When is a picture / post NSFW or just an environmental picture?

[jlm]

so, is the onus on the viewer or on the moderators to control image display?

i say both and i say it has been well handled by the moderators in the past and in this instance

 

[iiiNelson]

so, is the onus on the viewer or on the moderators to control image display?

i say both and i say it has been well handled by the moderators in the past and in this instance

I agree it's on both as well. I respect the decision of the moderator to leave it as is. Ultimately I don't have as strong of a vested interest though and I don't make decisions here even if I've only ever felt like a welcomed and valued member by the staff.

I would agree that the image was fine where it was UNTIL someone expressed a reasonable concern (employment concerns and religious beliefs.) At that point I think it's reasonable to move it because it wasn't like the first person said he didn't like the image but rather would prefer not to see it in case the IT department gets overeager in their pro-activeness. The other person voiced concerns to not see it due to religious beliefs only to get the response of "get over it because it's art" or "hit page down."

By that rationale I don't see why others can't just get over it, hit page down, and view artistic images in the artistic image threads (after they label it NSFW of course.)

Again... We are just beating a dead horse and it's getting to the point of exasperating.

 

[Godfrey]

I agree it's on both as well. I respect the decision of the moderator to leave it as is. Ultimately I don't have as strong of a vested interest though and I don't make decisions here even if I've only ever felt like a welcomed and valued member by the staff.

I would agree that the image was fine where it was UNTIL someone expressed a reasonable concern (employment concerns and religious beliefs.) At that point I think it's reasonable to move it because it wasn't like the first person said he didn't like the image but rather would prefer not to see it in case the IT department gets overeager in their pro-activeness. The other person voiced concerns to not see it due to religious beliefs only to get the response of "get over it because it's art" or "hit page down."

By that rationale I don't see why others can't just get over it, hit page down, and view artistic images in the artistic image threads (after they label it NSFW of course.)

Again... We are just beating a dead horse and it's getting to the point of exasperating.

+1

In summary:

• As a poster, use good judgement and post what you think is going to be acceptable to all.
• As a viewer, use good judgement as to when and where you are viewing a photo site. Post if you feel that an image is a problem for you, without calling names, calling in political or religious horsepucky, or otherwise getting up on a righteous podium.
• As a moderator, call the shot if there is disagreement. Everyone must agree with the moderator or take it up with him/her off-line from the public part of the forum. Moderators are always able to change their mind too.

My SeePhoto mailing list and the Pentax "PDML" list invites discussion by plain text and links to images. No one can inadvertently put an image up on the screen that way ... the posters can say up front in the posting whether the image includes some taboo subject—whether marking it as "non safe for work" or just risque, or explicitly sex/violence, etc—and it's up to the viewers to click the link to view the images if they so desire.

It's not as convenient as an in-place, in-stream image display, but it has its advantages: this sort of teacup tempest doesn't happen very often.

G
---
And now back to rocks, cats, and flowers.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

And now back to rocks, cats, and flowers.

But Godfrey, I don't want only rocks, cats, flowers and snow for that matter.

 

[iiiNelson]

I generally agree with everything you posted but religious interests/ practices are as valid as the next reason IMO. There's a wide gap between a person who peacefully practices their religion without harming anyone and an all out extremist or fanatic (not that there's anything wrong with that as long as you aren't hurt anyone or constantly trying to convert everyone to your way of thinking.)

Oh and don't you go disparaging rocks or flowers... Cats are perfectly fine to disparage but not dogs, rocks, or flowers (I'm only kidding but this thread did need to lighten up.)

 

[iiiNelson]

But Godfrey, I don't want only rocks, cats, flowers and snow for that matter.

Especially yellow snow...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I find ironic that most of those opposed to public nudity belong to one of the religions that have a "God" character at the peak of their hierarchy. That same God is supposed to have created man, and he created him nude. How then can nudity be offensive?

I do btw. find it weird that people imprison cats, dogs and other animals in their homes for no other reason than their own enjoyment, and although I don't enjoy looking at photos of those captives, I understand that others have opinions that differ from mine, so I mostly just skip those photos, and I don't complain about them, but maybe I should start doing that

And to those mentioning "nudity" and "violence" in the same sentence... how on earth can those to words be mentioned together as they often are (not least in news media)? The act of hurting another person (or a dog or cat for that matter), is basically a crime in almost any country on earth, as opposed to the beauty of the human body, God's own creation if you are so inclined?

 

[W.Utsch]

When i posted "Garage Classic" i was not at all in any way conscious that by posting it i could offend or disrespect other members of the forum.

I was posting in the "Fun Forum" as i always do, about photographic reasons by pure "Fun".
In my feelings the pic was (and is) harmless as i think are all my posts here. I never felt the necessity to think about my pics where to post other than in the Fun section. Or to mark them for a special caution.

After Zoran's first post i began to think about it and did respect his opinion and feelings, though i have a different opinion.

I said sorry to him in my second answer, though his tone in his first post was not, to say the least, "friendly".

That could have been it! Accept an apology!

I started to posts pics again but i must confess the "Fun" is a little less now...

Now i feel almost guilty that Ben (a little "thin-skinned") announced to leave the forum. I respect him and always liked his contributions here.

 

[Georg Baumann]

No reason to feel guilty Werner.

That is his choice, exclusively!

If someone follows perhaps orthodox views, he can not expect all others to accomodate this on an international stage. Why?

Becuase making such demand a precedence would allow other orthodox views to claim the very same rights for them as well. Imagine that in reality!

This of course is different if I were to be a guest in an orthodox home, which the last time I looked GetDPI is not.

Many Religions have draconic views on nudity and the term taboo comes to mind as well.

I am "thin-skinned" when it comes to "irrational modesty" that is traditionally and exclusively designed to oppress women.

Take some other expamples, in Pakistan the Lahore Arts Council has banned all dance performances in theatres except classical dance. Famous dancing women in Lahore were also forced to stop their classical dancing as the police claim they can no longer provide security against attacks by violent conservative groups.

In general, politics, nudity and religion are the main reason for art censorship.

Some people have such a repugnance to nudity and sexuality in art that they are driven to vandalism. In April 2011, Susan Burns was visiting the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC when she tried to pry “Two Tahitian Women” by Gauguin from the wall.

I rest my case....

 

[alajuela]

No reason to feel guilty Werner.

That is his choice, exclusively!

If someone follows perhaps orthodox views, he can not expect all others to accomodate this on an international stage. Why?

Becuase making such demand a precedence would allow other orthodox views to claim the very same rights for them as well. Imagine that in reality!

This of course is different if I were to be a guest in an orthodox home, which the last time I looked GetDPI is not.

Many Religions have draconic views on nudity and the term taboo comes to mind as well.

I am "thin-skinned" when it comes to "irrational modesty" that is traditionally and exclusively designed to oppress women.

Take some other expamples, in Pakistan the Lahore Arts Council has banned all dance performances in theatres except classical dance. Famous dancing women in Lahore were also forced to stop their classical dancing as the police claim they can no longer provide security against attacks by violent conservative groups.

In general, politics, nudity and religion are the main reason for art censorship.



I rest my case....

May I wake up your case?

I have done a search of this page and the first reference I saw to the word orthodox was from Anna T - Nowhere else

Lets entertain the possibility that Ben had an other reason for his action. Perhaps it was the uncivil response????????????

I think you reference to the Jewish calender was sensitive and touching really a nice reach out.

Oh one other thing, I used to love going the gas stations to see the calenders.

 

[Georg Baumann]

I have done a search of this page and the first reference I saw to the word orthodox was from Anna T - Nowhere else

If I am not mistaken, earlier Ben was referring to betrayal of beliefs and ethics when "being forced" to look at nudes. Right? Wrong?

That was how I understood him, and that is undoubtly part of the orthodox, but also sometimes within views of conservative Judaism.

That being said, of course I have no objections whatsoever against anyone practising such concept of, as they would describe it, "modesty", be it orthodox or conservative in origin.

My point was that in my opinion this is a strictly private matter and can not be expected to be accommodated on an international stage as such for the above explained reasons.

Any form of content censorship or content handling remains the perogative of the keepers of the house of course, and last time I looked, everyone is welcomed here as Guy said rightly. In my understanding GetDPI is about photography, a thriving and truly friendly community.

I think when entering and participating in such an international public place it would be helpful to lay down consecrated views and/or underlying supernatural punishment concepts, and again, they are private views, and this privateness btw. is the very same concept of that "modesty" that demands not to be confronted with nudity of any sorts.

Otherwise "you" - as in the forum keepers - find yourself in a position where you are expected to accomodate for many of such beliefs and demands.

