| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2002 02:22:09 PM · #76 |
Now, if nothing changes, I won't complain, but what if while the voting page was loading with the picture to be voted on, in the upper corner or something was a thumbnail of the next one with an option to pass. That way, I wouldn't have to see the "big version" until a more appropriate time presents itself.
I would be interested in this option not for the change to skip an offensive picture, because I think the management is doing a good job keeping it safe, but to give me an easier method to skip a picture that I might need a little more time to decide what the vote should be. I try to vote for each picture but some take longer to study then others. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:28:50 PM · #77 |
There are some issues developing here....
1) maybe it would be best to do away with nudity. I was not the first person to do it here, but since that time, it has found its way into every challenge.
2) i would definitely hate to see it dominate the site.
3) people WILL score nudity well. if you don't believe this to be true, go look on photosig.
4) Do you want to compete with well done nudes each week?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:29:26 PM · #78 |
I think we aught to stay away from labels altogether. That can be such a nasty can of worms.
When I'm tired of looking at the winner I just scrole my screen up.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:37:45 PM · #79 |
Scrolling the screen almost makes it worse. *grin* With a 19" monitor set to 1280 by 960, the image gets cut off just below the knees leaving the bottom third of the pic when I scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:50:00 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
There are some issues developing here....
1) maybe it would be best to do away with nudity. I was not the first person to do it here, but since that time, it has found its way into every challenge.
2) i would definitely hate to see it dominate the site.
3) people WILL score nudity well. if you don't believe this to be true, go look on photosig.
4) Do you want to compete with well done nudes each week?
But this making the issue only deal with certain people's ideas on what should be eliminated and ignoring others. Can we ban all pictures with guns, for instance, which I find offensive? Can we ban all pictures with religious icons, which others find offensive. Can we ban cute and cuddly pet pics?
This is the REAL issue -- once you start banning certain items, then you are making value judgements that DO NOT work for all (or even, perhaps, a majority) of users. Eventually you have to ban everything, and then where would we be?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:57:04 PM · #81 |
For me, accessing DPC from work is no longer an option. It violates the letter of our sexual harassment policy. D & L may want to consider a warning page that nudity is on this site since I think they may be unknowingly in violation of US laws and could get closed down and fined to within an inch of their lives. Just a thought.
This is the first week I haven't entered a challenge since I came upon this site. I had ideas, even shot a few... But lately I haven't felt very 'at home' here anymore... It seems folks have decided to go for shock value, both in entries and the forums, and I don't have much desire to play that game... There are other sites where I can learn about photography and not have to deal with people that aren't done rebelling against their parents...
Hey hokie! By any chance were you referring to a band called "Lord Gunner" (Jersey Shore band, 1980's / 90's) when you mentioned 'eating glass'? The motto was "If you can't be good, shock um :)" |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 02:58:14 PM · #82 |
You don't have to 'ban' everything :) The issue at hand here is nudity, not guns, not religion. I'm sure that just about EVERY photo that appears here could be offensive to someone.
I participate on two other sites that do not allow nudity. Do i feel 'censored'? no... Do I feel that my rights to free speech have been stripped? no...
The nudity here WILL proliferate... trust me... I don't particularly have a problem with that either. As the proliferation takes place, you will see more and more blue ribbon photos here that are 'suggestive' or contain nudity. That's the point I'm making here. It doesn't bother me in the least. I don't *look* for opportunities to make nude photos. If I see that a particular challenge lends itself well to the concept, and I have a great idea to go along with it, I may use it again in the future.
I think you are going to see several more nude photos in the 'illusions' challenge because that concept does lend itself well to the subject. The illusions that you will see are 'ghostly' people... some of them will be nude :) You can take that to the bank :)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:01:04 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by aelith:
When I'm tired of looking at the winner I just scrole my screen up.
i do that too because i love reading the forums and tips here
i'm not attacking "you" but i don't go for the idea that those who don't care to see nudes continuously should just "scroll on by". That means i still have no choice but to continue to see a photo i may find objectionable--for whatever reason--it doesn't matter whether it's because folks think i'm "a prude" i don't have to prove anything to them, or whether it's my "religious conviction" which somehow is a crime, or whether it's "my problem" or whether it's simply because i much prefer to look at nude men versus nude women or even whether i just can't look at another kids/pets photo -- it's my opinion and just like the john/jane doe who likes to look at nudes and yell and holler and scream if that right is taken away, i also have rights do i not? With an option to turn off a photo on the home page, i would at least now have a choice that isn't "your opinion doesn't matter so if you want to participate just take it" or "just stop coming here", while at the same time the freedom of others to look all they want is still preserved...
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:09:51 PM · #84 |
I have the perfect solution to all this.
