|
For the record, this cover is more disturbing. I will spoilerize it so as to not get anyone fired who clicks on it.
(Not safe for eyes!) Spoiler:
|
Originally Posted by pedagogue
I think this is a pretty valid complaint. As for your insistence on calling me prude (as you've done previously), I find that pretty offensive, as you are just trying to discredit a very valid complaint. You are free to believe what you'd like, but I'd appreciate you don't publicly label me, thanks.
You'll probably respond with a, "Well...I didn't mean *YOU*", since you are famous for generalizing. -p ps. The 'sniff' test for me is if it'd be something I'd publicly display in a typical store, in the plain view of all customers. Frankly, I'd consider the above as pornographic. Again, it seems like there are a select group of people that will never be happy with whatever line is drawn by G! This was predicted long ago and brought up again a few months ago when the actual porn titles, not Asian cinema titles, were split off onto Xcritic. Everyone acknowledged that while the split would satisfy most people uncomfortable with the growing amount of adult entertainment material, the hardcore complainers would never be happy until DVD Talk was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator level. How many times has G! had to bring up the horror covers as examples of what some of you think is perfectly acceptable versus those mean old bikinis, cleavage, or other covers that apparently scare the crap out of a few of you? In this particular case, the cover has stars censoring certain body parts. You can argue the defacto "Amazon" rule until you're blue in the face but as Das, X, myself, and others have pointed out; this has been the standard for years. And for the record, I never argued for this particular cover being in heavy rotation in all forums; I only pointed out what the rule has been and appears to still be in effect. Bus: scary! ;) |
Originally Posted by Houstondon
Gee, thanks for dragging me into the thread unannounced.
The review in question is here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31600 As far as my previous dedication to defending the faith on covers being shown on an adult site read by adults, your mileage may certainly vary. What got extremely old was the handful of same people pointing out every cover they didn't like and trying to generate ill will by providing the same argument on a regular basis, even after G! and the Admin/Mods would give the "If Amazon sells it..." speech. The strawman argument of my defending "the placement of every possible pornographic image or depiction" is false but I suspect you knew that, this being a variation of the theme that has been addressed scores of times too. For the record, he has "put his foot down" many times in the past but those who want things done their own way never cease to complain, the evolution of the website being such that moving all the TRULY pornographic titles catered to the needs of the few (but, as predicted, it will never be enough for the prudes). G! is free to change what goes where and as one of his "inner circle" of friends, I will support his decision, but at this writing, the "Amazon sells it, it's fair game" rule still seems to apply. Maybe next we'll have certain people protesting specific adult text too... Good luck with your quest! What I would like to see is one instance where you have been on the side of something crossing the line on the main DVDTalk site. If I'm wrong and I've missed it, then I will apologize. But from the past feedback threads like this, I have never seen anything other than your steadfast defense of anything anyone else may find offensive and then (predictably) resorting to calling them prudes at some point or another. Along with many others, I thought the X-Critic site was going to be a new driving focus for this kind of material. I also think that after reading Geoff's heartfelt and reasonable response on the Guns matter, that perhaps he could do the same on this matter. The Amazon rule is tough to push as the main rule because nobody knows what Amazon will or will not post until it just shows up here one day. All I would request is some consistency. |
For those who are complaining, I think the "answer" is obvious.
If Amazon sells dildos which pictures, post dildo pictures in the random picture thread. If Amazon has an offensive DVD cover, photoshop a DVDTalk member's head on it and post it in a photoshop thread. It's all accepted now. |
I think I found my new Christmas card this year..........
http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V6LT7Q.jpg |
Originally Posted by Houstondon
This was predicted long ago and brought up again a few months ago when the actual porn titles, not Asian cinema titles, were split off onto Xcritic.
|
Originally Posted by bravesmg
The idea that the "Torture Chamber" cover represents Asian Cinema and not Pornography is astounding to me. If that's not pornographic to you, and represents another niche such as Asian cinema, then there's nothing I could say or argue to make my case any clearer.
|
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
Especially after reading the review, I have to admit that I'd lump it under Asian cinema and not porn. I wouldn't put any of the more graphic Emmanuelle movies, releases by Severin Films (the self-described "Criterion of smut"), or those softcore genre spoofs with Misty Mundae and that whole crowd on XCritic either.
|
The Amazon thing doesn't hold water. You have to actually be looking for "Torture Camber" or quasi porn movies on their site to see them. They don't just randomly pop up on any page.
|
Originally Posted by bravesmg
The standard line that I've read in the past feedback sections just like this thread is (paraphrased) DVDTalk just isn't really a safe site for work.
|
My msg disappeared...........?
-p |
My previous post was lost in the blackhole, so here it is again.
Originally Posted by Houstondon
You've been involved in this particular type of argument in the past and your concerns were addressed at the time more than once.
Originally Posted by Houstondon
The first time you raise a "valid complaint" it is fine but repeatedly raising the issue puts it into "never happy" category.
Originally Posted by Houstondon
I abide by the rules here so no, I'm not going to single you out for your behavior (letting people read between the lines works just fine for me)
-p |
Originally Posted by pedagogue
My msg disappeared...........?
Originally Posted by bravesmg
I still believe that the "Torture Chamber" cover certainly represents itself as pornography
I support the "if it's on Amazon, it's fair game" school of thinking in general, and I'm not super-keen on the idea of someone having to manually check every cover to give it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a user to point out that he thinks a particular cover is too much. If one of the review admins agrees, they can keep the review up but take the cover out of circulation in the forums. If they disagree, then they don't. :) I personally don't have a problem with the image in question, but I can see why other people would object to it, and it is a more extreme case than chicks in bathing suits and the like that have inspired previous cover threads.
Originally Posted by Mopower
The Amazon thing doesn't hold water.
|
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
I checked the log, and it doesn't look like anything's been deleted from this thread. Is it possible your message didn't make it through...?
-p |
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
I personally don't have a problem with the image in question, but I can see why other people would object to it, and it is a more extreme case than chicks in bathing suits and the like that have inspired previous cover threads.
-p |
Does Amazon sell Kitty Cat French Kissing titles?
|
Originally Posted by bravesmg
(1) Please show me where Geoff has "put his foot down" on the subject of quasi-pornographic depictions on this site. The standard line that I've read in the past feedback sections just like this thread is (paraphrased) DVDTalk just isn't really a safe site for work. And I'm fine with that, again, it is his site. But I "dragged" you into this argument because you appear in every argument like this and make the same points, never failing to call those who disagree with you "prudes."
Originally Posted by bravesmg
(2) What I would like to see is one instance where you have been on the side of something crossing the line on the main DVDTalk site. If I'm wrong and I've missed it, then I will apologize. But from the past feedback threads like this, I have never seen anything other than your steadfast defense of anything anyone else may find offensive and then (predictably) resorting to calling them prudes at some point or another.
Originally Posted by bravesmg
(3) Along with many others, I thought the X-Critic site was going to be a new driving focus for this kind of material. I also think that after reading Geoff's heartfelt and reasonable response on the Guns matter, that perhaps he could do the same on this matter. The Amazon rule is tough to push as the main rule because nobody knows what Amazon will or will not post until it just shows up here one day. All I would request is some consistency.
Originally Posted by bravesmg
I guess this is where I would find your argument irrational, and I would bet you think the same of mine. The idea that the "Torture Chamber" cover represents Asian Cinema and not Pornography is astounding to me. If that's not pornographic to you, and represents another niche such as Asian cinema, then there's nothing I could say or argue to make my case any clearer.
Originally Posted by pedawhoever
Your veiled comments and generalizations are akin to the child who taunts others, and then run behind his mother ('rules' / 'authority'), while still taunting the others.
I've already suggested a technological solution to the matter but don't let your desire to blindly argue get in the way of logic & reason. Consider that this is another slippery slope faced by those in charge. While "you" as an individual may not have an issue with a bikini cover (for example), your argument would just push the envelop increasingly in the direction of censoring that as well. I'm not going to fuss about expecting people to work while being at work (we all have different work rules) but making this place SFW might mean making it safe for someone working at a Bible Belt day care, the Vatican, or the headquarters of NOW if a standard is not adopted. G! adopted a standard based on Amazon and has largely stuck to it in that regard. As with any line, there are people wanting the line pushed ever further in each direction so the balance is kept by NOT continually eroding it in favor of the LCD crowd. |
It seems that my child comments were prophetic.
Originally Posted by Houstondon
Originally Posted by pedawhoever You can call me 'prude' (you even said, 'technically' you didn't single someone out.....in the real world, using a modifier like that is an admission to knowingly trying to skirt the issue, but I digress). I stand by my comments that this cover is inappropriate. I also agree with what Adam mentioned, singling out the most offensive ones. You'll probably continue to argue the slippery slope, but I'd counter that if done reasonably (I know...a big stretch, but try and consider that there are reasonable people out there), this could work. -p |
Originally Posted by pedagogue
It seems that my child comments were prophetic.
As far as the cover is concerned, or covers in general for that matter, I suggested that any cover for a title labeled "mature" (reviewers select genres when entering reviews) be placed in a "save the children" situation where they only appeared at certain times (based primarily on USA times given the majority of members here) in the rotation on the forums page. I figured it wouldn't require a lot of coding, wouldn't require someone having to slug through ~23,000+ reviews and make judgment calls based on the mere possibility that someone would get emotionally involved in debates here, and would once again appease most people. I'm sure there will still be a contingent of unhappy people but doesn't that strike you as a reasonable compromise? |
I considered making a similar post a couple days ago. I don't care about the cover, but it's the sort of things that'll get people in trouble at work and at home. Is it really worth having in rotation? Common sense courtesy would seem to indicate that it's inappropriate for a main page banner ad.
How many visitors to dvdtalk consider the site "not safe for work"? Or "not safe in front of the wife"??? |
Originally Posted by Houstondon
It's called the search engine; by all means avail yourself of the feature to find more than a few examples of G! stating he was okay with covers as listed on Amazon and this website being NSFW at times (which you are now admitting to yourself). I don't think ALL who disagree with me are "prudes", only those that continue to argue after the rules have been established, repeatedly I might add (and technically, I never called a "specific" person a prude since name-calling is frowned upon).
Originally Posted by Houstondon
Huh? If you mean where I disagree with the established rules, perhaps you forget that G! is my close personal friend (and has been for years). As such, I bring my disagreements regarding the rules directly to him; cutting out the very helpful middlemen in the process. Granted, I don't flaunt my disagreement with whatever policies or rules in public forums since I do not own or manage the website, figuring that to be the classy way to go. Maybe you could learn a lesson in etiquette by my example...
That's also an extremely strange argument, because you're friends with the owner you don't need to post any disagreements? Well bully for you, because you have connections you don't have to provide feedback in the same way as us commoners to the site? I can't say I know Geoff, and he sure doesn't know me. So I'm posting in the feedback section of his site, would you like me to call his house or something?
Originally Posted by Houstondon
WWW.xcritic.com is meant to be the "driving force" for the true porn content; the last such example here being the "Best Damn Giveaway Contest" that ended last week. Also, I was NOT advocating the perfect consistency of the Amazon rule (no matter how a few of you try to pigeonhole my portion of the discussion); only point out the regularity of this being mentioned by G! and his appointed assistants as the rule of thumb they go by. Had the cover in question been completely nude without the stars, I would probably agree with restricting them myself. Until G! says otherwise though, the "consistency" of the aforementioned "Amazon rule" should be enough for you (the attention the review is getting because of this debate is also propelling it into the top ten review list, ensuring you see it even more by the way...).
Originally Posted by Houstondon
Adam covered it better than I could (pun intended), go read the review and you'll see what he meant.
Originally Posted by Houstondon
I took up the standard arguments against the standard bearers of the "we hate the Amazon rule", "we want covers dumbed down", and "we want to go against a long time stated practice" folks. How many of you have quoted G! or the past rulings on the matter while acting as if this is something new? (quite hypocritically from the looks of it)
Originally Posted by Houstondon
I've already suggested a technological solution to the matter but don't let your desire to blindly argue get in the way of logic & reason. Consider that this is another slippery slope faced by those in charge. While "you" as an individual may not have an issue with a bikini cover (for example), your argument would just push the envelop increasingly in the direction of censoring that as well. I'm not going to fuss about expecting people to work while being at work (we all have different work rules) but making this place SFW might mean making it safe for someone working at a Bible Belt day care, the Vatican, or the headquarters of NOW if a standard is not adopted. G! adopted a standard based on Amazon and has largely stuck to it in that regard. As with any line, there are people wanting the line pushed ever further in each direction so the balance is kept by NOT continually eroding it in favor of the LCD crowd.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by bravesmg
Do you know how condescending you sound to anyone who disagrees? I assume that you do, but I'll just go ahead and say it again here, the sarcasm and pretentiousness of your posts is almost tangible. You ask me to use the search engine to find something that I've already posted.
I also love that you can so deftly skirt the name calling rules so often and flagrantly. And keep skirting those name calling "technicalities", you seem quite comfortable with them. I guess that I wish intent was also a call that moderators could make, you seem very proud of yourself that you're able to basically say whatever you want and almost call out posters for being "prudes" without actually calling them specifically and by name that term. -p |
Originally Posted by Houstondon
As far as the cover is concerned, or covers in general for that matter, I suggested that any cover for a title labeled "mature" (reviewers select genres when entering reviews) be placed in a "save the children" situation where they only appeared at certain times (based primarily on USA times given the majority of members here) in the rotation on the forums page. I figured it wouldn't require a lot of coding, wouldn't require someone having to slug through ~23,000+ reviews and make judgment calls based on the mere possibility that someone would get emotionally involved in debates here, and would once again appease most people. I'm sure there will still be a contingent of unhappy people but doesn't that strike you as a reasonable compromise?
-p |
Originally Posted by bravesmg
I have no idea what you're talking about at the end there, but I'm going to respond to the NSFW thing. I've already said that's understood and I have no issue with that. I own my own business, it's irrelevant what I do or do not look at. What I would like, is to be able to recommend DVD Talk, a place that I spend quite a bit of time and enjoy the benefits and community, to friends and family. But I can't when I don't know if they're going to see pornography prominantly displayed as one of the first things they see in a forum. I've saved countless dollars from folks like Speedy and others and enjoy the community in almost all of the forums. I would love if I could recommend it to people without worrying about the explanations of why porn is showing up. If I knew it would be consistently, then I would know better. But when it goes months and months, and a new adult forum is introduced, I thought that the pornography aspect would remain in that forum for the many who enjoy it there.
I'm curious but do the covers for the following upset you too (all of which are in rotation and only a small portion of the hundreds upon hundreds of potentially offensive covers): Gag (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31427) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000S0SYHS.jpg Pornography Prostitution USA (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31497) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V1Y46Y.jpg Cannibals (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31549) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000TZJCOQ.jpg The Eroticist (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31420) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V6LT5I.jpg Cougar Club (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31604) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000UUX2QO.jpg Amateur Porn Star Killer (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31498) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000V02CLY.jpg Lady Chatterly (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31524) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000W2C29S.jpg Naked Boys Singing (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31618) http://images.dvdtalk.com/covers/B000UYBP7S.jpg |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.