X-Rated DVD Covers.....?

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by pedagogue

*That* could address my concern, but you ignored it until you ran out of things to argue, god forbid you don't get the last word.

-p

Sarcasm aside, I made the suggestion long before this particular thread was initiated by you. I still think a handful of you will continue to press for further special consideration but it might prove to be a compromise for the remaining members that are reasonable.

[BravesMG]

Originally Posted by Houstondon

Brave, you consider the cover pornographic and I don't. Your entire argument is based on that point therefore there isn't anything else to discuss. However I sound to you (again, I reflect back what people toss onto me first; you were the one bandying my name about unfavorably that drew me into the discussion too), your point of view has been duly recorded, openly discussed, and presented as evidence of what I predicted would happen. Your discontent that I have NOT violated the rules has also been acknowledged though given the tone of your posts, I'm sure you'd be reporting me to everyone possible if I had.

Since you mention it; my friendship with G! does mean I feel obligated to discuss disagreement to established rules and policies with him first. This goes hand in hand with being one of the long term content providers of the website and I consider it a courtesy to hash things out with him directly before throwing temper tantrums in public forums. Don't get upset when I mix general comments about the mindset a few members have either, it allows me to address the broader issue at hand rather than spin my wheels against people that are adamant about a factual issue (ie: Chinese genre or pornography) that is questionable at best.

That's a mostly fair post, that I will try and respond fairly to, even though there certainly are some digs in there that I don't appreciate. I have done the same to you, and I'll try to avoid it, but it's tough if we're going to try and rise above the discussion if I'm still being jabbed.

It is true that I brought your name into this first, and admittedly, in somewhat poor taste. The reason comes from past discussion where it has been pretty evident that you were trying to skirt the "name calling" rules by making general statements to those who would disagree with you, and I would certainly be included in that crowd and felt the brunt of your generalities. I felt it was appropriate to bring your name into the discussion given how active you have been in past discussions, and I was trying to head off the (what I felt was) inevitable post from you agreeing with the absolute posting of that cover. I should have addressed it specifically to you in the post without just dropping your name.

The idea that I'm calling you on NOT following the rules isn't the point. It's the fact that you are doing everything possible with the English language to make sure we know what name you are calling us and then flaunt the fact that you did it within the rules of the forum. And then have the audacity to state that you're good friends with Geoff, and the not-so-subtle impression that you're above us in the pecking order if it came down to it. That doesn't and won't sit well, no matter how much you are abiding to the letter of the law.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that most fair-minded people would consider that DVD cover pornographic. And I'm sure that you feel the same that fair-minded people must not consider that cover pornographic. That's the inherent difference. I feel that I'm in the majority on that issue, but that's irrelevant to the argument. What I was asking for Geoff to consider further addressing the issue of defining pornography more than the current "what Amazon uses." And the answer is also irrelevant, I admire the hell out of Geoff for what he's built here, and I will abide by any decision he makes for his forum.

The idea that you "predicted" the fact that two people having open sex (with a few well-placed dots) being splashed on most of the forum would cause some responses doesn't seem like it would take psychic powers. I think your prediction feeds more into the fact that the majority of folks would simply consider that image pornographic, and whether or not they mind it being posted is a completely separate argument.

[BravesMG]

...and yes, I would consider every one of those DVDs to be offensive, save for the Pornography Prostitution USA. But they're only slightly offensive to me, and I would have no issue if my mother-in-law or work colleague (not actually at work) were to be referred by me to a site that contained those images. But I would not deem them "pornographic" which is the distinction I am trying to make here.

[pedagogue]

Do any of them have two people have sex on it?

-p

[dork]

Originally Posted by pedagogue

My msg disappeared...........?

Responding to customer complaints, the Chinese Torture Chamber no longer uses msg.

[abrg923]

Wow.

How is that cover not pornographic?