Taboo is the term that might best describe such demand. So what is Taboo on GetDPI and what is not? I am not the Kepper of the house here, and I can only share with you what my understanding and experience on GetDPI so far would consist of.

Nothing is taboo here so far, except clear cut and interdenominational red lines we all would accept such as child abuse, violence on purpose to glorify such, etc.

My case still rests.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Was trying not get in this but let's see if I can at least answer on behave of the staff. Even though we are US based as owners, mods and such we are a global community as members. So we view this as a open forum on a global level and keep a very open mind on culture, people, views , religion, politics and frankly common decency on a global level. We have in place a NSFW forum in place for those artist and viewers to participate. This is also upon registration a adult site as well, so we don't expect kids on here to begin with. With that in mind we avoid any type of censorship for a global community. We do avoid and not allow anything we feel is illegal but more important we go by what's logical and what makes the most sense to us on what is posted on a Global level. Now running a forum based on logic, common sense does ultimately include some form of censorship. There is just not getting around it, for example if it even resembles porno it's deleted immediately. These are judgement , common sense and logical calls that we have to make regardless of censorship. There is just no way of getting around it. If something is posted that someone feels they don't like or against there culture than you simply turn the channel on it. We are not trying to be a dictatorship on content as that is not global viewing of this site and its content. Almost always this is never been a issue with members as I feel we do a good job of keeping the place friendly and content safe for our global community.

Now when we are dealing with ART in almost any form of it than in most cases it's almost anything goes as ART is by definition a form of expressing ones artistic endeavors. No one here for instance will tell you what to shoot but we will tell you if it fits the guidelines of the community. No porn for example. I'm not trying to play the ART card here just like I'm not trying to play the Religious or Politics card either but if we feel it's not in the best interest we discuss it , decide on it and make the call. That is our right as owners and mods. But it always will be based on what's best for the community. Bottom line that's GetDPI

 

[Georg Baumann]

Almost always this is never been a issue with members as I feel we do a good job of keeping the place friendly and content safe for our global community.

Very much so Guy, to me personally, in this crazy internet realm of photography fora, GetDPI is the only photography forum left that I visit regulary, and where I "feel home" and where even friendships developed over time. So yes, stellar job in deed and btw., off topic, thanks for your Canon T/S thread, you have me contemplating now which bank to rob! Arghhh.

Hmm, here is a better idea, I just open a bank. :ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If you do I can than burn my ski mask and go legal and borrow money. ROTFLMAO

My big concern here is not having people leave. We are supposed to be having fun with our art and our photography. I hate religious, political topics as they just never turn out well at all.


On another note I'm having fun with the 17 TSE . When I get back home I'll continue with some images from it. It's early here in California and I may just run out and shoot some more this morning. I did yesterday and I love having the control of the lens.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Fair enough Guy.

It is inevitable that a community like this ones in a while stumbles into a sudden problem with discussions heating up.
The moment you -the moderators- stated the picture can stay, it was set for me and I thought we could just go on with the thread.
It is good that you opened up a Sunset Bar, which is not always romance as we all know, to let people debate on the occured problem. And then politics, religion an culture start to play a role, but as we can see, things do cool down.
We are grown ups and this is a great place to be!
I am glad the moderators acted the way they did. Thanks!

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Very much so Guy, to me personally, in this crazy internet realm of photography fora, GetDPI is the only photography forum left that I visit regulary, and where I "feel home" and where even friendships developed over time. So yes, stellar job in deed and btw., off topic, thanks for your Canon T/S thread, you have me contemplating now which bank to rob! Arghhh.

Hmm, here is a better idea, I just open a bank. :ROTFL:

Georg, I do want that TS lens as well and I know this little bank in........ :chug:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I do hope I am speaking for Jack and Bob but they can add or not to what I posted for sure . This was not a easy one for all concerned to be honest. Nothing about it was black and white but a lot of grey area.

 

[rayyan]

And all because Ben just requested if a posted picture could be moved to another
section...

wow. great going folks.

 

[alajuela]

And all because Ben just requested if a posted picture could be moved to another
section...

wow. great going folks.

Exactly

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

And all because Ben just requested if a posted picture could be moved to another
section...

wow. great going folks.

It was his own decision to leave, nobody forced him too.
The discussion was fierce for sure but it should not have to be a reason to leave.