Clarification

[homer]

Ah, got it. Thanks.

[iluvlamp]

Can we start a thread about ugly women? I can see an ugly man thread going over without problems.

 

..edit because both my sentences didn't appear and it wasn't blue. ugh.

[logan82]

Can we start a thread about ugly women? I can see an ugly man thread going over without problems.

 

..edit because both my sentences didn't appear...

We already have a thread with pictures of posters.

[thevaccinator27]

I think Al was talking about one of the Sheets/Crawford type threads. I recall what he is talking about.

[Brian the Automator]

I'm the first to say it's a slippery slope, but partially because the filter issue is a bit above me, I don't really understand it any better now.

I'll break it down:

Many workplaces have filter software that they purchase from vendors... There are two ways these softwares work, either by analyzing a web page for keywords to see if the site contains unsavory content, or manually, people go through and classify sites. For a time, we had been classified as a "dating" site. Looking at the off-topic forum, there were specific topics that could have made the software think that's perhaps what we are. So, the less language we have of that nature, and the less hotlinking of photos we do to sites that may be classified as "bad", the less likely we're to fall into that category.

[pogokat]

i guess i don't see the need for disagreement here:

 

the people who run this website decided they didn't like that thread, so they locked it. this is a membership only message board with specific rules. there was a reasonable reason given for the locking. i don't see any other issue.

 

i understand why some are annoyed by stuff like this, but it's not up to everyone...it's up to the staff.

 

i'm not trying to come off as pompous, which i was called a few weeks ago, but this is a goofy non issue...

[TURBO]

Sure, people are allowed to talk about metal music here. But it isn't really necessary to have a separate thread for every single aspect of it.

 

Nope. It could have been spaced out better for sure.

 

wow.....sue me.

[Fatter than Joey]

there was a reasonable reason given for the locking. i don't see any other issue.

 

Brian was the first to give a non-convoluted reason, and once he did I think it stopped being an issue. I know Brian doesn't even owe anyone explanations but his clarifications helps people understand how future problems can be prevented.

 

but it's not up to everyone...it's up to the staff.

 

No one questions that. However your staff violates the rules set up as well -- even in this very thread, when that happens reasonable people are going to view your system as less rigid/more arbitrary.

 

i'm not trying to come off as pompous, which i was called a few weeks ago, but this is a goofy non issue...

 

I am sorry that someone called you pompous, I hope that it was without merit.

 

wow.....sue me..

 

In all fairness I think B19 makes a good point in hoping that all the hair-metal threads could have been consolidated better. I know Casey has been a big effort to merge threads and I certainly have appreciated his effort, as it makes reading easier.

[TURBO]

here is an example of double standards...

check the major leagues forum for the thread listed below:

http://forum.brewerfan.net/viewtopic.php?t=9991

MIL signs Gabe Kapler (1yr/$800K, non-guaranteed)

in this thread, there are photos of Gabe Kaplar, all beefcaked out for the world to see... Is this offensive? Should this thread also be locked down so people can view the site at work, or are only hot chicks with revealing clothing being banned?

just wonderng...

[pogokat]

what is to be gained by challenging every minute decision one of the mods makes?

[mothershipconnection]

in this thread, there are photos of Gabe Kaplar, all beefcaked out for the world to see... Is this offensive? Should this thread also be locked down so people can view the site at work, or are only hot chicks with revealing clothing being banned?

 

http://lemonodor.com/images/esquire-ali-martyr-1968-s.jpg

[brewers19]

That's not a double standard; that's you nitpicking.

 

A thread whose sole purpose is to ogle half-naked pictures of people is not the same thing as a thread about a player signing which happens to contain a few pictures of him with his shirt off.

[Fatter than Joey]

in this thread, there are photos of Gabe Kaplar, all beefcaked out for the world to see... Is this offensive?

 

Brian has mentioned on a couple of posts that the pictures are problematic to filters -- I would 100% trust Brian to know what pics/word combinations flag the filters. Based on what Brian has said, this is not a subjective issue which some (myself included) were led to believe intially.

 

My guess (and I could be wrong) is that with Lita Ford and "Hot, hot, Hot" -- filters may flag that as porno -- If someone posted "Hot young stud" with Kapler that may flag the filters as well.

 

Ultimately I would wager that the filters are probably a little more tuned into the female side of flagging, as I would assume that's where more porn hits come from. I would be very surprised if the filters treat men and women equitably.