[PopcornTreeCt]

Why hasn't the cover been taken down yet? I love DVDTalk, and I can't view this site at work, so I'm not all that pissed about the pic but the line needs to be drawn. Apparently, the real money is in porn because this site started out great but has given more and more access to porn. The fact that we're discussing porn on DVDTalk is bad enough.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by abrg923

Wow.

How is that cover not pornographic?

Because Amazon posts it. Amazon = non-pornographic, at least according to the reasons listed in here.

Which is ridiculous, as anyone who looks at that knows it looks like the cover of an adult video.

[fumanstan]

I'd say its pornographic too. Don't really care so much for my own viewership of the site though.

I'd also agree that Houstondon's generalizations should constitute at least a warning, since it's obviously directed at specific people and seems like a personal attack

[pedagogue]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

I'd also agree that Houstondon's generalizations should constitute at least a warning, since it's obviously directed at specific people and seems like a personal attack

I've been saying that for awhile, but he just keeps on keepin' on. I've specifically asked him that he not do it, and that has fallen on deaf ears. I guess the shouts of his own awesomeness are just too loud.

-p

[Adam Tyner]

Originally Posted by Draven

Because Amazon posts it. Amazon = non-pornographic, at least according to the reasons listed in here.

Which is ridiculous

The title is question isn't pornographic.

As a rule of thumb, the Amazon logic is perfectly sound, although I'd consider this cover to be an anomaly.

Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt

Why hasn't the cover been taken down yet?

This thread's been around for a few days now; if the cover were going to be taken down, it would've happened already. I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been a "final word" followed by a lock, really.

[abrg923]

Originally Posted by Draven

Because Amazon posts it. Amazon = non-pornographic, at least according to the reasons listed in here.

Which is ridiculous, as anyone who looks at that knows it looks like the cover of an adult video.

I could care less if Amazon posts it...it's clearly pornographic. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial, championing its use for their own selfish reasons.

As far as the person before who asked why it hasn't taken down...DVDTalk was sold. That was the end of the quick response on issues such as these.

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by BravesMG

That's a mostly fair post, that I will try and respond fairly to, even though there certainly are some digs in there that I don't appreciate. I have done the same to you, and I'll try to avoid it, but it's tough if we're going to try and rise above the discussion if I'm still being jabbed. It is true that I brought your name into this first, and admittedly, in somewhat poor taste....

What I was asking for Geoff to consider further addressing the issue of defining pornography more than the current "what Amazon uses." And the answer is also irrelevant, I admire the hell out of Geoff for what he's built here, and I will abide by any decision he makes for his forum.

As I said, I tend to respond a step or two above what I'm confronted with so as you treat me in a fairer sense, I will reciprocate. I think it's fair that people ask for changes and fair that they express their concerns; my main point being that a select few members are very willing to draw lines in the sand on a repeated basis and act like they are new to a particular policy/rule. I don't even recall saying that I particularly agreed with the "Amazon standard", merely pointed out that this has been the standard supported by the guy that built this website, owned it for years, and currently operates it. I also abide by his rulings in said matters, respecting his stance as one that has been consistently held.

Like Adam, I believe the title in question is NOT pornographic even if the cover could be but for the censoring red stars (I'm not going to argue the couple could be dancing as someone suggested to me via email, though it was a cute comment) but the nuances tend to get lost in the personality clashes so as I said before, I understand your point and I'm more sympathetic to it than you probably think. I've tried to point out that the bigger picture requires looking at the issue from outside our personal levels of comfort; posting other covers that some might find offensive too. There are thousands of members from all over the world and I rail at the idea that DVD Talk should cater to the most sensitive readers every time the topic comes up.

Originally Posted by PopcornCT

Why hasn't the cover been taken down yet? I love DVDTalk, and I can't view this site at work, so I'm not all that pissed about the pic but the line needs to be drawn. Apparently, the real money is in porn because this site started out great but has given more and more access to porn. The fact that we're discussing porn on DVDTalk is bad enough.

You're kidding right? You are aware that until very recently, DVD Talk had ~7500+ porn reviews intermixed on the main reviews page, yes? As far as the cover is concerned, a handful of people complaining about it does not translate into immediate action (action in their favor no less), nor has this been the case here since I joined in 2/1999. The title is unlikely to be a big seller so the decision is certainly not related to finances either though this very discussion appears to be partially fueling it's rise up the top ten popularity list (which increases how frequently it appears). My question for you is related to your own observation: Where should the line be drawn? (ie: whose standards should apply; the lowest common denominator, something monolithic like Amazon who also appears to have sold few copies given their sales ranking, or???)

Originally Posted by Fumanstan

I'd say its pornographic too. Don't really care so much for my own viewership of the site though.

Thanks for your input, even if logically, "generalizations" aren't "personal attacks". If you think "I" should be warned for this, you must be considering a request to ban a few of the others for going much further though.

Originally Posted by Adam

This thread's been around for a few days now; if the cover were going to be taken down, it would've happened already. I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been a "final word" followed by a lock, really.

My guess is that G! will let them get it out of their system as he usually does before locking the thread.

Originally Posted by abrg923

I could care less if Amazon posts it...it's clearly pornographic. Anyone who says otherwise is in denial, championing its use for their own selfish reasons.
As far as the person before who asked why it hasn't taken down...DVDTalk was sold. That was the end of the quick response on issues such as these.

The title is not pornographic even if the cover is in bad taste for a Baptist Sunday School gathering (even with the censoring stars). I did not write the review, direct the movie, or otherwise gain from it's inclusion here in any way, shape or form so I'd ask you how are your motivations less selfish?

As far as the unfair comment on responses dictated by ownership; G! is still very active as the website manager and "X" himself, the long time Administrator of the forums, responded about a half hour after the initial post was made. Just because a few people are offended by a cover does NOT mean it will be immediately taken down and these threads have been common enough over the years to prove that point (which several of you know firsthand having participated in them when G! shot you down previously).

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Houstondon

The title is not pornographic even if the cover is in bad taste for a Baptist Sunday School gathering (even with the censoring stars).

You keep saying things like this. Do you honestly believe that the only people who would be offended by the cover or consider it pornographic are hyper-religious churchgoers? Really?

And we aren't talking about the movie itself. It doesn't matter what the content of the movie is, unless that's being streamed onto the site too. We are only talking about what we can see just browsing the forum, and this cover is over the line It's not even debatable - it's clearly a dude fucking a chick and the only reason we can't see more is because they put little circles over the naughty bits.

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by Draven

You keep saying things like this. Do you honestly believe that the only people who would be offended by the cover or consider it pornographic are hyper-religious churchgoers? Really?

That was my nod to the suggestion the cover could be explained as the couple dancing as much as the notion that ANY standard is going to leave SOME people unhappy. "Safe For Work" (SFW) gets bandied about in these discussions all the time but it begets the question of what work you're talking about. If you work at LFP, it's a pretty tame cover while a job at NOW Headquarters would have people up in arms over a great many other covers too. I "keep saying things like this" to get a few of you to look to the bigger picture and consider that there is no such thing as a universal standard about what constitutes SFW any more than what would be inoffensive to any possible member reading this website.

PS: Baptists aren't even close to being "hyper-religious" compared to a number of other religions but lets save that discussion for another day.

[abrg923]

Originally Posted by Houstondon

The title is not pornographic even if the cover is in bad taste for a Baptist Sunday School gathering (even with the censoring stars). I did not write the review, direct the movie, or otherwise gain from it's inclusion here in any way, shape or form so I'd ask you how are your motivations less selfish?

Do you really think anyone cares if the title itself is pornographic? It's not like the banner ads are showing the entire film.

I'd say the cover is in bad taste for more than just that, but I appreciate the blatant sarcasm.