I started a conversation in the "website suggestions" forum suggesting a sister site be started. This would have a free age verification system and would host "controversial" challenges and also some digital manipulation challenges. I'm willing to host this site on my servers (as I do websites for a living) which have plenty of space, horse power, and bandwidth available. We just need the administrators to be willing to send me the code for this site and BAM. It's done, (with a little help on setting up the age verification system) :).
Let me just add here... I think this site is awesome. It's the best thing I've found for my hobby (photography) and has even got my wife interested in the challenges. I just submitted my first photo for light source and I love the feedback. I would NOT quit this site for a sister site but I would enjoy a chance to try some digital manipulation on my wife!
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:08:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:15:32 PM · #85 |
believe me when i say that this site is ultimately likely to err on the side of 'less nudity packed' rather than MORE 'nudity packed.'
and i don't say that from a prudish perspective. ive taken my own share of risque pictures .. i just dont submit them here.
some of my own risque shots
REMEMBER! This is only ONE website out of the millions of places for you to express your photography. And it CANNOT be all things to all people.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:14:51 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:32:34 PM · #86 |
| Hi, I just felt I had to weigh in with my opinion on this thread as I am responsible for two of the photos that people probably consider "nekked". I'd say that I hate to open up a whole new can of worms here, but that would be a lie. Actually I'm looking forward to it. There has been a lot of discussion here about what is artistic and what is pornographic, most of it intelligent. However if we are going to consider putting some pictues in a different category we are also going to have to reckon with the issue of at what point is someone "nekked". When I took the photo of my wife for the lust submission we also took several other photos which I chose not to submit because I thought they were too explicit for this site and this audience. In deciding on this form of self imposed cencorship I decided that I would not submit anything that would garner an "R" rating in a movie. in fact my photo was no more explicit than an average cover photo from cosmopolitan magazine. Yet I still got comments that this was pornography and had no place on this site. My photo for this week is even less explicit (you can probably guess which one it is) but I still have raised the ire of some comentators. So at what point do we consider someone pornographically naked, or is it the context and mood of a picture that makes it inappropriate for some audiences independent of what body parts are showing? I am already working on my photo for the next challenge and it will be largely intended as a commentary on this very subject so I'm looking forward to hearing how people cope with that one. I deeply believe that one of the most important roles of art is to be confontational and to force us to deal with complex issues about ourselves and the society we live in. I also believe that even "pornographic" images can fulfill that role. So raise a glass and drink a toast to our ever dwindling freedom of expression, and remember, underneath all our clothes we are all "nekked". |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:35:56 PM · #87 |
Was there not a poll a week or so ago about nudity? If so, what were the results?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 03:54:29 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by hedonist:
<clip> ...Yet I still got comments that this was pornography and had no place on this site. <clip>
Actually I only see one comment that said that and it was from PTLParsons who also found my entry offensive. Anyone's guess? From the name of this person, they are either ultra-conservative, or they are a troll pretending to be ultra-conservative so they can grip about all the right wing fanatics that oppress them. My guess is the later.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 3:53:01 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:13:15 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Was there not a poll a week or so ago about nudity? If so, what were the results?
Less than 15% wanted no nudity at all. The remainder were split about 3-to-1 in favor of "artistic nudity" only. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:18:31 PM · #90 |
My husband gets mad at me if I get on this sight anymore. I keep telling him it will change for the better and each week it gets worse. I hope something happens soon or I can't play on this sight anymore .
:(
Hedonist, I don't care to look the women on the front page of magazines. I usually turn the books over. I even shut my cable off because that is all they seem to have for comersials and Tv shows. Every women has to show clevage. Its like everything is made to attract the men. Thats all.
Sonja
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:23:14 PM · #91 |
Sonja: I make an assumption that the "change" you are seeking is that this site should change to meet YOUR requirements by dropping all semi-nude images, yes? Do you agree the site should also change to ban all gun images because that meets MY requirements? Do you agree that all religious images should be banned because they don't meet OTHERS' requirements?
If not, can you please explain in some detail why YOUR moral imperatives are more important than mine or other peoples?
<Note: this is a debating position only, looking for answers. I do not believe that ANYTHING should be banned.>
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 4:20:55 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 4:23:42 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 4:25:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:24:33 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
My husband gets mad at me if I get on this sight anymore. I keep telling him it will change for the better and each week it gets worse. I hope something happens soon or I can't play on this sight anymore .
:(
I'm not sure I understand why your husband decides which sites you're allowed to access.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:33:21 PM · #93 |
What do guns and nudety have in commen? So what if people get affended by guns. A gun is a gun. A body is something that should stay with the bonderies of a marriage. That is my oppinion. Yes they should change the sight just to fit my needs. lol What do you have agains guns. They are a good hunting tool. And you would think that if you are offended by guns then you would feel the same about nudes.
Originally posted by Jak:
Sonja: So this site should change to meet YOUR requirements by dropping all semi-nude images, yes? Do you agree the site should also change to ban all gun images because that meets MY requirements?
