Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Moderation requests & discussion thereof

Page: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68(69)70 71 72 73 74... 95

12:50 / 22.05.07

thank ya!

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:40 / 22.05.07

I scrub it, I scrub it, I may have to boil it,
The Head Shop smells ever so slightly of toilet.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

19:04 / 22.05.07

Okay I've released the Lols back into the wild, but I?m not sure what to do about Skynet. Thoughts?

19:08 / 22.05.07

I vote to give up and let it take over the world.

19:12 / 22.05.07

I can't edit any posts in conversation. I get the 'you don't have the necessary permissions' note.

07:12 / 23.05.07

TTS: Eezy has started a new one in The Temple so lock it, I guess - perhaps a final post with a link to the duplicate thread?

10:49 / 23.05.07

I've proposed a lock, I doubt the need for a link.

12:53 / 24.05.07

Folks,

I have put a thread entitled "Making Magic to Sell?" in Creation, could it move to the Temple?

Many, many tas...

Disco is My Class War

13:43 / 24.05.07

Could you please move loltheorists back to the Head Shop? No-one in the Conversation is interested in posting to it. Oh, except for the dissing. It belongs where the people who are into theory inhabit -- a meta thread, if you will. And god, maybe a little levity in the HS would do some good. Apart from the bdsm thread, which seems to sputter into life very occasionally on the heels of a DEDI outburst (and will do so no longer) and the ongoing trans thread, the Head Shop has been remarkably empty of engaging threads for the past... year? Speaking as a regular, loltheorists is more interesting than the lot.

If anyone wants to read a more spirited defence of this move, go read my post to the actual thread.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:55 / 24.05.07

I have to agree that a bit of ludens can be no worse than "what if teh bigots were right?" or "there's some good in all threads, right?", so I have put in for to be moved back.

Closed for Business Time

14:54 / 24.05.07

Can someone please lock and delete the new intro thread in Convo? I redirected the 2 that posted to the old one (NEW MEMBERS), and they've both reposted there. Cheeeeeeeers!

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:55 / 24.05.07

I've put the lock move in.

21:02 / 24.05.07

I've proposed the temple move Sibelian.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:58 / 24.05.07

Yeah, why not? The current standard of the Head Shop is such that watching an .avi of somebody defecatiing into their own mouth would be about baseline. The loltheorist thread at the very least involves having looked at wikipedia. That's growth of a sort.

Disco is My Class War

08:28 / 25.05.07

Thanks.

10:03 / 25.05.07

Anyone remember this guy? I just got an email from him asking me to PM Ganesh and get his suit back. I told him the big G was no more so he'd have to reapply and get a fresh suit, but out of interest, what would you have said?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:09 / 25.05.07

Hum. Sam T... I thought he was basically a decent sort, but he had some funny ideas. Notably, he was a bit wonky on the finer points of feminism and sex tourism IIRC. I exchanged a few PMs with him and he seemed pleasant enough and willing to take on board what other people were saying, but then came the meltdown and the posting of his login details on the public board. What's to stop that happening next time? I'd like some sort of assurance that he realises why that's a bad idea before he gets a new suit.

08:47 / 26.05.07

I've put in a couple of requests: to add html to sara's link in the Vogue thread topic post in AF&D, and to add a summary to the thread. I have pm'd sara to let her know.

11:19 / 26.05.07

Tis done, then. Ta, folks!

20:11 / 29.05.07

This topic has an incorrect title. The name of the flick is "At World's End" not "The World's End".

Please change...?

kthnxbai

05:50 / 31.05.07

The Vogue covers thread in AF&D, now has an FHM cover image in it.

I've put in a request to alter the topic summary to say "Warning, sexualised images in thread" (& also one to resize the images). I don't know quite where the boundary is on what is worksafe but does the second image need putting behind hide tags?

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:43 / 31.05.07

One or the other, I think.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:48 / 31.05.07

Sorry, that was a bit short - I think maybe it's a good idea in future to use that hide function when posting images that by necessity have to be large, and even better if they're potentially upsetting or whatever... I think if you've post in for that addition to the topic summary, that's fine for now.

09:55 / 31.05.07

Ta; I've put a request in to put the FHM image behind those + - spoiler tags, using the code given in the FAQ pages.

