makes you feel better, while ignoring the real problem. It doesn't make them more or less correct than any other group in their opinions, just louder.

Where do the lines get drawn? Who do you believe is best qualified to start dictating morality for the masses? In an enviroment where the moderators are already plagued with complaints about 'too much or inconsistent moderation' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=395114) and 'not enough freedom' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394329) on a site that to my understanding is NOT a 'kiddie site', in spite of the fact that we have kids who play it, is it the right move to go further down that path? This seems to go against the opinions of a site you have shown avid support for (http://s6.invisionfree.com/PCRA_Central/index.php?showforum=12).

We already have limits on content, and images, and topics. The more protection you offer, the less freedom people will have. Before you know it, you won't be able to bring up any sort of political, religious, racial, or other debate for fear it 'may possibly offend someone'.

Granted, an effort needs to be made to maintain some sort of controls, for the greater good, and to keep as even a balance as possible, but if 90% of those parents do not want their children viewing those kinds of things, I respectfully suggest those parents ought to bloody well be aware of what their kids are viewing and participating in, and do something about it rather than blame everyone else. Responsibility and accountability is never a bad thing, especially when you place the proper emphasis where it belongs.

I don't see the point in that sort of thread to begin with

And I still don't see the point in that sort of thread. I think it's topic/link/picture-spam, an excuse for guys to try and one-up each other on their supposed sense of 'taste', and a waste of bandwidth. Why then the previous thoughts and opinions? Call it playing Devil's Advocate here in an effort to illustrate the pros and cons of too much censorship.

Just something to think about.

Eeeekkk.. Some people don't get it.. am I surprised? hell no! Do I expect more from them. yes I admit that I do some times.. Yet we can't always expect rational thought from every one.. sad, but true,

Can we cut it out with the insults, please?

Surely they knew exactly what they were getting into when going into a thread called "The Babe thread". If a kid went into that they knew exactly what they would see. And if they knew that and they wanted to they could find much worse very easily, it is the internet.

Surely they knew exactly what they were getting into when going into a thread called "The Babe thread". If a kid went into that they knew exactly what they would see. And if they knew that and they wanted to they could find much worse very easily, it is the internet.

I'd agree with this - it's not a thread someone can blindly stumble into. The title not only makes it clear that it's about 'babes', but also has a warning that makes it clear photos will be included in the thread.

Any parents monitoring their underage children properly would be able to steer them clear of such a thread... and if they aren't monitoring their children, they really shouldn't bother complaining.

Also, I don't see how woman being able to do a job they want to is somehow against women's rights movements. At least now they can demand a good wage for their work.

Sorry about that GMC, will try harder to refrain.

I guess what really bothers me about that thread is we know there are 12, 13, 14, 15 year old kids on this site. What kind of message do we send to these young boys about women? I don't think it sends a good message. As I have stated, if this was an adult site, I would per se have no problem with it. However, it's not an adult site. There is some very young kids on this site, and that's why it bothers me.

As for Sandpit's site, yep, I support what Sandpit is doing in as far as things being a little more pleasant around here. I never once said any thing about free speech. But interpret MY intentions to suit yourself as you wish. Don't let me stand in your way of trying to figure out what my intentions are. I mean I couldn't possibly as a parent really just be concerned with the actual issue at hand. There are no hidden agendas here, the thread disturbs me because of the age range of kids that use this site, that's it, that's all.

Bah, 12-years olds are more adult then you think, they tend to get more childish around 16, when they have nothing to proove anymore.

Great to have you back, Stephistan, and great to have you in the union. :)

Fine and well. This is not designed as a kids site. Children (age varying according to personal views there) who's parents do not wish them exposed to any potential 'adult' or 'questionable' material should not be viewing this site unsupervised anyway. Children who's parents find the content age-appropriate - that's their business, no? My point is, it can be difficult sometimes to find a balance, especially when dealing with morality, which can at times be ambiguous at best, depending on who you ask. Place the burden of responsibility where it belongs - in the hands of the parents. Max has final say on what he will and will not allow here as his site - not the rest of us. Personally, I can respect that, and as such, would not allow my 11 year old to browse the site without plenty of guidance.

