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?

I believe that guy is one of our mods.

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.

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.

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.

Well, I guess it just depends on whether you can put yourself in the place of somebody sitting in a cubicle at work with other people passing by.

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.

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.

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.

Did I wrong you in another life or something? Jesus Christ!

Now that I know you have a problem with it, and apparently the only one with the problem with it, I'll be glad to! Just give me a few minutes, and the job will be joyfully done.

BTW...you're one to talk about spell-checking.

All done. That didn't take long at all.

It's already done. Thank you.

And sorry for the crankyness. I assume some things should be understood that evidently aren't always.

You're welcome.

Spelling fixed.

Not to hijack the thread, but X, can you check your PM when you have a moment? Thanks.

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.

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:

Because DVDTalk doesnt get money from The Infidel posting pictures like that?

There is no logic for determining what is NSFW on this site. None. Just accept that and you'll be a happier member.OK, maybe some logic.

Hey, looking at that picture makes my member plenty happy.

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.

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.

They both seem SFW to Me.

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!"

Neither.... you shouldn't be looking at pics of women like that... you should be "working"...

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.

The second girl from the left has a package!