PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: "Not safe for work" rules -- NSFW tag now available

[The Bus]

Originally Posted by X

The point is that when an image is marginal as to whether it would be considered work-safe, not having it blazed across the screen makes it safer for a work type environment. The cover images as served on every page here are incidental to what's being viewed, not the entire subject of what's on the screen.

You didn't like my Scarlett Johansson pics, did you?

Would imageshack-style click-through thumbnails be ok?

[j123vt_99]

Originally Posted by MartinBlank

no... 7 is offensive.. 5 is ok.. wonder what 69 is?

[MartinBlank]

Originally Posted by The Bus

NSFW content

*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*

[benedict]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What if we link our nsfw images to a revenue generating site for IB. Would that be ok?

I'm not sure how that squares with what nemein said earlier.

Originally Posted by nemein

The main reason for policing what can be viewed from here is obviously to make sure DVDtalk doesn't end up being blocked by places, and maybe (although probably an outside chance) ending up on some of those "nanny" type lists.

[Seantn]

Originally Posted by X

I have a real puzzler for you. What's the difference between what you posted and this one which is the one that DVD Talk serves up to your screen?

You've got to be joking... Oops, guess not.

The real "puzzler" is how that is any better. I can still read the words "Zodiac Rapist" clearly, and I can clearly see what's happening in the picture. It's good to know that we're allowed to post NSFW pics, as long as they're the size of the ones that DVDtalk posts.

[lotsofdvds]

Yeah I don't get this at all. If I click on a thread called "What toys to buy my new baby?" I'm thinking that'll be completely work safe. But when the page loads I get an ad for Samurai Hooker Budokan 7, with giant titties on display (but with the nipples blocked off by blue circles).

So why are totally unrequested and random shots of hooters perfectly fine, but I can't have a thread called "Rate the progression of Scarlett Johansson's titties! (NSFW)" ?

I understand there's a fine line of what can and can't be done here now (insert link to porn site here), but IB and DVDTalk should have to live by the same rules it's members do. Either it's all okay or none of it is.

[benedict]

Originally Posted by Seantn

You've got to be joking... Oops, guess not.

The real "puzzler" is how that is any better. I can still read the words "Zodiac Rapist" clearly, and I can clearly see what's happening in the picture. It's good to know that we're allowed to post NSFW pics, as long as they're the size of the ones that DVDtalk posts.

In a thread such as this where, ostensibly, people are entering the discussion in good faith i.e they really want to know/understand the "official position", my personal view is that it is always worthwhile reading through to the end just in case one's query has been addressed already.

Originally Posted by X

The point is that when an image is marginal as to whether it would be considered work-safe, not having it blazed across the screen makes it safer for a work type environment. The cover images as served on every page here are incidental to what's being viewed, not the entire subject of what's on the screen.

[lotsofdvds]

^That was kinda smarmy...

Most of us have computer screens big enough to where if our bosses walked up behind us, they'd be able to make out the titties.

The images get cached no matter what size they are. If IT is monitoring someone's work usage and keeps seeing repeated hits on Ninja Knockers 4, it won't matter how big or small the image is.

If DVDTalk is going to continue to post cover art for things such as that, then we should be allowed to put "potentially" racy photos inside spoiler tags.

[Rockmjd23]

@ lotsofdvds new picture!

[orangecrush]

Originally Posted by Rockmjd23

@ lotsofdvds new picture!

Bring back Ron. We need more scotch.

[milo bloom]

I've been worried about those images in the review thing for a while now. The size doesn't matter, and any attempt to say otherwise is doublespeak of the finest Orwellian vintage.

[melbatoast]

It was really just a matter of time before changes were made. No matter how many times they said they liked it just fine, things weren't going to change... we all knew it was coming.

But it does need to go both ways. No pictures of boobies, bondage, etc in ads. in exchange for the NSFW links and such.

[Chrisedge]

I find the thumbnail covers very offensive for the most part at any size. (not to say I mind the artwork and grindhouse style, just not on my screen).

Really what is more "NSFW"? I would rather explain to a boss (male/fem) some larger pic of Scarlett Johansson than the tasteful "Zodiac Rapist" thumbnail size cover.

No problem with any decision, but I would love to see those covers removed. They seem like a high % of the total covers seen...

[jadasion]

Originally Posted by benedict

I'm not sure how that squares with what nemein said earlier.

If the intent of IB is to be on the "nanny" lists and be a site that can be viewed at any employer, there should be a review of the ads that are being posted on the site. Simply put, the Zodiac Rapist ad is grotesque. I think, even when Geoff owned the site, he would have thought twice before keeping that particular ad.

[abrg923]

Originally Posted by lotsofdvds

^That was kinda smarmy...

