Posts being deleted by mods with no explanation? The fine line between SFW and NSFW
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Posts being deleted by mods with no explanation? The fine line between SFW and NSFW
I posted in the "1010 babes on Bondi Beach" thread, and included a picture showing a hairy guy walking in the background:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0567336100.jpg
Linked possible NSFW picture - X
My entire post is no longer there, and I know I didn't delete it myself. What gives?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...0567336100.jpg
Linked possible NSFW picture - X
My entire post is no longer there, and I know I didn't delete it myself. What gives?
#3
Administrator
The thread was going along fine with links to the pictures. You were the only person who didn't understand that a picture like that might not be appreciated by somebody at work or with other eyes peering over their screen. So it got deleted.
Most people seem to figure it out by themself. Sorry I didn't spend the time to explain it more fully earlier so you would.
Most people seem to figure it out by themself. Sorry I didn't spend the time to explain it more fully earlier so you would.
#4
Administrator
Congratulations! Your having no idea of the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) concept and continuing that type of posting in that thread just got it moved to the Adult Forum. Posts like that don't need linking there.
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Well, gee...maybe next time some kind of warning? Nobody else seemed to have any kind of problem with the pictures, and they certainly didn't contain anything close to nudity or being suggestive, especially the first picture in question. Nobody at all suggested "you know, these might be NSFW". I do have a concept of said subject, so I don't appreciate the condescending and/or sarcastic attitude. I came in here asking a friendly question about something I didn't understand.
There's been tons of things a lot worse that get by in Otter with no problems, so I still don't understand why those pictures were any different.
There's been tons of things a lot worse that get by in Otter with no problems, so I still don't understand why those pictures were any different.
#6
Administrator
Originally Posted by The_Infidel
There's been tons of things a lot worse that get by in Otter with no problems, so I still don't understand why those pictures were any different.
We try to keep it safe for situations like that, so people don't have to fear what will show up on their monitor when they're simply reading threads in the Other Forum, not the Adult Forum. In particular, you second barrage of pictures went well past that point.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Then simply un-img the pictures and make a mod note about it so the line will be a little better defined. It's not like I go around posting NSFW pictures all the time wherever I choose. "Well past the point"? Come on, X. These weren't pictures of naked chicks getting fucked. They were in bikinis on a public beach doing a photo shoot for a respectable national magazine.
Last edited by The_Infidel; 09-27-07 at 09:26 PM.
#8
Administrator
Thanks for giving me permission to spend the time editing all your pictures. Do you want me to do some spell-checking while I'm at it too?
If you want to spend the time un-imging the pictures, and getting the quoted ones un-imged too, I'll move the thread back to Other. Plaase put possibly NSFW notations by them too.
If you want to spend the time un-imging the pictures, and getting the quoted ones un-imged too, I'll move the thread back to Other. Plaase put possibly NSFW notations by them too.
#9
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by X
Thanks for giving me permission to spend the time editing all your pictures. Do you want me to do some spell-checking while I'm at it too?
Originally Posted by X
If you want to spend the time un-imging the pictures, and getting the quoted ones un-imged too, I'll move the thread back to Other. Plaase put possibly NSFW notations by them too.
BTW...you're one to talk about spell-checking.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
All done. That didn't take long at all.
Last edited by The_Infidel; 09-27-07 at 09:56 PM.
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by X
It's already done. Thank you.
And sorry for the crankiness. I assume some things should be understood that evidently aren't always.
And sorry for the crankiness. I assume some things should be understood that evidently aren't always.
Spelling fixed.
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swimsuits are NSFW? I've seen quite a few DVD covers that Geoff has said are ok since they're sold on Amazon. I don't see why questionable covers are allowed but people on the beach aren't. In fact, clicking on the reviews tab brings up half a dozen adult titles as well, those aren't marked inside a spoiler-like tab. Anyone looking for the Underworld (Blu-Ray) review could very easily scroll down to that without knowing the DVD cover for Filth Cums First is right there, completely uncensored with exposed breasts.
I personally have no problem with anything since no one sees my monitor but me, but it does seem odd that swimsuits aren't allowed when Geoff actually responded to the DVD cover issue with this:
That seems to be the opposite of "We try to keep it safe.." And is someone who is that concerned with what coworkers might see going to click on a thread that's clearly about a beach with over 1000 women in bikinis? Common sense dictates that there will be pictures inside.
I personally have no problem with anything since no one sees my monitor but me, but it does seem odd that swimsuits aren't allowed when Geoff actually responded to the DVD cover issue with this:
Originally Posted by gkleinman
Asked and answered...
The thing is we never get complaints about covers like this
<img src="http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000MM0LH8.jpg">
The site's not safe for work... It just isn't.
The thing is we never get complaints about covers like this
<img src="http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000MM0LH8.jpg">
The site's not safe for work... It just isn't.
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,725
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Gee whiz... how is what The Infidel posted (which is pretty innocuous, IMO) NSFW when this picture is in ad rotation on the front page of our site:
#17
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Dignam
Swimsuits are NSFW? I've seen quite a few DVD covers that Geoff has said are ok since they're sold on Amazon. I don't see why questionable covers are allowed but people on the beach aren't. In fact, clicking on the reviews tab brings up half a dozen adult titles as well, those aren't marked inside a spoiler-like tab. Anyone looking for the Underworld (Blu-Ray) review could very easily scroll down to that without knowing the DVD cover for Filth Cums First is right there, completely uncensored with exposed breasts.
Originally Posted by Mopower
Because DVDTalk doesnt get money from The Infidel posting pictures like that?
#19
DVD Talk God
Yeah, let's see, a thread about bikinis. Um, if I click on that I'm pretty sure there just might be a chance of pictures of girls in bikinis.
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
The fine line between SFW and NSFW
Just want to get some opinions here.
Which would you say is more SFW...
Girls fully-clothed, albeit in bikinis, on a public beach:
or a topless pop star wearing lingerie, from a Playboy spread:
Bear in mind that the beach pic was originally attached (along with other, similar pictures), but was changed to linked seemingly within minutes of being posted in Other, whereas the Playboy pic still remains attached one month later in Music.
So, I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn.
Which would you say is more SFW...
Girls fully-clothed, albeit in bikinis, on a public beach:
Spoiler:
or a topless pop star wearing lingerie, from a Playboy spread:
Spoiler:
Bear in mind that the beach pic was originally attached (along with other, similar pictures), but was changed to linked seemingly within minutes of being posted in Other, whereas the Playboy pic still remains attached one month later in Music.
So, I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn.
Last edited by The_Infidel; 10-27-07 at 10:43 AM.
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
So, are you saying mods are allowed to dictate their own standards of SFW and NSFW? Since you merged these threads, you can see what these pics went through.
I'm really not trying to question authority, by any means. I was just wondering why one was more acceptable than the other.
BTW...I like how you capitalized "Me". "I am Geoff! Me! The Man, I Am!"
I'm really not trying to question authority, by any means. I was just wondering why one was more acceptable than the other.
BTW...I like how you capitalized "Me". "I am Geoff! Me! The Man, I Am!"
#23
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Neither.... you shouldn't be looking at pics of women like that... you should be "working"...
#24
DVD Talk Hero
I have had entire threads closed that were far less borderline than others that remained. I didn't necessarily like it, but I understand that there are some standards that are impossible to set and we just have to move on when something is deemed poopy.