| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2009 02:06:42 PM · #51 |
| Woodies, and duckies and snakes and spiders and gore and nipples, oh my! This is a photography site, with a wide range of styles, tastes and subjects... what do you expect?!? From the Terms of Service: "You understand that by using the Website, you may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable." To sign up anyway and then complain about it is like going to Hooters and demanding that the staff wear burkhas. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:11:52 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Great point!!! There's nothing like a 10 year old, standing behind you, unnoticed and having a nude (especially, some of the more recent ones), pop up on screen. They'll either stand there, quietly transfixed, jaw open, or go running and screaming...."Mom...Dad's looking at porn again!!!!" ;-) |
And yet some people would much prefer their kids to see a tasteful photo that includes a bare breast or two, rather than something dripping in blood and gore, disgusting enough to make you throw up right then and there.
At least the anti-nude crowd can protect their poor innocent eyes later on - I have NO way to protect myself from the violence! |
Yeah, I agree. I think that all questionable contented pictures should have the option of being grayed out as some of the nude shots do, post challenge. There are only a very few that have had me to the point of feeling nauseated at the sight of them, but it would be nice to NOT have to look at the extreme content of those particular shots just as nudes are hidden post challenge, "due to content". Good point! |
And then we fall into a dystopian future where everything is filtered for us because we want no ability to police ourselves.
It's an absolutely ridiculous premise to start blocking every 'questionable' photo, because there would be no way to agree on what 'questionable' is.
Nudity is a bit more black and white, but even it remains a source of hot debate everywhere it is debated. As someone else mentioned, where does one stop? Amish dress? OMG, I see an ankle?
If I see the "my child is going to be corrupted!" argument one more time I'm going to scream. Children don't corrupt so damn easily unless they've been taught to. If one is THAT concerned with their child seeing something they shouldn't see, then they shouldn't be allowing their child to look over their shoulder while they are on the internet *PERIOD*, unless they are on a very specifically designated child-friendly website. This is not a specifically designated child-friendly website. It's not even a specifically designated family-friendly website. It's a website for photography, in all it's glorious forms, and that includes nudity, violence, and disturbing subject matter.
This site seems to have given some people some slack in that it does allow nude filter blocking, when it probably didn't ever have to do that to begin with, but people always want more. More more more. Block everything I don't agree with! Remove everything I find distasteful! Save the poor fragile little children!
Please. |
Could not have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:14:39 PM · #53 |
never mind....
Message edited by author 2009-01-25 14:45:58. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:24:41 PM · #54 |
Liam, please don't feel that comments here are aimed at you, personally. You've told us that your concern is work viewing, not prudism (is that a real word?) :)
This subject arises every now and then and there are some on this site that seem feel the human form is shameful or not capable of being viewed with anything but lust. The comments are in reaction to past history. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:29:29 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
I have no problems with it, I have a office where my screen can’t be seen by my employees, but I thought I’d bring up other issues like: How many members on this site are under the age of 21? The kids looking over your shoulder while voting at home. Should these members not vote too. Anyway, just a little more fuel to the fireâ€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦Lol. |
Well, would it not be under the age of 18? At least down here you can do everything except drink and rent a car at 18. |
Nude photos are the gateway to drinking and then renting cars. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:29:44 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I don't want to see woodies or duckies, but I have to see a lot of them on this site. I carry on. |
 |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:34:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
More more more. Block everything I don't agree with! Remove everything I find distasteful! Save the poor fragile little children!
Please. |
Yes--it seems some people want everything re-tooled to suit themselves:
Remove "offensive" (non-effusive, praising) comments from images, block images that offend me, or could Get Me In Trouble If I Am Caught Viewing Them At Work Because I Cannot Be Responsible For My OWN Surfing Choices At Work. My kids might see me looking at it at home and I have No Control over that. Make the challenge images 800x800 instead of 720 max--and I will vote no higher than a 5 until you do! If I see a nude, I am compelled to vote it a 1--I have no control over myself.