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:37:34 PM · #94 |
Well he is a christian man and doesn't care to see nudety on the sight. I have to agree with him. Don't get me wrong, he is a great man and only sets the rules when things get out of hand. And nudety is one of them that makes him put his foot down.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
[i]My husband gets mad at me if I get on this sight anymore. I keep telling him it will change for the better and each week it gets worse. I hope something happens soon or I can't play on this sight anymore .
:(
I'm not sure I understand why your husband decides which sites you're allowed to access.
-Terry
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:40:08 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
What do guns and nudety have in commen? So what if people get affended by guns. A gun is a gun. A body is something that should stay with the bonderies of a marriage. That is my oppinion. Yes they should change the sight just to fit my needs. lol What do you have agains guns. They are a good hunting tool. And you would think that if you are offended by guns then you would feel the same about nudes.
(Taking a position for the sake of debate): Guns weapons that are kill. The human body is a natural thing that has been depicted in art, even religious art, as long as humans have been creating art. I don't see why I should find something natural, beautiful and created by God less offensive than a tool for destroying one of God's creations.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:42:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Sonja: So this site should change to meet YOUR requirements by dropping all semi-nude images, yes? Do you agree the site should also change to ban all gun images because that meets MY requirements?
Jak: I'd like to, but I won't. But, I think it's a reasonable accomodation to allow folks the choice of how, when, and whether they view any of the images. If one of the photos of guns or bullets had won last week I myself would be more inclined to opt-out of viewing it every time I hit the Home Page than the current winner, for both myself and my young son.
I believe the upcoming site revision will include a choice of several "galleries" to which the photographer can assign their entry. I'm pretty sure "contains nudity" or equivalent would be one ofth options. Photographers self-select categories so far as I know.
It should be easy enough to provide users with buttons or check-boxes to suppress viewing of one or more categories. Replacing images with a category-identifying icon would allow the user to override the block and go to the photo to vote when they choose.
We are only required to vote on 20% of entries for our votes to count. I'm not into forcing anyone into voting on something they find offensive -- they have the sole right to determine how much they want to "expand their horizons" -- or not.
I'm sure the folks who photograph guns would just as soon have me skip their photo altogether as run into me on a bad day and with an "itchy clicker finger." All the folks who hate voting on cute kid pics are welcome to skip right over my entries anytime... |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:48:42 PM · #97 |
I am going to be honest. What are the limits of nudety? Ya it is just a body. And it is beautiful, well some of it. But why do you have to show it off? God has given us other beautiful things to look at and take pictures of. Is it going to hurt to keep it off the sight? Why? I don't care if they ban religous stuff off the sight either. I am a christian. NO big deal to me. If it makes people happy I am all for it. :)
Why do you really need to see nudety? If it is that important to people then maybe they need to look at themselves and say "Is this healthy?"
Originally posted by Jak:
Sonja: I make an assumption that the "change" you are seeking is that this site should change to meet YOUR requirements by dropping all semi-nude images, yes? Do you agree the site should also change to ban all gun images because that meets MY requirements? Do you agree that all religious images should be banned because they don't meet OTHERS' requirements?
If not, can you please explain in some detail why YOUR moral imperatives are more important than mine or other peoples?
<Note: this is a debating position only, looking for answers. I do not believe that ANYTHING should be banned.>
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:53:53 PM · #98 |
I would turn your question around and wonder whether it's healthy to have a strong need NOT to see nudity. Probably neither is more or less healthy than the other. To me, though, the argument is not about a need to see anything in particular. It is about how to balance a photographer's desire to create a certain work of art that he or she has conceived in his or her mind against the viewer's desire to avoid certain types of images. It's a tough balancing act.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:54:29 PM · #99 |
If my boss walks up behind me while a picture of a gun is on my monitor he'll say, "Nice gun" or maybe "Why aren't you working?". If my boss walks up behind me and a picture of a woman without clothes on is on my monitor, he'll (by law have to) say "Take this pink slip down to human resources. It's been nice working with you."
Is this right? wrong? Those questions are beyond me. Is this reality? Yep. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 04:58:20 PM · #100 |
Can you tell me what you think of when you see a nude man or a women? I know what my son thinks. I am going to shut up. If you want to discuss this further you can pm me.
I am excite about the new sight. Sounds like it will pretty much satify all us picky people.:)
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
[i]What do guns and nudety have in commen? So what if people get affended by guns. A gun is a gun. A body is something that should stay with the bonderies of a marriage. That is my oppinion. Yes they should change the sight just to fit my needs. lol What do you have agains guns. They are a good hunting tool. And you would think that if you are offended by guns then you would feel the same about nudes.
(Taking a position for the sake of debate): Guns weapons that are kill. The human body is a natural thing that has been depicted in art, even religious art, as long as humans have been creating art. I don't see why I should find something natural, beautiful and created by God less offensive than a tool for destroying one of God's creations.
-Terry
[/i]
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 08:38:55 AM EDT.
