Hello Adam. Perhaps you can help me out here?

In reply to:

---

1. Do not post your genitalia as inline images.

---

I wasn't familiar with the term 'inline' before, but a quick search suggests you mean using the 'image' tags to plant an image straight into the thread, am I right?

How long did you spend dreaming up those guidelines, Adam? Normally you spend a day or a couple of hours at least in an attempt to iron out blatant contradictions and harmonising all mods so that they're singing from the same hymn sheet. I can't see any consistency here with the previous guidelines on porn, least of all from yourself. I'll begin by quoting Twister:

In reply to:

---

Twister 04/06/02
Explicit content is just plain not allowed here, for legal reasons. There was once a thread entitled "Warning: Pornography Included (All In Good Fun)", or something similar. The pornographic pictures were deleted, by the moderator Adam, and the thread was eventually locked.

---

Clearly the message you put out after the 'Warning: Porn Included . . .' thread, as restated by Twister, was that there was zero tolerance on such pictures, behind a cut or not, even with such an unambiguous thread title as that. What's the change here? Was that thread full of pussy too?

Also, why have you not locked the various contemporary pornographic threads in the coffee shop if you truly know what you're doing?

EJ also agrees that pornography is bad - correction: dangerous - and that there is no room for it at all on TW:

In reply to:

---

EJ Sunday 10/20/04
The next thing I find important is to keep an eye on dangerous content here. This is a tricky thing as some find funny what others find disgusting or perfectly legal. Racism and pornography must be kept away as well as illegal offerings of music or sometimes content from other web sites.

---

I can't remember whether EJ expanded on what he planned to do about 'racism' (haven't there been numerous racist remarks lately that he's done sod all about?), but bunching together the various types of 'dangerous' content like this implies they ought to be dealt with by exactly the same procedures. EJ, given your recent actions, you must explain to TW in light of the above why you granted preferential treatment to one and not the other.

Adam, I hope I won't confuse you too much by bringing in Ohro here. Her rules differ again, suggesting that the guidelines are in continual flux. (i.e. are useless.)

In reply to:

---

Ohramona: 05/31/05
Things I'd like to see, but I'm not gonna have a hissy fit if I don't include:
1: porn/obscene images only as links, not imbedded in posts, and with warnings.

---

Ohro here is definitely saying that she is less keen to uphold the rules rigidly, suggesting that porn as urls is fine - the ideal - but that ultimately it doesn't trouble her to the extent that she'll throw 'hissy fits' if this isn't adhered to. This appears to have been what at least some posters believed was the case with the recent 'obscene' coffee shop threads. Some users, as you correctly stated, thrust their genitalia shamelessly slap bang into the middle of the thread, others sidestepped shyly behind the modest fig leaf of an attachment or url. But since no action was taken on cutting or removing the offending images for 3-4 days, the clear message from TW HQ was that no-one was offended to the extent of giving a stuff (falling squarely within Ohro's rule, I suggest) - or, if someone did, WHERE THE FUCK where the *six* moderators/administrators who had power to remove them when you were needed?

Moving on:

Your guide completely fails to mention pornographic images that are posted as attachments. This topic has been mentioned before (albeit briefly) by our moderator Tati who agrees with you that images should not be tagged for the reasons you described - i.e. springing an unpleasant surprise - but she goes on further to suggest that it would be okay as long as the image was 'hidden' as an attachment, ergo:

In reply to:

---

Tati 04/06/02
About the suggestion to put in the title of every thread when it's about adult material, I don't think it would work when the picture is in a post that is a "reply"; for the ones that use the flat mode, the picture would just open (unless it's an attachment), together with the "hey, here is adult material" title.

---

So, Adam, is it okay to post porn as attachments, or is this another discrepancy?

In reply to:

---

2. The correct method is to use a URL link preferably with some kinda prior warning (so people at work, uni, etc. know what they're getting).

---

Adam, please explain what happened to Strawman's 'legit' url links here:

In reply to:

---

Strawman 10/28/05

I've supplied links to porn, even with ample warning for the deaf, dumb & blind here, and still the posts were deleted -- I think that's because the moderators feel as though they have to be seen as doing something, otherwise, what is their function exactly?

---

Sysiyo, as we all know is (or has been) keener than most moderators on eliminating porn to the extent that monkeyboy called into question the deletion of certain images in the artiste forum. In this post he apologises for acting too rashly in deleting a certain picture. He concludes, however, that

In reply to:

---

Sysiyo: 05/23/05
And the picture was (a) poor taste, (b) inappropriate, (c) borderline pornographic and (d) reminded me eeriely of my mother.

---

I'll let (d) slip by for now as a wayward shot at humour, but after apologising for acting incorrectly, he still he argues that these facts (a-c) remain. So if 'borderline' pornographic images are given consideration for deletion, perhaps it would help if you were to add an additional section to your post above, explaining exactly what your policy is on those.

I also point out that many subsequent images that fall under one or more of Sysiyo's points have become the mainstay of TW's repertoire of recurring jokes (e.g. Pablo's moustache qualifies for all four).


[neon]I'm not trolling; I'm moderating. [/neon]