Most of us have computer screens big enough to where if our bosses walked up behind us, they'd be able to make out the titties.

The images get cached no matter what size they are. If IT is monitoring someone's work usage and keeps seeing repeated hits on Ninja Knockers 4, it won't matter how big or small the image is.

If DVDTalk is going to continue to post cover art for things such as that, then we should be allowed to put "potentially" racy photos inside spoiler tags.

"Potentially racy photos inside spoiler tags" don't make IB money. And that's what this is all about, despite what the mods say. You notice they have no logical explanation for why those ads are ok, but similar pictures posted by users aren't.

[nemein]

If the intent of IB is to be on the "nanny" lists and be a site that can be viewed at any employer

Just for clarification the "nanny" list thing was my wording, nothing from IB, and I believe the intent would be to stay OFF of those things in the sense of NOT being filtered out.

[benedict]

Originally Posted by lotsofdvds

If DVDTalk is going to continue to post cover art for things such as that, then we should be allowed to put "potentially" racy photos inside spoiler tags.

Originally Posted by lotsofdvds

[....] IB and DVDTalk should have to live by the same rules it's members do. Either it's all okay or none of it is.

I can't say that I necessarily agree (or disagree) with this. There are many contradictions in the world: it may be that there are situations where owners will feel that they can act in a way that is different to their customers, whether those customers are paying ones or whether they get free entry. The decision is then for the customers to decide whether they can live with the contradiction, or if it is too much to bear.

In case it is not clear, sometimes there may be a conflict between what one thinks as a member and what one has to consider as a moderator or admin, or even as a reviewer. Although there is no financial advantage in taking a part behind the scenes, there is - or should be - an element of shared responsibility in trying to do what is best and making sure that issues are handled fairly and that decisions are understood and adhered to.

Because I don't surf DVDTalk at work there aren't any issues for me regarding who may or may not be watching over my shoulder. However I can understand that for some people this could be a problem and the repetition of that same picture, not just on the front page or in Other but across all the various forums, could well be something that needs to be attended to.

I'm certainly not here to justify any financial decisions that IB might choose to make, not least because I have no knowledge whatsoever of that side of things. I would say, however, that, although the example picture cited elsewhere is pretty gross, it should be acknowleged that the graphic is a link to a review, rather than to an advert. Looking at that picture alone, questions or accusations regarding potential financial benefit are somewhat moot.

When a similar point was raised some time ago in Feedback, I gather that it was explained by those who know that there was no easy way to program the board software to omit contentious images. Doubtless the point can be - and I'm fairly sure will be - looked at again with a view to filtering out violent images wherever desirable and possible.

I suspect that, although there has been considerable debate in this thread as to the way that DVDTalk organises some aspect of its activities, all members contributing here do not share the same agenda: some people want fewer (or zero) contentious images; others would actually like to see a more laissez-faire approach; heaven forbid, but there may even be a third group arguing just for the heck of it &/or because they have issues with "The Man"

It isn't likely that we're going to square the circle: not everyone will be happy with any decision/change made, although I truly would have hoped that folk here would have applauded nemein's openness in posting the results of mod & IB discussions as to a "fair" middle way for all to see. So it goes.

[Seantn]

lotsofdvds, did they make you take down your picture from that Zodiac Rapist image, or did you do it yourself?

[lotsofdvds]

Originally Posted by Seantn

lotsofdvds, did they make you take down your picture from that Zodiac Rapist image, or did you do it yourself?

No, it looks like they just fired me.

[Kittydreamer]

Originally Posted by lotsofdvds

No, it looks like they just fired me.

wow, just for standing up for yourself and asking questions about the rules and policies around here or did I miss something?

[emanon]

I missed it - what was his pic?

[Venusian]

He wasn't fired. lotsofdvds, if you have issues with anything, take it up with whoever is in charge of reviewers.

[Minor Threat]

Originally Posted by lotsofdvds

No, it looks like they just fired me.

Are you not reviewing DVD's anymore....?

[wendersfan]

Originally Posted by Minor Threat

Are you not reviewing DVD's anymore....?

He hasn't been a reviewer in a long time. Along with other factors, with the switchover to IB and the advent of xcritic, there are a number of "regular" reviewers and former adult reviewers who no longer review here. My understanding is that the list of reviewers is being trimmed down to people who are currently active. lotsovdvds is not being "singled out", if that's what anyone is asking.

[j123vt_99]

Originally Posted by Kittydreamer

wow, just for standing up for yourself and asking questions about the rules and policies around here or did I miss something?

one thing us members need to remember is that this site is not a democracy. It is someone else's property and we need to play by their rules if we want to stay here. Certainly not saying I agree with it, but that is the reality.