"Some people complain and want the whole world covered with leather to protect their feet. It is much easier to wear shoes."
|
|
|
|
01/25/2009 02:48:10 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
I have no problems with it, I have a office where my screen can’t be seen by my employees, but I thought I’d bring up other issues like: How many members on this site are under the age of 21? The kids looking over your shoulder while voting at home. Should these members not vote too. Anyway, just a little more fuel to the fireâ€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦Lol. |
Well, would it not be under the age of 18? At least down here you can do everything except drink and rent a car at 18. |
Nude photos are the gateway to drinking and then renting cars. |
LMAO!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 03:39:16 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Woodies, and duckies and snakes and spiders and gore and nipples, oh my! This is a photography site, with a wide range of styles, tastes and subjects... what do you expect?!? From the Terms of Service: "You understand that by using the Website, you may be exposed to content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable." To sign up anyway and then complain about it is like going to Hooters and demanding that the staff wear burkhas. :-/ |
Nope it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 03:48:11 PM · #60 |
Prude or not is in many ways not the core issue. The basic situation is that most workplaces to not allow pornography of any type. Their operational definition of this is usually nudity of any type. If the boss says no pornography, or no nudity viewing on the internet he means no nudity. The definitions used by the people on this site are irrelevant in this matter - all that counts is what the boss says - that is what is going to determine if you get in trouble or fired at the workplace. If I say it is art and the boss says it is pornography I lose every time.
Given that I would conclude that without a nudity filter on all content - viewing, forums, challenges - that viewing this site at work will always be a risk for trouble from the boss. And further since the determination of nudity is usually by the poster, their definition may not match that of the boss. So even a filter will not work in all cases.
My solution is just not to view the site from the work place. I really do not believe that I have any other choice.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2009 03:59:09 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 03:59:18 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Great point!!! There's nothing like a 10 year old, standing behind you, unnoticed and having a nude (especially, some of the more recent ones), pop up on screen. They'll either stand there, quietly transfixed, jaw open, or go running and screaming...."Mom...Dad's looking at porn again!!!!" ;-) |
And yet some people would much prefer their kids to see a tasteful photo that includes a bare breast or two, rather than something dripping in blood and gore, disgusting enough to make you throw up right then and there.
At least the anti-nude crowd can protect their poor innocent eyes later on - I have NO way to protect myself from the violence! |
Yeah, I agree. I think that all questionable contented pictures should have the option of being grayed out as some of the nude shots do, post challenge. There are only a very few that have had me to the point of feeling nauseated at the sight of them, but it would be nice to NOT have to look at the extreme content of those particular shots just as nudes are hidden post challenge, "due to content". Good point! |
And then we fall into a dystopian future where everything is filtered for us because we want no ability to police ourselves.
It's an absolutely ridiculous premise to start blocking every 'questionable' photo, because there would be no way to agree on what 'questionable' is.
Nudity is a bit more black and white, but even it remains a source of hot debate everywhere it is debated. As someone else mentioned, where does one stop? Amish dress? OMG, I see an ankle?
If I see the "my child is going to be corrupted!" argument one more time I'm going to scream. Children don't corrupt so damn easily unless they've been taught to. If one is THAT concerned with their child seeing something they shouldn't see, then they shouldn't be allowing their child to look over their shoulder while they are on the internet *PERIOD*, unless they are on a very specifically designated child-friendly website. This is not a specifically designated child-friendly website. It's not even a specifically designated family-friendly website. It's a website for photography, in all it's glorious forms, and that includes nudity, violence, and disturbing subject matter.
This site seems to have given some people some slack in that it does allow nude filter blocking, when it probably didn't ever have to do that to begin with, but people always want more. More more more. Block everything I don't agree with! Remove everything I find distasteful! Save the poor fragile little children!