Also, my motivations? I don't have any. I could care less personally if the ad stays or goes, I'm just pointing out that to say it's not pornographic is ridiculous.

As far as the unfair comment on responses dictated by ownership; G! is still very active as the website manager and "X" himself, the long time Administrator of the forums, responded about a half hour after the initial post was made. Just because a few people are offended by a cover does NOT mean it will be immediately taken down and these threads have been common enough over the years to prove that point (which several of you know firsthand having participated in them when G! shot you down previously).

I'm just saying what happens every single time a site like this is sold. Concerns begin to be ignored. There's a major difference between shooting them down and ignoring them completely. Again, I have no ball in this game...just pointing out what usually happens.

[abrg923]

As far as the Amazon rule goes, all I can say to that is that on Amazon, you're not just randomly browsing and having that pop up - here, you are.

In fairness, Don, I believe you may be too close to the situation (being the reviewer of X-Critic or whatever it is you do, not 100% sure, but I know you deal with a lot of adult films) to make an unbiased judgment on it.

[fumanstan]

Originally Posted by Houstondon

Thanks for your input, even if logically, "generalizations" aren't "personal attacks". If you think "I" should be warned for this, you must be considering a request to ban a few of the others for going much further though.

Like I said, they're obviously directed at certain individuals; especially when you've pointed out how only a small few constantly complain. I'm pretty sure i've seen moderator action (like i said, just a warning) for others that have done so. Not much different if someone were to criticize all the "sex crazed perverts" that feel pornographic material should be allowed to be plastered everywhere on the site when only one or two people have been openly defending the case. Not trying to bash you, just an observation from someone that doesn't care about the picture or trying to make some sort of stand for the site as a whole.

As a side note to this discussion, I remember pictures of a large number of women in bikinis were removed because they were deemed NSFW. If we want to talk about consistency, I'd argue that anything that is suitable to be posted as a review picture should be postable in regular discussion.

[pedagogue]

Originally Posted by Houstondon

That was my nod to the suggestion the cover could be explained as the couple dancing as much as the notion that ANY standard is going to leave SOME people unhappy. "Safe For Work" (SFW) gets bandied about in these discussions all the time but it begets the question of what work you're talking about. If you work at LFP, it's a pretty tame cover while a job at NOW Headquarters would have people up in arms over a great many other covers too. I "keep saying things like this" to get a few of you to look to the bigger picture and consider that there is no such thing as a universal standard about what constitutes SFW any more than what would be inoffensive to any possible member reading this website.

PS: Baptists aren't even close to being "hyper-religious" compared to a number of other religions but lets save that discussion for another day.

abrg: You have to understand that Don argues the extremes, because if he were to argue what we actually are talking about he'd look silly. Every example he gave of "work" is not a 'typical' workplace, but one with very conservative values. It is akin to people who argue that all republicans are bad and point at the Christian Right Extremists as the 'typical' example, instead of addressing the vast majority of moderates, who are more representative of the masses. In the medical world it is called picking out the zebra from the herd.

-p

[pedagogue]

Originally Posted by fumanstan

Like I said, they're obviously directed at certain individuals; especially when you've pointed out how only a small few constantly complain. I'm pretty sure i've seen moderator action (like i said, just a warning) for others that have done so.

I reported his posts yesterday, let's see if there is any action taken. I know if I made generalized statements about homosexuals or a racial minority it probably would be actionable.

-p

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by abrg923

Also, my motivations? I don't have any. I could care less personally if the ad stays or goes, I'm just pointing out that to say it's not pornographic is ridiculous.

I'm just saying what happens every single time a site like this is sold. Concerns begin to be ignored. There's a major difference between shooting them down and ignoring them completely. Again, I have no ball in this game...just pointing out what usually happens.