As for freedom of speech, I'm offering up opinions on things I've seen here and there commented on or posted by you in the past - mostly on the right to express opinions. Yes, it's conjecture, and as open to flaw as any other opinion out there. Take it for what you will. The point stands that that particular thread has been open for a while, and posted to quite a bit before drawing your attention, and in a moderation thread originally discussing another picture that wasn't of a woman that some folks found disturbing. (Haven't seen it, couldn't offer an opinion.) That's what I found curious.

Max has always said that we should keep the site minor friendly. That thread is not minor friendly. I know because I use to be a moderator here. In the past, that thread would of been locked. I have no idea why it hasn't been. I quit being a moderator. So, I don't know what the rational is for not locking it. In the old days, it would of been locked.

I think I know what was considered appropriate on the site and what wasn't a little better than you, no offense, I was a Game Moderator for almost 2 years. I know that Max wanted the site to stay minor friendly.

Any way, I'm not going to argue any more about it. It's not my problem any more. The moderators will do what they think is right and that's about it.

I was just expressing an opinion... and yes, I think expressing your opinion is always welcomed. It was just my take on it.

Great to have you back, Stephistan, and great to have you in the union. :)

Thanks :)

Locking the thread won't change anything. The images and links will still be there, people just won't be able to add more. Either they allow it, or they delete it I suppose - that or go through link by link and decide which is and is not 'appropriate'.

Opinions on 'minor friendly' again, vary. Half the 'political debate' I see on this site I wouldn't want my kids seeing, for example. Shall we shut all that down too, or is this only an argument about pictures that anyone can see on the internet by using Google or another search engine? Yes, even when the supposed 'safe' filter is on. Don't believe me? Try it. Criminy, most of the NEWS sites out there I wouldn't let my kids view due to content. How many children are required for school assignments to get information from there, I wonder? See where I'm coming from?

I still say the responsibility lays with the parents (or in the case of schools, the teachers) to know what their kids are viewing. In any case, looks like our discussion is done. Have a good one.

As stated, I'm not going to argue about it any more. I gave my opinion and really have nothing left to say on the subject. If the moderators wish to leave it, that is their decision not mine or yours. C'est la vie.

If someone wants the babe thread locked, then please post a new thread. This particular incident was not intended for that purpose, but now may appear to others that it was my intent simply because my name is on this thread. I was stating my case to a moderator that I dont feel I should be warned for a picture I posted, when there are similar pictures posted on other threads. I stated that the women in those pictures are beautiful in my opinion and I was merely comparing those pictures to what I had posted. My picture was thought to be obscene by a mod and he and I disagree about it. This has turned into a battle over the babe thread, which was NOT my intention.

ok seems to me max made ns to advert his book nothing more nothing less, now having read the book i dont think it is somthing i would let some one under 16 or so read=> by said conections this site realy isn't ment for those under 16 (or so) so it seems to me aslong as there is no actule nudity we need no warnings or deats

At the request of the thread author, iLock pending a decision.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I apologize for the delay; this matter had slipped from our attention for a day or two.

After consulting with the rest of the Mod Squad on this matter, we have decided that the picture of the naked obese man is illegal under the "defamatory" clause of the NationStates Terms and Conditions. To quote one of my associates (without naming that associate):

It's not necessary and its only purpose is to give people something to be insulting about, like when they used to let upper class people go through Bedlam Hospital to gawk at the mental patients.

I see no reason for it to be posted on the forum, nor the "special olympics" picture from eBaums, nor any image meant to marginalize segments of human society.
It was decided to use this opinion as the official basis of this ruling, with three other Moderators concurring (myself included). I do not believe that this was the conscious intent of Peechland, so I will not issue an official warning. Remember, though, that it has always been NationStates policy that images be held to stricter standards than forum posts.

Before anyone complains about Nazis or racists, I'm going to elaborate on the image vs. text distinction. In the interests of encouraging civil political debate, we Mods are not going to take action against text as quickly as we would against images that say the same thing. Thus, this ruling is not to be construed as meaning that we're going to start censoring particular political points-of-view.

The question regarding whether or not the image also falls under the "obscene" clause is considered moot for this case and remains unadressed. We do not intend to address it at this time.

iUnlock. We ask that posters only ask questions about this case specifically or about immediately-related policy.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator