Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

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

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

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

Old 05-02-08, 12:02 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,757
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
no... 7 is offensive.. 5 is ok.. wonder what 69 is?
j123vt_99 is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 12:27 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Originally Posted by The Bus

NSFW content

*fap* *fap* *fap* *fap*
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 01:00 PM
  #53  
Mod Emeritus
 
benedict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
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.
benedict is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 01:56 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,610
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.

Last edited by Seantn; 05-02-08 at 02:00 PM.
Seantn is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 02:02 PM
  #55  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,790
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.
lotsofdvds is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 02:06 PM
  #56  
Mod Emeritus
 
benedict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
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.
benedict is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 02:17 PM
  #57  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,790
^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.
lotsofdvds is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 03:02 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Originally Posted by Rockmjd23
@ lotsofdvds new picture!
Bring back Ron. We need more scotch.
orangecrush is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 05:33 PM
  #59  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 12,701
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.
milo bloom is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 06:16 PM
  #60  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,859
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.
melbatoast is offline  
Old 05-02-08, 09:13 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Chrisedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Part of the Left-Wing Conspiracy
Posts: 6,792
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...
Chrisedge is offline  
Old 05-03-08, 12:59 AM
  #62  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 4,284
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.
jadasion is offline  
Old 05-03-08, 05:08 AM
  #63  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
argh923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Muncie, IN [Member formerly known as abrg923]
Posts: 6,341
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.
argh923 is offline  
Old 05-03-08, 07:29 AM
  #64  
Moderator
Thread Starter
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,125
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.
nemein is offline  
Old 05-03-08, 09:39 AM
  #65  
Mod Emeritus
 
benedict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Outside of the U.S.A.
Posts: 10,674
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.
benedict is offline  
Old 05-04-08, 10:28 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,610
lotsofdvds, did they make you take down your picture from that Zodiac Rapist image, or did you do it yourself?
Seantn is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 07:41 AM
  #67  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,790
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.
lotsofdvds is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 10:56 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Kittydreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,611
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?
Kittydreamer is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 11:37 AM
  #69  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Rockford IL
Posts: 5,760


I missed it - what was his pic?
emanon is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 11:42 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
He wasn't fired. lotsofdvds, if you have issues with anything, take it up with whoever is in charge of reviewers.
Venusian is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 12:13 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Minor Threat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by lotsofdvds
No, it looks like they just fired me.

Are you not reviewing DVD's anymore....?
Minor Threat is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 12:34 PM
  #72  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,125
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.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 12:51 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 8,757
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.
j123vt_99 is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 01:10 PM
  #74  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by wendersfan
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.
Correct. No need for an uproar everyone. "Fired" wasn't the right word. "Purged" is more appropriate. I was old school.
lotsofdvds is offline  
Old 05-05-08, 05:05 PM
  #75  
Defunct Account
 
John Sinnott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,919
Taking LotsofDVDs off the reviewer list was my doing. After Xcritic split, there were a lot of writers who migrated over there and no longer active on this site still listed as reviewers. It was getting unwieldy so I decided to purge everyone who was no longer an active DVDTalk reviewer.

There were several people, not just Lots. Sorry for any confusion.
John Sinnott is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.