Please. |
Yeah, Ed...that's why we have 13 and 16 year old PARTICIPANTS in this site! ;-) Where's the parents looking over THEIR shoulders?! *smile* |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:00:27 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:01:42 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
yes... but did you all forgot about this little guy??? Minor waivor
parents of minors on here should be completely aware that there is the occasional nude photo. and if you disagree with that then dont sign the waiver
Message edited by author 2009-01-25 16:02:52. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:02:42 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by fixedintime:
Prude or not is in many ways not the core issue. The basic situation is that most workplaces to not allow pornography of any type. Their operational definition of this is usually nudity of any type. If the boss says no pornography, or no nudity viewing on the internet he means no nudity. The definitions used by the people on this site are irrelevant in this matter - all that counts is what the boss says - that is what is going to determine if you get in trouble or fired at the workplace. If I say it is art and the boss says it is pornography I lose every time.
Given that I would conclude that without a nudity filter on all content - viewing, forums, challenges - that viewing this site at work will always be a risk for trouble from the boss. And further since the determination of nudity is usually by the poster, their definition may not match that of the boss. So even a filter will not work in all cases.
My solution is just not to view the site from the work place. I really do not believe that I have any other choice. |
Someone else pointed out as well, that most companies don't want you do to any personal surfing at all regardless of if it's your break or lunch or whatever. All that companies I have worked at, bar the one I am not now, are like that. Not saying this is the case with the original poster, but seeming as that is the way most companies work I would assume that it was so. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:04:00 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by lifeafter2am:
Originally posted by ace flyman:
I have no problems with it, I have a office where my screen can’t be seen by my employees, but I thought I’d bring up other issues like: How many members on this site are under the age of 21? The kids looking over your shoulder while voting at home. Should these members not vote too. Anyway, just a little more fuel to the fireâ€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦Lol. |
Well, would it not be under the age of 18? At least down here you can do everything except drink and rent a car at 18. |
Nude photos are the gateway to drinking and then renting cars. |
LMAO!!!!!!!! |
Ok, this one cracked me up! ROFL!!! |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:06:50 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
yes... but did you all forgot about this little guy??? Minor waivor
parents of minors on here should be completely aware that there is the occasional nude photo. and if you disagree with that then dont sign the waiver |
I used to be a whizz at copying my parents' signature. :)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:07:55 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
yes... but did you all forgot about this little guy??? Minor waivor
parents of minors on here should be completely aware that there is the occasional nude photo. and if you disagree with that then dont sign the waiver |
I used to be a whizz at copying my parents' signature. :) |
haha i still am |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:11:33 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
yes... but did you all forgot about this little guy??? Minor waivor
parents of minors on here should be completely aware that there is the occasional nude photo. and if you disagree with that then dont sign the waiver |
I used to be a whizz at copying my parents' signature. :) |
haha i still am |
LOL Cody...you're a case in point, aren't ya? *smile*
I'm sure the nudes aren't affecting you one bit, are they?! *smile, wink* |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:15:32 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by cmtc:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
it's asking for simple respect of a feature implemented by the site to apply at all levels.
Common sense. |
It's a photo contest, and obscuring photos from the voters in any way defeats the purpose. It's more likely the "feature" would be removed than the contest compromised. Common sense. |
Question: Do you set the limits for participants to age 18 and above? If not, then there's a bit of a moral obligation to filter, isn't there? :) |
yes... but did you all forgot about this little guy??? Minor waivor
parents of minors on here should be completely aware that there is the occasional nude photo. and if you disagree with that then dont sign the waiver |
I used to be a whizz at copying my parents' signature. :) |
haha i still am |
LOL Cody...you're a case in point, aren't ya? *smile*
I'm sure the nudes aren't affecting you one bit, are they?! *smile, wink* |
i guess i am haha. and no. i havent had a nightmare yet over them ; ) |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:18:49 PM · #71 |
even so, any filter requires someone, usually the photographer, to check a box at some point indicating nudity is present--some would have considered the Dec Free Study winners to be nudity, some not. And if the box is not checked off, the filter would not work anyway.
The site cannot "protect" us, our computers cannot "protect" us--our actions and choices are the mechanisms to address here. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:32:12 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
even so, any filter requires someone, usually the photographer, to check a box at some point indicating nudity is present--some would have considered the Dec Free Study winners to be nudity, some not. And if the box is not checked off, the filter would not work anyway.
|
To take it back to the orginating thread member's question...IS there a way that could be implemented that one could use to prevent nude shots from popping up?