19:37 / 01.06.07

Uh, guys?

that "Relationships Suck" thread I posted in a blur of annoyance and "What the Hell"?

It was really stupid.

Um.

Can I be an (extremely embarassed) idiot and ask to get it terminated with extreme prejudice?

20:26 / 02.06.07

Thank you, one and all.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

14:47 / 06.06.07

Will someone please delete my duplicate Tea thread? Also, enter the convo and search for "tea" and note how nothing comes up. I wonder if three letter search terms don't work, I know a few places where that is the case.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:24 / 06.06.07

The search function here has never worked properly. It's one of our little quirks.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:26 / 06.06.07

The having eyes function can work quite well though. It was on the front page, old chap.

09:00 / 07.06.07

I feel uncomfortable about the decision that one image is more sexualised than the other in the A,F&D thread. I think either both should be tagged, or neither. I think the Vogue cover is just as provocative and could easily be an FHM cover. I realise that that is the whole point of the comparison, but by tagging one image of a naked woman and not another I think we are making a judgement as a board about what version of nakedness is acceptable here without being put behind tags. The FHM girl has no more or less clothes on than the Vogue girl. Both images are pretty sexy. I don't understand how we can deem one 'worse' than the other.

Does that make sense?

I agree, personally, that both covers should be tagged as NSFW. I also agree that they are very sexualised images but I don't think we need to actually put that in our tagging reason. NSFW means the image could be sexualised surely, doesn't it?

I think that if we tag the FHM cover, we tag the Vogue one. Or we don't tag either. I prefer tagging both but I would prefer that the reference to sexualisation is removed from the tag because it feels too judgemental. Elsewhere on this site in the past we have NSFW linked to images far more sexualised that the FHM cover but without the reference to sexualisation. Simply NSFW should do.

09:20 / 07.06.07

Clearer Thought: By putting one image under a tag saying "Edit: sexualised image put behind hide tags, maybe NSFW" but leaving the other to be viewed in thread without any warning we have essentially behaved exactly as Vogue knows people will in response to images of nudity on their cover, in that 'because it's Vogue it's somehow fine'. But I don't think it is. I think that the model on the Vogue cover is just as sexualised as the FHM cover - look at the position of her legs.

I would really like us to put both images behind the same tag or leave them both in thread.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:25 / 07.06.07

I agree - I think people might just be excited by the new possibilities of the spoiler tag. An NSFW PICs warning in the thread title should be enough - one can put things behind spoiler script if one wishes, but it's worth noting that other, more excitable contributors might not. So, for example, someone might decide further down to make a point by contrasting the images so far with a scanned Razzle centrefold - the NSFW warning to a degree anticipates future content, as well as warning of current, I think.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:39 / 07.06.07

I'm really a bit torn on this - on the one hand, I do see the argument for putting images equivalent to an FHM cover behind a cut. But I also think that sometimes you have to credit the users of Barbelith with enough intelligence to know what kind of content a thread will contain from its title - the Lust List thread, for example, doesn't need to say more than that it has PICS in it, because any fool can figure out that a Lust List with images will include teh sexy images. And I think that a thread about Vogue could reasonably be accepted to include images of the cover or other pages from Vogue.

However, in this case because the question was asked "is there a difference between these two images", I agree with Mooncat that putting one behind a cut prejudices any response. The problem then with Haus' proposed solution is that while it's good in many ways, it doesn't really allow for people who might want to discuss Vogue but not look at images from Razzle...

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:49 / 07.06.07

Well, my response there would probably be to put a PICs, potentially NSFW warning in the thread title and leave it to individuals to decide whether to use hide tags, and to decide whether to take the risk of viewing the thread with images on at work... in this case, yes, the comparison does make a bit of a difference, because the presentation might affect the reception.

09:52 / 07.06.07

Because the FHM image is a traditional porn pose it's being viewed as 'more' sexy. But the Vogue image is just as sexy.

Our responses to the images are tied up in all kinds of preconceptions - of the magazines themselves, of what kinds of poses are 'sexy', of class; the Vogue picture is being considered as far more 'classy', even though the model has her legs akimbo.

But however you view them it's true they are sexy pictures and that's a slightly different conversation to a generic 'Vogue cover' one and that's why I do think there's an argument for NSFW linking in thread, but only for both images.

Page: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68(69)70 71 72 73 74... 95