Others have commented on the title being pornographic so I included a brief discussion of that in my reply, otherwise, I never asked what your motivations were, only that since you raised the point about anyone disagreeing with your assessment as follows: "Anyone who says otherwise is in denial, championing its use for their own selfish reasons", that it opened up questions on your own "selfish reasoning".
Your secondary comment about the website going to pot since the takeover was a specific claim that I was glad to see you take back with a generalization here. As pointed out, the Administrator replied to the poorly worded title/original posting very quickly with an answer. He didn't happen to like the answer and has since continued to respond.

Originally Posted by abrg923

In fairness, Don, I believe you may be too close to the situation (being the reviewer of X-Critic or whatever it is you do, not 100% sure, but I know you deal with a lot of adult films) to make an unbiased judgment on it.

I have a lot of irons in the fire relating to both websites but that doesn't mean I can't defend the faith as it were. You may be right about my not being as sensitive as the handful of people in this thread that are complaining about the cover (I'd point out the numbers of complainers versus the number of people that read the forums and visit the website but that last time I did that I was fussed at for the audacity of doing so) but perhaps you care more than you're letting on by virtue of your multiple postings in the thread? (I'm not saying you shouldn't or that you're wrong for doing so, only suggesting you care more than you are saying.)

Originally Posted by fumanstan

Like I said, they're obviously directed at certain individuals; especially when you've pointed out how only a small few constantly complain. I'm pretty sure i've seen moderator action (like i said, just a warning) for others that have done so. Not much different if someone were to criticize all the "sex crazed perverts" that feel pornographic material should be allowed to be plastered everywhere on the site when only one or two people have been openly defending the case. Not trying to bash you, just an observation from someone that doesn't care about the picture or trying to make some sort of stand for the site as a whole. As a side note to this discussion, I remember pictures of a large number of women in bikinis were removed because they were deemed NSFW. If we want to talk about consistency, I'd argue that anything that is suitable to be posted as a review picture should be postable in regular discussion.

I'll say it one last time, if you think I violated the rules, by all means report me to myself and/or one of the moderators/Admins/G!. I'll be extra harsh on myself if I find me to be in violation. If you said that "only sex crazed perverts" (like me for example) would possibly defend having censored covers on a website that adults use, I'd disagree with you but we could still remain friendly in our discussion. I don't think all people having a problem with this particular cover are prudes, merely the ones that have jumped on the bandwagon a time too many in previous discussions about covers give that appearance.

Lastly, before the thread gets closed (as I suspect it will today), if you want something changed here; propose a workable solution in your grievance thread. Peda aksed a question that was almost immediately answered by an Admin (THE Admin actually) and then the topic raged on. I argue the limits of the discussion because that is where the heart of the issue truly is; something the OP is quite familiar with in other threads I've read where he participated. I've asked questions repeatedly of those taking issue with the cover since they didn't like the "Amazon standard" and to date, none have provided a workable answer but on the slim chance one of you comes up with something better than my own suggestion; feel free to let me know via email. Thanks!

[Houstondon]

Originally Posted by pedagogue

I reported his posts yesterday, let's see if there is any action taken. I know if I made generalized statements about homosexuals or a racial minority it probably would be actionable.

-p

Good thing I didn't comment on your race or sexual preference then, yes?
(neither having anything to do with the topic at hand; talk about curious logic...)

[GeoffK]

I'll restate our policy as it seems like a good time to restate it.

Any DVD which is sent to us and is sold via amazon we will absolutely review and pull the cover art from Amazon to display on the site. If you have issue with a cover or title and do not feel it should be sold in a mainstream store, then you really should email amazon with your complaint. We do not have a 'standards and practices' team looking at every cover that goes up, we assume that on a site which is considered safe for work, they would not display any images or content that they considered offensive.

If you have an issue with this policy. Please contact our lead at Internet Brands brent.conver@internetbrands.com. As they are the owners of the site and ultimately set or modify policy here.

In terms of adult content, any and all adult content on this site was completely spun off to XCritic.com. And DVD Talk now in no way profits, sells or promotes adult content.

XCritic.com however does