[iluvlamp]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/04/250px-Racheldratchdebbie.jpg

[TURBO]

pogokat wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what is to be gained by challenging every minute decision one of the mods makes?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

no point whatsoever, just wondering if all threads that feature photos of people and skin will be locked down... It is a valid question.

 

I really don't care that my thread was shut down, just wondering if all threads with similiar content will also get shut down? If not, no biggie, just curious.

 

I don't challenge every decision, that is exageration on your part. For some reason, you and I don't mix, and that is fine, just stop singling me out, there are other posters in this thread that questioned the decision to lock that thread down (I didn't even start this thread), yet I am the one you choose to bring to the forefront?

 

I find that curious.

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

brewers19 wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not a double standard; that's you nitpicking.

 

 

A thread whose sole purpose is to ogle half-naked pictures of people is not the same thing as a thread about a player signing which happens to contain a few pictures of him with his shirt off.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but if people are at work, and those photos pop up for co-workers to see, and said co-workers are offended, isn't that the same thing?

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Fatter than Joey wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know Brian doesn't even owe anyone explanations but his clarifications helps people understand how future problems can be prevented.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

true, I'll back off now... sorry for being such a pain around here, I just like to discuss issues on message boards, and this is a message board, hence the discussion.

[pogokat]

i wasn't trying to single you out here...just trying to ask a general question...

 

sorry i gave you that impression...

 

alos, not trying to single you out at all...it's not you personally, or anyone else that causes confrontation, it's the disagreement...

 

just trying to clarify before you think i, or any of the other mods are out to get you personally...

[1992casey]

the less hotlinking of photos we do to sites that may be classified as "bad"

That's a really good point, Brian. Bots like to pay attention to links (images are like links). If the bots don't like the domain that a link contains, it'll be a yellow flag. Likewise, as thread titles are level three headers, they're going to grab attention. In contrast, if a word like 'babes' is buried within the content of a message (the way I'm using it right now), nothing is very likely to single it out.

[chuckiehacks]

Sometimes, you just gotta lay back and say "nah, I'll let it go: it's a website"

Actually, since we're discussing the Lita Ford thread, wouldn't you just say "it ain't no big thing?"

[burniebrewer]

Turbo sent me a message saying he got banned last night, is that true?

 

Was there more going on behind the scenes because this seems like a pretty harsh penalty for this alone.

 

Not trying to stir the pot, just asking.

[Brian the Automator]

Actually, since we're discussing the Lita Ford thread, wouldn't you just say "it ain't no big thing?"

Again, at least to me, the big problem is the content filter aspect. So with regards to that, yes, it is a big thing.

 

[Brian the Automator]

Turbo sent me a message saying he got banned last night, is that true?

 

Was there more going on behind the scenes because this seems like a pretty harsh penalty for this alone.

 

Not trying to stir the pot, just asking.

Yes, that's correct, he is banned. As far as the explanation, when the negative contributions to a site outweigh the positive contributions to the site and when our requests of users don't seem to matter to them or are met with contempt, it's best to part ways.

 

[burniebrewer]

Thanks for the reply, Brian.

[TooLiveBrew]

Well, I'd like to possibly overstep my bounds and say that I hope there was more to the story of his ban than appears in just this thread (like other stuff, pm's, etc.). I don't want to know any more details, nor am I requesting them, nor am I entitled to them.

 

Based on what Brian has said, this is not a subjective issue which some (myself included) were led to believe intially.

This is, quite literally, the only thing you need to take out of this thread. That, and perhaps BTA's explanation about how workplace filters are affected. To me, this whole topic is a non-issue, since I don't think you can make a compelling argument for why the thread (in this case) shouldn't have been locked - without having to rely upon extremes in either direction.

 

I don't think I'm 'cool' or whatever for this, but when I first saw that thread, I was surprised it wasn't locked already, just since I recalled discussions in the past about workplace filters related to the 'hot chick' thread.

[Brian the Automator]

Well, I'd like to possibly overstep my bounds and say that I hope there was more to the story of his ban than appears in just this thread (like other stuff, pm's, etc.). I don't want to know any more details, nor am I requesting them, nor am I entitled to them.

I know there were several PM's between more than one moderator and him regarding the issues. While we don't rigidly stick to the "three strike" rule as the sole process for banning someone, it's not done on a whim either. We make efforts to work with the individual in those cases to let them know what the expectation from us is.

[TooLiveBrew]

Since I know you guys rule, I knew there was more to it. BtA, you obviously didn't have to disclose anything else, but thanks anyway.