A bit excessive?
Discussion
Seems a bit silly as a giant falice in the back of a pick up truck really is no different to, two snowmen getting it on etc, its both nature defined in snow, and anyone reading PH should be old enough to understand the birds and the bees, seems a bit crap to ban someone for a few days just because they posted a pic of snowmen etc doing things, not like they are real people, not like its porn, just funny/comical etc whats the worst that will happen, in all honesty?
pits said:
Seems a bit silly as a giant falice in the back of a pick up truck really is no different to, two snowmen getting it on etc, its both nature defined in snow, and anyone reading PH should be old enough to understand the birds and the bees, seems a bit crap to ban someone for a few days just because they posted a pic of snowmen etc doing things, not like they are real people, not like its porn, just funny/comical etc whats the worst that will happen, in all honesty?
Thank you very much 
Stuart said:
As you said, rules are rules.
It was a picture that you acknowledged was probably NSFW, but you posted it and now you're complaining that it was removed?
Sorry, but I'm not really sure what more I'm supposed to say to that...
No I think you'll find that he's complaining about being banned from the lounge for three days after posting that he wasnt sure if it was ok to post the piccy. It was then removed by mods and he was banned. It was a picture that you acknowledged was probably NSFW, but you posted it and now you're complaining that it was removed?
Sorry, but I'm not really sure what more I'm supposed to say to that...
Could the mods not merely have removed it and sent him a message or posted a message stating why it was removed and told him off ??
Edited by Tallbut Buxomly on Sunday 10th January 17:48
Out of interest, would the mods have viewed this differently if a link to the picture were posted with a NSFW disclaimer, rather than the picture itself? At least then someone has the choice to continue and click on the link if they wish. (I'm assuming the picture in question was seasonally rude and funny, rather than blatant porn).
eta, I appreciate standards of some sort need to be kept, but this might make the line that is not to be crossed a little clearer.
eta, I appreciate standards of some sort need to be kept, but this might make the line that is not to be crossed a little clearer.
Edited by pacman1 on Monday 11th January 11:32
pacman1 said:
Out of interest, would the mods have viewed this differently if a link to the picture were posted with a NSFW disclaimer, rather than the picture itself? At least then someone has the choice to continue and click on the link if they wish. (I'm assuming the picture in question was seasonally rude and funny, rather than blatant porn).
Yes that was posted no problems as far as I am aware, whilst the moderating on here is generally pretty damn good, this snowman picture removal is a bit "new labour" Two snowmen in a provocative position gets removed for what reason exactly?
Dictionary has this for Pornography
por⋅nog⋅ra⋅phy
–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
The snowmem weren't obscene, and you have to give the person who did it, some artistic merit for thinking of it, and then doing it very well.
Or how about this description
por·nog·ra·phy
n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Nothing sexually explicit about those pictures, nor was I aroused from it
I feel the mentality of deleting that picture would be the same as me posting a picture of Michelangelo's', David or his painting in the Sistine chapel the fall and expulsion of Adam and Eve. To me there appears to be little difference, as it shows naked inanimate objects, nothing I would crack one off to.
What are the PH mods worried about? Someone in work with looking at a thread titled NSFW and getting caught? Or are you thinking of the children? Most kids that would come on here would have to be old enough to understand that picture, or not.
I don't see the problem here? I mean give it till the end of today and it will have been circular emailed to everyone in the UK on their work pc's anyway.
Has the standard been set that PHers are no longer allowed to post NSFW jokes or pictures which have some sort of sexual reference regardless of what it is?
Most of us are all adults at the end of the day, we post on PH a website that has become a fighting force in todays interbutts, I could understand if someone had posted a picture of REAL people having sex over a bridge, but not snowmen just ridiculous, only a bit of fun and comical humour, shame as the PH moderating has been tres good over the years, I hope this isn't the shape of things to come.
pits said:
I feel the mentality of deleting that picture would be the same as me posting a picture of Michelangelo's', David or his painting in the Sistine chapel the fall and expulsion of Adam and Eve. To me there appears to be little difference, as it shows naked inanimate objects, nothing I would crack one off to.
Isn't Michelangelo's David considered to have some artistic value "Michelangelo's David is based on artistic drawings of the male human form. He considered sculpture to be the highest form of art because, among other reasons, it mimics divine creation. Because Michelangelo adhered to the concepts of disegno, he worked under the premise that the image of David was already in the block of stone he was working on — in much the same way as the human soul is found within the physical body. It is also an example of the contrapposto style of posing the human form."
The deleted sculpture was a snowman with an erection.
I don't think it's a valid point to suggest that any picture or depiction of nakedness is somehow the same. Perhaps if the snowman didn't look so aroused, stuart would have possibly considered it suitable for inclusion in the snowman gallery?
To me it's all about context, that's the difference between the two 'pieces'.
Edited by el stovey on Monday 11th January 15:22
el stovey said:
pits said:
I feel the mentality of deleting that picture would be the same as me posting a picture of Michelangelo's', David or his painting in the Sistine chapel the fall and expulsion of Adam and Eve. To me there appears to be little difference, as it shows naked inanimate objects, nothing I would crack one off to.
Isn't Michelangelo's David considered to have some artistic value "Michelangelo's David is based on artistic drawings of the male human form. He considered sculpture to be the highest form of art because, among other reasons, it mimics divine creation. Because Michelangelo adhered to the concepts of disegno, he worked under the premise that the image of David was already in the block of stone he was working on — in much the same way as the human soul is found within the physical body. It is also an example of the contrapposto style of posing the human form."
You could argue then, that the image of the snowman was already present in the drift awaiting 'release'!
el stovey said:
The deleted sculpture was a snowman with an erection.
I don't think it's a valid point to suggest that any picture or depiction of nakedness is somehow the same. Perhaps if the snowman didn't look so aroused, stuart would have possibly considered it suitable for inclusion in the snowman gallery?
So size does matter!I don't think it's a valid point to suggest that any picture or depiction of nakedness is somehow the same. Perhaps if the snowman didn't look so aroused, stuart would have possibly considered it suitable for inclusion in the snowman gallery?
el stovey said:
To me it's all about context, that's the difference between the two 'pieces'.
So the snowman was indeed art, just overendowed.
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff