Clarification

[dadofandrew]

Can someone please put into words the exact reason why the Lita Ford inspired topic was locked? The reasons given are at best strange...pics "may" lead to a site being banned? Many work places don't allow any ESPN sites either, no blogger, etc.

 

Disrespectful to female readers? The first time a player is called "handsome", I'm going to be offended. That's as strange a lock as I've ever seen here, and based on the fact some are locked and later unlocked, because no one really knows why it was originally locked, that's saying something.

 

Basically, if the Lita Ford topic is not allowed, no pics of any women can be posted, which means no posts of any men can be posted. That's a strange precedent.

 

I'm offended every time lemurs waste bandwidth and mess up the page sizes...are those banned?

[mothershipconnection]

The policy, as I understand, is that threads can't be of zero substance other than "who's the hottest chick". It's OK if there's a thread on movies, someone mentions a movie, and you say [name of star] is about the most gorgeous woman alive.

 

Yeah, a thread on who the prettiest women alive is would be fine, just like the most handsome man...in a vacuum. The problem is we'll end up with risque images and maybe a few porn stars here and there. The mods with technical knowledge have found that babe threads, particularly those loaded with images, set off content filters used by many workplaces. At least one user couldn't access the off topic forum when a previous babes thread was up, but the site was accessible once the thread dropped off page one.

[brewers19]

A number of things led to my decision to lock the thread.

 

As some may remember, there was a certain thread (Hottest Babes Alive) which quickly became a dumping ground for pictures of scantily clad and half-naked celebrities. In the wake of this, we've become very wary of threads which possess the potential to go down a similar path. There are certain filters that some workplaces use which give each website a ranking based on the number of 'objectionable' words and such in the content; above a certain point, and the site gets blocked. As soon as the Hottest Babes Alive thread was locked, our score dropped drastically into a more acceptable range. So, because the primary interest of this site is baseball and people can find pictures of hot women elsewhere on the web, we decided it was more important for us to have people be able to access the site.

 

As much as it may seem to some, this site is not a boys club. I'm not going to lecture you on objectifying women, but there is a significant number of posters here who are women and the last thing we want is for them to feel uncomfortable coming to this site.

 

I don't really feel that any of these reasons are particularly outrageous or surprising. And by comparing distasteful and potentially offensive content to a minor pet peeve of yours is somewhat trivializing the issue at hand.

[pitchleague]

I haven't even checked this Lita Ford thread yet, since the off-topics forum is blocked/banned at my work. Once we put in those "tags" at the top of each forum, it's blocked due to "videogames" and probably some others prominently being on the list.

 

I never had a problem before we had "tags".

 

That said, I know that I was kind of offended with those "hottest chics" threads, even as a non-parent, because if I had kids, I wouldn't want (a) my son to be looking at women photos and getting the wrong idea, (b) my daughter to feel that I was bringing women down in some derogatory way, and © either son or daughter to think their old man was some sorta perv, even if it wasn't even close to being the case.

 

Not to mention I didn't need my wife wondering why I was oggling over girl pictures.

[1992casey]

The thread b19 refers to was actually hidden rather than locked. After hiding it, the Norton Network Manager score for the Off Topic forum dropped from the 900s to the 300s. The 300s are still high, by the way.

 

That thread had hit an extreme. For whatever reason (probably chance), the mods weren't closely monitoring it; something should have been done with it about 10 days before it was actually hidden. In the end, the women were much more than "half" naked.

 

If a thread is locked rather than hidden, I would think the content that the bots don't like would still be visible to them and still be affecting our 'score'. Today's thread only had one post before it was locked, so I don't think leaving it visible is going to hurt us much. It's probably good to keep it visible as an example of what we're trying to avoid.

 

As pitchleague says, the tags probably don't help our cause, either. Each tag becomes a meta keyword in the forum's HTML head.

 

I have mixed feelings about the idea of eliminating tags in Off Topic. Removing them might improve our standing with some of these content bots. On the other hand, tags are extremely handy, and video games are definitely a hot dicussion topic in that forum.

