| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2006 05:47:51 PM · #26 |
Just have to go through the challenge archive section... :) One of the first go to's for new visitors.
If an image is deemed by the voters to be good enough to win a ribbon (other than nude challenges of course) it should be deemed good enough to represent DPC on the first page a new visitor sees and if you ask me, winners have earned that right... :)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:48:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Just have to go through the challenge archive section... :) One of the first go to's for new visitors.
If an image is deemed by the voters to be good enough to win a ribbon (other than nude challenges of course) it should be deemed good enough to represent DPC on the first page a new visitor sees and if you ask me, winners have earned that right... :) |
You've completely missed everything I've said.
I was hoping you'd grasp the obvious.. If Peete cared about what you are arguing about.. he could simply remove the photo from the nude category, and bing. Done.
Message edited by author 2006-09-02 17:51:07.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:52:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Well then I guess I am paranoid and naive. Perhaps I AM the only one who has seen a movement of late to conservatize (is that a word) DPC... :) |
I don't think you're crazy. I do think it has bubbled to the surface in the last few days, but I think that it will pass.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:53:33 PM · #29 |
Nope, didn't. I understand what you're saying. Even though it was clasified in the nude category because of the rules, SC should step in in this kind of situation and allow the thumb to be visible si my point. I know the rules and procedures... :)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:55:15 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Qart:
Nope, didn't. I understand what you're saying. Even though it was clasified in the nude category because of the rules, SC should step in in this kind of situation and allow the thumb to be visible si my point. I know the rules and procedures... :) |
they should not be allowed to be viewed unless you are a member and have unchecked the hide nudes button... period...
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:55:32 PM · #31 |
I just wanted to jump in and say that just because an image has been flagged for nudity, it doesn't mean that it is unavailable to guests or users that have turned the hide nude option on.
It simply means that the thumbnail has been turned from this:
..into this:
You can still click on each image above and see the full-sized image.
The option is there for users, who like a lot of us, browse at work and probably wouldn't appreiciate having someone walk up on them while viewing the recently commented photos page to see 1 or 2 nudes out of 50 photographs and get the wrong idea [/run-on-sentence].
Only recently, within the last few months, have logged out users had the "hide nude" option turned on. It wasn't done intentionally for any reason other than the preference were redesigned and the bit just got switched on. |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 05:58:01 PM · #32 |
ehem, I'm still being bad, just in a more low-key sort of way. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:04:31 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Di:
Originally posted by Qart:
Nope, didn't. I understand what you're saying. Even though it was clasified in the nude category because of the rules, SC should step in in this kind of situation and allow the thumb to be visible si my point. I know the rules and procedures... :) |
they should not be allowed to be viewed unless you are a member and have unchecked the hide nudes button... period... |
Thanks for your input Di... :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:06:08 PM · #34 |
Only recently, within the last few months, have logged out users had the "hide nude" option turned on. It wasn't done intentionally for any reason other than the preference were redesigned and the bit just got switched on.
Langdon, thanks for the explanation. I think you can see why this was being questioned. Rd |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:11:21 PM · #35 |
well, I'll stand corrected on that front then. I thought nudes had always been designated. (guess not). Now I have to wonder why I still *remember* them being blocked a year ago.
To help with that, I think it's time to break open my bottle of Bombay Sapphire.
Message edited by author 2006-09-02 18:12:56.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:13:50 PM · #36 |
| Thanks Artyste... as always no offense meant and I appreciate your input... :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:14:54 PM · #37 |
i stand corrected also ..
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:18:31 PM · #38 |
How about a poll
How much nudity should be allowed:
None
Partially covered yet provocative
As currently allowed
(And no, I don't think Peete's photo is porn. The nuditiy in that shot was not used in a sexual context.) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 06:20:30 PM · #39 |
Thx Di... always a pleasure... :)
|
|
|
|
09/03/2006 02:14:06 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
How about a poll
How much nudity should be allowed:
None
Partially covered yet provocative
As currently allowed
|
Is there a need for a poll? My reading of this thread is that there doesn't seem to be a problem. If the viewer has not indicated they want to see nude images, then they are presented with the warning message in place of a thumbnail, and only see the image if they (deliberately) turn filtering off, or (deliberately) click on the warning message to see the large image. This allows artistic nude content to be included, without offending anyone who dislikes nude content. (Anything pornographic is already covered by the existing terms disallowing explicit sexual images.)
If there was a poll, it would need to be written in a more comprehensive but less biased way. "Partially covered" is open to multiple interpretations, and "provocative" suggests an underlying assumption that all nude images are in some way (sexually) provocative.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2006 02:40:33 AM · #41 |
I think what langdon was saying is that it has only been recently that the default was to hide the nudes. Before then, each user had to check it to hide them.
Ya'll aren't crazy. Nudes have been "hidden" for a long time, now. |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 01:18:31 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I think what langdon was saying is that it has only been recently that the default was to hide the nudes. Before then, each user had to check it to hide them.
Ya'll aren't crazy. Nudes have been "hidden" for a long time, now. |
Thing is.. I've never had them hidden..
but I distinctly remember seeing the "Hidden due to content" thumb on the nude challenges, (and one or two times before that), on people's computers I'd use before I logged in as me..
