chanster

I don't know why my pics of executed U.S. Service Men were deleted. This **** is happening in the world, we have an obligation to show this stuff and to allow members to post ponography but not actual pictures of war seems quite ridicoulous.

wildcatlh

Yeah, but there's limits to what people can post in the mature forum (nudity yes, but not much more IIRC). So that's not the greatest of comparisons.

I have to agree with the decisions to disallow some pics. They're too greusome IMO. If people want to see it, there are plenty of places for them to find it.

GeoffK

Since the war forum is so new we're really working on keeping it as 'safe and sane' as we can. This means we're going to be more restrictive than some of our members would like.

I completely agree with you that this stuff is happening in the world and people should be able to see it if they are interested.

The problem is maintaining a balance between providing people with the 'reality' of war and having content which really messes people up. Many of the extremely graphic images are EXTREMELY disturbing, and the curious may wish that they HADDN'T EVER CLICKED on the link to see it. I recall when that reporter got killed in Pakistan a year or so ago there was a video of his decapitation. If I could go back and NOT clicked on that link I would have as the images were just bonechilling.

So for now, we're are ABSOLUTELY forbidding the display of graphic images of war in the forum and we are discussing if links are going to be permitted, but at this point we're going to err on the side of being protective of our members, as the really curious can probably find these images on the net on their own, and the ones who may click now and regret it later can thank us

das Monkey

Even though a certain poster loves to use tragic pics to force his personal agenda on the rest of us, I'm not in favor of disallowing LINKS. Either all of us are or at least should be expected to act like mature adults. If we don't want to see something, we shouldn't click on it. If you click on something called WAR FORUM, then a thread about disturbing images, and then the link itself, it's really your own damn fault, and I question whether we need to be protected from ourselves on this issue. Forcing everyone to use links protects us from other members, and that's wonderful; forbidding links protects us from ourselves, and I don't think that's a decision that should be made.

das

Copenhagen

Well said (as usual) das, I totally agree.

GeoffK

Das,

I respect where you are coming from, but disagree. Again I go back to the video of the journalist killed last year in Pakistan. Sometimes you THINK you're prepared for what you're going to see but when you're actually confronted with it, it's an entirely different matter.

I'm ok with linking to articles about the war, and if there are context pictures in that, that's fine. But combing the net for the most greusome and posting links to it in the war forum just doesn't sit well with me, and it has nothing to do with my stance on the war.

benedict

.... and for a long time links to certain, er, "rotten" sites have been made off-limits precisely because of the extreme/gross nature of what is to be found therein picture-wise.

inVectiVe

My main concern on this topic is consistency. If the admins decide to allow links to explicit war photos, I'd request that they similarly allow links to explicit abortion photos.

It wouldn't be fair if only one side had the opportunity "to use tragic pics to force [their] personal agenda on the rest of us."

Edit: Actually, abortion was just one example. If gory war pics are permissible, then anti-death penalty members should be allowed to link to sites showing guys riding Old Sparky. Advocates of more aid to Africa should have the option of linking images of malnourished / dead children. And so on.

MonkeyG

I think some of the dvdtalk sponsors may not be too happy if the p.o.w. pics were allowed in the war forum. It's a touchy subject and they might end up distancing themselves rather than risk sponsoring a site which may alienate potential customers.

Now, briefly, while we're on the war forum, these trolls are getting old. It's almost a guarantee someone's going to post a snide remark in every thread. It's not enough to report to a mod but all these little remarks are getting old and stale rather quickly. IMHO.

CaptainMarvel

That Daniel Pearl video isn't ever going to leave my mind. If I had the benefit of hindsight, I'd be extremely wary of clicking on that link again.

GeoffK

Our policy is site wide, war or not.

das Monkey

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth gkleinman •<HR SIZE=1>Das,

I respect where you are coming from, but disagree.<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right back at you. I see and respect your point ... I just don't agree. But I'll argue against myself with the same argument I use against people who can't seem to follow the spoiler rules: "you can't unread a spoiler." I don't agree with the philosophy of "protecting" us from the reality of what's happening, but I'm content to err on the side of "you can't unsee what you've seen." And I didn't think about this before, but <B>who me?</B> has a point about sponsors.

das

Venusian

I think that links should be allowed...to an extent. they should be clearly labeled as what they are. I never saw the daniel pearl link and am glad i didn't. I did happen to see footage of people being decapitated and their arms chopped off etc in afganistan and that was very disturbing.

however, in this particular case, it seems that these images have been played around the world and are not as gruesome as the daniel pearl video (although they are still gruesome).