 

EDIT: One more clarification... In this case, it's the automated content filters that we're trying to deal with. Other filters rely on actual people classifying sites. As an example, securecomputing.com formerly had us misclassified as a dating site. After asking them to review Brewerfan's classification, they designated us as a sports site and message board. After doing so, some of our members who couldn't do so before were able to access the boards from work.

[PeaveyFury]

based on the fact some are locked and later unlocked, because no one really knows why it was originally locked, that's saying something.

 

I'm assuming you have examples of this? If that is happening, I'm sure Brian and the staff would like to know about it and address it.

[burniebrewer]

I just want to know why people are reading websites and aren't working at work. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

As much as it may seem to some, this site is not a boys club. I'm not going to lecture you on objectifying women

 

I really wish you would reconsider -- I think it would be good fun to hear your thoughts on the objectification of women in lecture format.

 

there is a significant number of posters here who are women and the last thing we want is for them to feel uncomfortable coming to this site.

 

So if there were a trivial amount of women, these pictures would be ok? -- You should probably phrase this better.

 

I am not a woman, and I am not going pretend I know what makes any one person, male or female uncomfortable. However I think most intelligent people (regardless of their gender), would find plenty of other things on BFnet. at least as objectionable on this site than promo shots of Lita Ford.

 

And by comparing distasteful and potentially offensive content to a minor pet peeve of yours is somewhat trivializing the issue at hand.

 

I think to take the stance that you are taking an qualify Al's concerns as minor is entirely self-serving and simplistic

 

I don't really feel that any of these reasons are particularly outrageous or surprising.

 

Certainly not surprising.

 

That said, I know that I was kind of offended with those "hottest chics" threads

 

Turboricky's thread, was one in a bunch that all dealt with music -- I am pretty sure he wanted to discuss the women of metal in the 80s. Certainly most of the women paraded around in skin-tight leather and poofed out hair -- but the men were doing it long before Lita Ford came around.

 

because if I had kids, I wouldn't want (a) my son to be looking at women photos and getting the wrong idea, (b) my daughter to feel that I was bringing women down in some derogatory way, and © either son or daughter to think their old man was some sorta perv, even if it wasn't even close to being the case.

 

I have kids --

 

(a) My son is exposed to images of women every day, I am not sure what the "wrong idea" is -- He finds some attractive others not as much. Most sports have cheerleaders, or camera shots to co-eds after commercial breaks. It's simply unavoidable.

 

(b) If my daughters felt that I was bringing women down by looking at a picture -- then I have already failed. Certainly a parent has to practice discretion, but my daughters understand my views on women based on how they see me treat their mother or how I encourage their career path.

 

© My kids think I am weird already.

 

EDIT: -- Anyway I think Al brings up some great points, and I think the more altruistic motives are entirely arbitrary and self-serving. The technical issues may have more merit, but I suspect that addressing even the technical things is arbitrary in their applications and there are other technical issues that are just as predominant that do not get addressed.

[pitchleague]

I just want to know why people are reading websites and aren't working at work. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

I know that I only read in the morning after I do all my prep work for the day and at lunch while I'm eating. That's 40 minutes tops, if I'm lucky.

[Fatter than Joey]

I just want to know why people are reading websites and aren't working at work

 

It's a good point -- a lot of webfilters are out there not because of content, but rather time-wasting -- which I know I do a lot of with BFnet.

[whizkid]

So if there were a trivial amount of women, these pictures would be ok? -- You should probably phrase this better.

 

I think sometimes you disagree just to disagree. I agree with locking it, I've been uncomfortable with similiar threads in the past. I think the goal of Brewerfan is to be a more mature site than the typical internet site. Mature in the sense of knowing it's possible to discuss topics effectively without foul language or pictures of scantily clad women. Some of these threads have reminded me of when I was in elementary school and giggling with my friends on the playground talking about girl's body parts. There are plenty of boards for that.

 

The picture doesn't quite equate to calling someone handsome. Posting a Jim Palmer jockey ad would be a better comparision and I know I sure don't want to ever see one of those again.

 

My son is exposed to images of women every day, I am not sure what the "wrong idea" is

 

Boys can learn to objectify women on their own, it's been going on forever. It's probably not essential to their development that Brewerfan assists in this process.

