...

zzz

Did you silence him, jmo?

Over the past few weeks I campaigned for a change in the way this website was moderated.

I did so in the belief that Draugnar shares that moderator involvement is necessary but should remain minimal, particularly in the forums. And the mods listened.

I thought that following the 1st November mod changes, things would quieten down a bit. But a couple of you saw the opportunity to test the new rules and to continue a tirade of cheek at the mods.

In doing so you have let down the key principle of mutual respect and sensibility that I wanted to pursue. That is why I write this forum post in an appeal for calm…

As nobody is currently silenced and as the mods have agreed to change their policy let’s try to work together. Despite all of the things I’ve said about the mods I think they are decent people when given the opportunity and when they do not constantly have to be on the defensive.

Draugnar – please let’s move over the issue. Moderators – please do not jump to your defences as there is no real issue going on here.

The “explicit content” debate has its place but it should be a friendly debate and there is no reason to make it aggressive by either party.

You're a real hero, Synapse.

You had to make a thread for this? Geez...

Ignore STnapse - I want to see a lynching (from a distance of course)

I didn't want to bump the other thread which is full of negativity

Just to be clear: you know no one cares about what you say since you started bitching, right?

You're not the guy to tell anyone here what to do. You never were.

To clarify: that's because you'll just start bitching against everyone when the time is right. Probably with arguments like: 'you didn't follow my rules so I won't follow yours!', even though you're not the one to tell anyone what to do...

By the way since the mods are partaking less in silencing, I suggest we all make better use of the mute feature. I am already beginning to make a list....

Why can't we all just be friends ....... group hug !!

The forum is the argument against Libertarianism made manifest. When everyone has the unfettered privilege of doing the irresponsible, the obscene, the childish, the ignorant, the petty, the extreme, the idiotic, the offensive, the spiteful, the unproductive, the divisive, and the hateful, that's exactly what they'll do. The forum has lost all relevance for me, and I no longer find myself an active participant. What's needed is not fewer rules and less moderation, but more rules and more moderation. Until then, it will continue to be a festering cesspool of the worst humanity has to offer.

"What's needed is not fewer rules and less moderation, but more rules and more moderation. Until then, it will continue to be a festering cesspool of the worst humanity has to offer."
- that's what he's talking about and that's why I sign-on every day.+1

"What's needed is not fewer rules and less moderation, but more rules and more moderation."

Agreed 100%

I should also add to the above, however, that I neither expect nor predict that the community will nor should add rules or extra moderation in order to make the forum appealing to me. As a consequence of what I see as under-regulation of the forum, I will use it less, and contribute less. It is both fair and predictable that most members of the community will likely value the absolute openness of the forum more than it values my participation therein.

In other words, I don't like the content I get out of an unmoderated forum, so I'm not going to use it as much as I otherwise might. I don't expect or recommend that my withdrawal should give pause those who enjoy this kind of content.

Really guys the mods can either ban porn or they can not ban porn... it's up to them. Right now they just don't know what "porn" is. It's not libertarian versus authoritarian, it's just clarity of a rule. Getting the mods and admins together with kestas and just making a decision at once and then bringing it here would probably make life simpler...

If you want to add a catch-all clause, add a catch-all clause, but if there's no catch-all clause, don't moderate like there's a catch-all clause...

Simple things. Not libertarian versus authoritarian, not anarchy versus despotism, just whether or not something is porn... just figure that out and this all goes away...

@bo_sox

Just so you know, most of the best legal minds of your country have failed to define pornography, even to their own satisfaction.

bo_sox, the way Kestas defined it was as video's meant to have shock value and explicit content. Youtube defined that video as being explicit and needing adult permission to view. And having topless girls right off the bat is shock value.

Basically if you need to be a certain age to view something, please use some common sense and don't post it. If you want to share it with others there's always PMs.

The British Museum has recently opened an exhibit of Japanese Shunga art, which contains sexually explicit images. No admittance under 16. If I were to start a discussion of its art-historical context, am I risking a ban?

I would say use common sense. I'm pretty sure you can have a historical discussion without making it to shocking or explicit. I would assume that you wouldn't post any images that would fall under explicit or shocking.

hecks, the rules aren't unclear at all, don't post links to sexually explicit content, and as Kestas described it when he posted a few weeks back, anything meant for shock factor.

Some of them are quite explicit... 7th and 8th century images of men in full-frontal nudity with exaggerated genitalia, some showing penetration, many showing breasts.

My broader point is that the mods know what's offensive and what's not. They know when they're being baited or toyed with, and I think we should be giving the mods more leeway to ban stuff they find inappropriate. The decision of the mods should be final, not open to inane and infinite appeal. Can't we just let them do their job?

@Hecks I knew what you were talking about :)

I guess what I'm saying was more in response to what jmo said above, "having topless girls right off the bat is shock value".

With that in mind, I link below to a collection of some of the most understated images from the above-mentioned Shunga exhibit. One of the images includes a visible breast, but I don't think *anyone* would mistake it for offensive, shocking, or pornographic content.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2439945/Pornography-art-Explicit-Japanese-shunga-exhibition-hits-British-Museum.html

Hey SYnapse -- FUCK YOU you dick-licking cum sucker. *I* never posted any sexually explicit links, and I didn't advocate for it, your fucktard moron.

And...since when did this become all about you, as if you had anything to do with any changes going on? Geee....self-absorbed much, you stupid prick.

Fuck off, SYnpase, seriously.

Stop baiting hecks or you'll be banned!

@Hecks I'm sure you can see the difference between something like that, though with the more explicit stuff I wouldn't post links to, and what some people have been doing to try and push the boundries.