In this case, this particular member WOULD check that box while at work. *smile* He just doesn't have one to check! :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 04:57:51 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
even so, any filter requires someone, usually the photographer, to check a box at some point indicating nudity is present--some would have considered the Dec Free Study winners to be nudity, some not. And if the box is not checked off, the filter would not work anyway.
|
To take it back to the orginating thread member's question...IS there a way that could be implemented that one could use to prevent nude shots from popping up?
In this case, this particular member WOULD check that box while at work. *smile* He just doesn't have one to check! :) |
sorry, I meant that EACH image with nudity, partial, implied, whatever, would have to be self-reported at the time of posting, etc., in order for a site filter to screen it. So the OP could check the box saying he does not want it to pop up--but if the images themselves are not "marked" then the filter will pass them thru. Fatal Flaw in the idea of relying on an "automatic site filter" in my opinion.
for example, when submitting at 1x , you have to check yes or no to nude content at upload. But what if you check it incorrectly?
Message edited by author 2009-01-25 16:59:03. |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 05:00:44 PM · #74 |
really if you are concerned about work / don't view them at work
tyranny of the minority should be avoided
if you are 'worried about the children' i would suggest you start looking at other places
presume if i was a child & not a member, it just takes an extra click to view the secondary sexual characteristics of the people displayed under images nudes
just an extra click & all those children will be corrupted forever
of course on dpc images are a bit tame, & they would figure that out & move on... |
|
|
|
01/25/2009 05:41:52 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
Great point!!! There's nothing like a 10 year old, standing behind you, unnoticed and having a nude (especially, some of the more recent ones), pop up on screen. They'll either stand there, quietly transfixed, jaw open, or go running and screaming...."Mom...Dad's looking at porn again!!!!" ;-) |
And yet some people would much prefer their kids to see a tasteful photo that includes a bare breast or two, rather than something dripping in blood and gore, disgusting enough to make you throw up right then and there.
At least the anti-nude crowd can protect their poor innocent eyes later on - I have NO way to protect myself from the violence! |
Yeah, I agree. I think that all questionable contented pictures should have the option of being grayed out as some of the nude shots do, post challenge. There are only a very few that have had me to the point of feeling nauseated at the sight of them, but it would be nice to NOT have to look at the extreme content of those particular shots just as nudes are hidden post challenge, "due to content". Good point! |
And then we fall into a dystopian future where everything is filtered for us because we want no ability to police ourselves.
It's an absolutely ridiculous premise to start blocking every 'questionable' photo, because there would be no way to agree on what 'questionable' is.
Nudity is a bit more black and white, but even it remains a source of hot debate everywhere it is debated. As someone else mentioned, where does one stop? Amish dress? OMG, I see an ankle?
If I see the "my child is going to be corrupted!" argument one more time I'm going to scream. Children don't corrupt so damn easily unless they've been taught to. If one is THAT concerned with their child seeing something they shouldn't see, then they shouldn't be allowing their child to look over their shoulder while they are on the internet *PERIOD*, unless they are on a very specifically designated child-friendly website. This is not a specifically designated child-friendly website. It's not even a specifically designated family-friendly website. It's a website for photography, in all it's glorious forms, and that includes nudity, violence, and disturbing subject matter.
This site seems to have given some people some slack in that it does allow nude filter blocking, when it probably didn't ever have to do that to begin with, but people always want more. More more more. Block everything I don't agree with! Remove everything I find distasteful! Save the poor fragile little children!
Please. |
Yeah, Ed...that's why we have 13 and 16 year old PARTICIPANTS in this site! ;-) Where's the parents looking over THEIR shoulders?! *smile* |
Ask the parents. Parents of children that age must agree to waivers and get special permission for participants of that age to participate. They should be well aware of the risks involved and agree to them. This is not an argument for your position. |
|