[Brian the Automator]

I do a fair bit of surfing at work, but I also spend extra time at work and working from home so that I put in an honest 8 hours a day, plus. The last thing I want is this site getting classified as a "lingerie/adult content" by my workplace because of things like "hot chick" threads, preventing me from reading my own website.

 

So please, understand that it's because of threads like the one locked that wreck things for a fair number of people, whether they're just taking 20 minutes to read over their lunchbreak, or if they surf the web off-the-clock at work at other intervals. We've avoided having this place look like Maxim magazine since 2001, and I'm determined to keep it that way, even if it means hacking some people off.

[burniebrewer]

You see, I'm just mad because I don't have access to a computer at work to waste time.

[Fatter than Joey]

I think sometimes you disagree just to disagree.

 

I was actually agreeing with Al -- which ironically, if I tend to disagree for the sake of disagreeing with any one poster it is probably Al. I guess I didn't assume that Al's position was officially not worth having.

 

I've been uncomfortable with similar threads in the past.

 

What similar threads? -- Threads about 80s Metal women artists? -- This wasn't a "hot chicks" thread or swimsuit model/Playboy appreciation thread. All 80s hair-metal performers regardless of their gender performed in tight costumes and had poofed out hair.

 

I think the goal of Brewerfan is to be a more mature site than the typical internet site.

 

Agreed, and I think it accomplishes that. However, there are plenty of other threads/topics in the off-topic board that don't exactly smack of maturity/good taste. It seems arbitrary to me to address one and not the other.

 

Mature in the sense of knowing it's possible to discuss topics effectively without foul language or pictures of scantily clad women.

 

Well -- I agree there certainly doesn't need to be foul language, and for the most part that doesn't exist here, and if some one were to start posting explicit photos I would certainly agree with you.

 

Some of these threads have reminded me of when I was in elementary school and giggling with my friends on the playground talking about girl's body parts.

 

Sure, I really think though TurboRicky was talking about music though and not girl's body parts.

 

Boys can learn to objectify women on their own, it's been going on forever. It's probably not essential to their development that Brewerfan assists in this process.

 

I don't think BF.net is essential to anyone's development in anything -- it is entertainment.

 

For example, I find the drunk thread -- way more offensive/objectionable than a Hair-Metal discussion. The idea that people abuse booze to the point that they can't type coherently is not exactly the apex of maturity -- yet that is on its 45 page. Now, I tend to see it as "too each their own" sort of issue. I certainly don't drink to the point that I lose coherency, (I know some will disagree) but it is easy for me to skip over that. I guess I would rather have my son look at a picture of Lita Ford than read the drunk thread and the celebration of alcohol consumption. I am not saying the Drunk Thread should be removed, rather people that are not interested in any topic skip over it.

 

I guess I understand that people can find things objectionable and offensive -- but it seems arbitrary to me to let one go and not the other.

 

I liked your Orbison avatar much better and have docked your credibility accordingly.

[Brian the Automator]

I guess I understand that people can find things objectionable and offensive -- but it seems arbitrary to me to let one go and not the other.

One gets us killed by content filters and one doesn't. That's what it boils down to.

[homer]

I thought the thread with the women were usually in decent taste - but if they veered from that then certainly that crossed a line. And if they cause our NNM score to rise significantly I can completely understand that this is the line in the sand that the site managers use to decide what's appropriate and what's not. I don't even see the debate really. I mean if posting drunk messages caused the score to inflate than I'd be all for getting rid of that thread. It's not as subjective as people are making it out to be.

 

If you want to post pictures of women start a baseball and women blog. I mean if 'anyone' can start their own oil drilling operation than anyone should be able to start and maintain a fan site. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[And That]

FTJ, what you're calling arbitrary is actually pragmatism. The moderators on this site have discussions about what is alright to have here and what's not - it's not like we're picking threads out of a hat, closing them and laughing all the way to the trading post. We try to strike a balance between having fun, being mature, keeping the site available to people at work, amongst other things. I'd love it if we could make Brewerfan an idealistic bastion of whatever, but pragmatism (not arbitrarianism) is a necessity. Sometimes the decisions made piss people off, but for the most part the decisions made don't.

 

We're certainly not here to teach or assist in child-rearing, or to protect everyone's eyes from the evil vices of the world. However, we have made (and continue to question and remake) decisions about what is allowed. We can't come up with an exhaustive list of what is or isn't because that isn't practical, certainly not to speak of all the varying reasons behind such a list. If something gets locked or deleted, please try to realize we are doing it in the best interests of everyone who views the site. It may not seem that way to some, and in fact could well be the wrong decision sometimes. But hey, we're not in that idealistic bastion of whatever, so we're going to make some mistakes. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[TooLiveBrew]

-- This wasn't a "hot chicks" thread or swimsuit model/Playboy appreciation thread.

Come on, though. The post accompanying the pics said something to the effect of, 'She was HOT HOT HOT!', along with pics in skin-tight, small-ish clothing. It's not like this is splitting hairs.

 

DISCLAIMER: Turborickey, I don't care either way.

[Fatter than Joey]

One gets us killed by content filters and one doesn't. That's what it boils down to.

 

Fair enough -- I can get 100% behind that.

 

I think that "offensive" explanation (without regard to technical issues) tends to bring in a level of arbitrariness that in reality isn't there. I appreciate the clarification.

 

It's not as subjective as people are making it out to be.

 

I think Brian did a great job clearing that up. Based on some of the initial comments in this thread and the original -- it seemed a bit more subjective than it is in actuality.

 

I mean if posting drunk messages caused the score to inflate than I'd be all for getting rid of that thread.

 

For the record I certainly do not think the drunk thread should be removed -- and I brought that up only to point out some of the other potential "maturity/offensive" issues.

 

If you want to post pictures of women start a baseball and women blog.

 

Yeah -- I'll pass on that -- I just though Turborickey was intending to talk more about music -- Even the NBA/NFL/SI/ESPN sites have cheerleader sections, which I assume are problematic with the web filters.

 

We try to strike a balance between having fun, being mature, keeping the site available to people at work, amongst other things.

 

You guys do a good job of that.

 

But hey, we're not in that idealistic bastion of whatever, so we're going to make some mistakes.

 

Fair enough.

[Fatter than Joey]

pics in skin-tight, small-ish clothing

 

All performers from the Hair-Metal genre performed in skin-tight smallish clothing regardless of gender.

[TURBO]

ok, as the originator of that thread, it was not a Lita Ford thread, it was not a HOT CHICK thread, it was a thread titled "Favorite Female 80's Metal chick?"

 

It went along with the other music threads as it was asking to list your favorite female metal chick as opposed to favorite 2007 music, favorite movie, favorite metal cd, favorite whatever...

 

I did post photos, non of which were rated above PG at worst. At least I didn't post the dreaded "lol" or any one word replies...

 

Is everyone else here aware that you are not allowed to post "lol", ummmmm, or "@" in your posts? Just found that out today. I have read the rules, but must have missed that part. I think I need to print the rules, study them daily, then cross check all of my posts with the rules in the future as my verbal reprimands are becoming a major burden for the mods here.

[Katuluu]

All performers from the Hair-Metal genre performed in skin-tight smallish clothing regardless of gender.

Edit: Removed Guns'n'Roses image (cuss word on T-shirt)

[Fatter than Joey]

Axel's shirt has the F word on it, and what appears to be some nudity as well.

 

The dude on the far right has some pretty tight pants on, or maybe he keeps his quarters down there. and that off-the-shoulder shirt is pretty revealing.

 

I assume you cropped the bass player out of the picture as he was probably wearing assless chaps http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Katuluu]

GnR was well known for ignoring most the ridiculous conventions of the metal scene, ie lipstick and neon colored pleather pants. If you want I can post pics of Heart, The Blackhearts, and The Bangles to further refute your claims.

[TURBO]

GnR was well known for ignoring most the ridiculous conventions of the metal scene, ie lipstick and neon colored pleather pants. If you want I can post pics of Heart, The Blackhearts, and The Bangles to further refute your claims.

 

actually, GnR did partake in a lot of the glam fashion... Didn't wear lipstick you say? Incorrect.