I think that members can be mature enough to make the decision on their own if they want to follow a link or not

GeoffK

You and I are in the exact same shoes. That was some wacked sick stuff and even though some will diasgree I think it's a service to the DVD Talk community to not have links to stuff that can truly f' you up.

edytwinky

Bottom line if people want to see the photos there are many other news sites for them to browse. For me this site is to keep my mind off of the war. Yeah, I'll stop by the war forum to see what people are saying, but the last thing I want to see is gruesome photos.

Like I said earlier, there's really no need for photos or even links to that stuff. DVDTalk is totally here for a different reason.

Rogue588

I see all your points [How's that for democracy..? ]

But here's my impression..

When someone ventures into the Mature Talk forum, they have NO REASON to be shocked at what they see [Unless the creator of the thread is Phil L. ]. Just as someone shouldn't complain about coming across spoilers while reading a weekly TV show thread with the date and title. [which is what das said]

There are many members here from every race, creed, etnicity, religion, political affiliation, etc.. They each bring something different to this site. The DVD Bargain Forum is a great example. Thanks to contributions from a lot of members, i've saved hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. This site contains many different forums here. Some I visit, some I don't. But I enjoy having the opportunity to do so..and I appreciate the contributions/comments of others.

Someone venturing into the War Forum SHOULD expect viciousness. War is vicious. I feel this Forum should represent the truth of that. If someone is reporting on a news item, I would want to view where they got their information and see what they saw and then make up my own mind.

At the very least...links should be allowed [as it relates to the story..like you said -- not just grabbing random images off the 'net..] We have six moderators that i'm sure will rein in anything unappropriate to the conversation. [as they have been..]

[And this is regarding the War Forum only..let's not get crazy now..]

Of course, this is only my humble opinion.

inVectiVe

Good post!

The only minor nitpicky issue I have is with this:
Geoff said the policy would be "site wide," which I take to mean that the rules governing brutal war pics would apply to brutal non-war pics.

So the next time people debate the ethics of the tobacco industry, anti-smoking types would understandably want to provide images of cancer patients wasting away, blackened lungs, and whatnot.

I don't even have a strong opinion on this issue one way or the other; both sides bring up good points. I'm only asking that we all keep in mind that, if we liberalize (pun intended) the graphic pic rules for the (temporary) War Forum, we'll be having this argument again when that forum is gone. Some will say, "People got to show the true nature of war...I want to show the true nature of drunk driving fatalities." Others will counter, "That was just a temporary rule change for a temporary forum."

Whatever decision is made - and I'm sure the mods are way ahead of me on this - it should be spelled out nice and clear in a sticky thread at the top of whatever forum it applies to.

GuessWho

I never clicked on the decapitation. I have no idea why anyone WOULD want to see it. Hello? It's a decapitation!

Static Cling

I think you just answered your own question.

bfrank

No need for a link or pic. If you want to see it we are all on the web and you can go find it. No one has a problem with a discussion on these topics.

Using these types of images here seem only motivated by personal agendas on war, abortion, etc. This is the problem with it IMO.

MJKTool

I for one thank you for not allowing those types of images to be here at dvdtalk. To be honest I dont think I would ever go out of my way and search for these types of images but if a link was put right infront of me, I know curiosity would get the best of me unfortunetly.

SBatL8y

Also, there are some of us who have relatives/friends in the war. I really don't need to see a picture of how I COULD lose my brother. But thanks anyway.

ILikeDVD

i don't know but pictures speak LOUDER than words. Make the conclusions yourself by viewing them. I've seen bad link here on DVDtalk, links to SALO thumbs, Daniel Pearle, horrors at other countries. Warnings on mature pics have to be used, people can read. This might be the only and last war that jounalists will be embedded and see things on the warfront that will never be seen again. All their hard work on bringing us the real pics of war will be for naught(sp)

RandyC

Naught? Because we don't allow images like that on this forum?

Pictures do speak louder than words. That is part of the problem.

I have also seen bad links here, and have removed them when I did. If you see one, it does not mean we have changed our policy.

Bill Posters

Hmmm.

It seems to be sanitizing reality to me. I dislike that in the 'war forum' within minutes of a thread starting about B52s or A-10s in action, we get a "sweet! awesome!" picture of a B52 dropping bombs or an A-10 blazing away - so this nice sanitized videogame image is OK, but the images of the mangled mess of people on the receiving end isn't Head in the sand (ha ha, pun intended )