So.. either I'm going crazy, or I've made up memories. lol.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2006 01:26:07 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Only recently, within the last few months, have logged out users had the "hide nude" option turned on. It wasn't done intentionally for any reason other than the preference were redesigned and the bit just got switched on. |
I read this to mean that when the preference page was re-designed, the "Hide" option was made to be "ON" by default. If someone who had it "OFF" previously logged out and then back in, this preference would have been changed, and the user would have to go reset it to "OFF".
That would account for some content being unexpectedly hidden. |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 01:29:15 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by karmat:
I think what langdon was saying is that it has only been recently that the default was to hide the nudes. Before then, each user had to check it to hide them.
Ya'll aren't crazy. Nudes have been "hidden" for a long time, now. |
Thing is.. I've never had them hidden..
but I distinctly remember seeing the "Hidden due to content" thumb on the nude challenges, (and one or two times before that), on people's computers I'd use before I logged in as me..
So.. either I'm going crazy, or I've made up memories. lol. |
I took Lagdon's comment to say it used to be the default to hide and then it was unintentionally changed to be not hidden then that was fixed recently. as for the reason that the ribbon is now hidden when it wasn't before is because he put it in the nude catagory (I assume) I ahve nudes hidden and I could see it before and the other day it changed. around that same time i noticed that he changed the camera he used in the details so maybe while he was updating that he put it in the nude catagpry which caused it to be hidden from the non-logged in and those that ahve nudes hidden. |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 02:32:23 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by langdon:
I just wanted to jump in and say that just because an image has been flagged for nudity, it doesn't mean that it is unavailable to guests or users that have turned the hide nude option on.
It simply means that the thumbnail has been turned from this:
..into this:
You can still click on each image above and see the full-sized image.
The option is there for users, who like a lot of us, browse at work and probably wouldn't appreiciate having someone walk up on them while viewing the recently commented photos page to see 1 or 2 nudes out of 50 photographs and get the wrong idea [/run-on-sentence].
Only recently, within the last few months, have logged out users had the "hide nude" option turned on. It wasn't done intentionally for any reason other than the preference were redesigned and the bit just got switched on. |
Perhaps including something like "click to view" on the "image hidden..." thumb would be more informative, since visitors might not realize that clicking on the thumb would reveal the image. |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 02:45:55 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by jemison:
Perhaps including something like "click to view" on the "image hidden..." thumb would be more informative, since visitors might not realize that clicking on the thumb would reveal the image. |
I'd have to say that I agree with your view.
I personally have no intention of viewing a nude, tasteful, arty, subtle or not.
That's my choice.
But to remove (or hide) the choice from someone who may want to view it is not the right way to do things.
So, yeah, I second what jemison said.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2006 03:20:45 PM · #47 |
Further down the road of this topic however, but keeping in the spirit of its posting, can someone please tell me why so many photos are being DQ'ed?
Is it just me, or has someone else also noticed a plague of re-calculations over the last while?
I realise that the benefit of the doubt goes to people who may not understand the editing rules, but it's still really sad to see so much of it happening.
I hope we'll soon see the dust settle, and see deserving winning entries remaining as winning entries for the duration.
And viva to all of us who plod along week in and week out, trying to do things the right way, while we learn from (and hopefully join) the really talented winners in our midst!
|
|
|
|
09/03/2006 03:39:06 PM · #48 |
| You know, but I am sorry. This is as assinine as Mr. Ashcroft covering a statue in Washington because it was an ART piece which showed breasts. Give me a break here. What is art? I looked at said image and it shows NOTHING people, NOTHING ! Are we adults or are we 13-year-olds? Don't sensor my world ! I will make that determination for myself. What next? We see a nude baby lying on a blanket and it is suddenly Child Pornography? Grow up people ! It's 2006. If you have issues with nudity, just move on dot com ! I am an adult and wish to be treated as such. Enough said ! |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 03:52:28 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
You know, but I am sorry. This is as assinine as Mr. Ashcroft covering a statue in Washington because it was an ART piece which showed breasts. Give me a break here. What is art? I looked at said image and it shows NOTHING people, NOTHING ! Are we adults or are we 13-year-olds? Don't sensor my world ! I will make that determination for myself. What next? We see a nude baby lying on a blanket and it is suddenly Child Pornography? Grow up people ! It's 2006. If you have issues with nudity, just move on dot com ! I am an adult and wish to be treated as such. Enough said ! |
Some light background reading for you. ;^)
enforce forum rules pertaining to adult content
Allow individual forum posts to be marked adult |
|
|
|
09/03/2006 03:53:00 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Ashuuter:
You know, but I am sorry. This is as assinine as Mr. Ashcroft covering a statue in Washington because it was an ART piece which showed breasts. Give me a break here. What is art? I looked at said image and it shows NOTHING people, NOTHING ! Are we adults or are we 13-year-olds? Don't sensor my world ! I will make that determination for myself. What next? We see a nude baby lying on a blanket and it is suddenly Child Pornography? Grow up people ! It's 2006. If you have issues with nudity, just move on dot com ! I am an adult and wish to be treated as such. Enough said ! |
That's exactly why I agree with (BILL) Jemison.
The default preference is for nude thumbnails to be switched off, and be replaced with a grey block which says "hidden due to content"
I'd like to see DPC add: "click here to view" to that thumbnail, for those who would want to view.
I don't, so by default I support DPC making it the default option.
But I'm mature enough to admit that the option should be made MUCH clearer for those who do, such as yourself.
No exclamation marks were harmed in the posting of this reply...
|
|
