Pornography" in a PDF movie?

Daniel Ward87 said:Hey guys, let’s try to stay on track with the topic—pornography in PDF Movie format—rather than making this all about yourselves. Otherwise, the admins are going to have to step in and deal with you.

Christian Taylor3 said:I don't know what you're talking about, the "full uncut fellatio" scene from 'The Brown Bunny' is explicitly a blowjob, here: http://www.slutload.com/watch/zZraqd...ncensored.html That was posted as part of a clearly labeled and unpunished thread in the chat. Now try comparing that to that innocent photograph (not a link, just a photo with a clear warning for minors) from yesterday's thread that you're trying to give me a custom ban for. The whole Forum is allowed to see it, but apparently I'm not.

briskhound2 said:As far as I'm concerned, The Brown Bunny IS NOT a pornographic Movie. Your picture IS pornography. Both are. No matter how innocent or harmless you claim it is. It's like saying if someone posts a rape scene featuring Monica Bellucci, or sex involving Sharon Stone and Michael Douglas—those are all just regular movies. Thrillers, art films, Sci-Fi—none of them are pornographic.

quietdriver3 said:But NSFW isn't really a warning, I guess. Like, what does that even mean? I actually tried to google it for an explanation, and it says: not safe for fucking. So, how does that actually relate to your hotlinking? 🤷

I mean, how is anyone supposed to believe that 80% when you're constantly lying? 🤷

And regarding the quote, I don't really see the issue. We could probably just break my sentence down into simple facts. Did you lie when you said you had a clean record? Yeah. Did you repeat that same lie twice (once in the banned corner and again in the appeal book)? Yeah. So, I guess it’s not just an acute thing, maybe more of a chronic problem.

A colleague already explained this in a previous post, I think.

Right now you’ve got 20 strikes, whereas before this latest incident you had 17. How far is that from those 10 or so strikes you were bragging about in your first post? Are we lying again?

Btw,

This actually just backs me up. If I say you were getting punished for stuff like this, and you're loaded with strikes, how exactly does that disprove my point?

I haven't forgotten. Just like I haven't forgotten the way you used to bully people whenever you felt like a crowd was forming behind you.

This is totally taken out of context, and it feels like a blatant attempt at trolling. Honestly, in the spirit of this new moderation direction, it actually handles a potential troll without needing more strikes or deleting posts.

Anyone can easily check that just by clicking the link.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:OMG WTF LOL? I'm using Google to search for nsfw and the very first thing that pops up is a link to a Wikipedia article titled Not safe for work.

Here's the link to the Google results. Either you're lying about searching, or you have no clue how to use a search engine—or maybe you're just acting tough so you can jump down someone else's throat? Honestly, if you're moderating a sub-forum on the biggest forum in America, you really should know the basic internet slang being used on the site itself, FFS.

Michelle Alvarez8 said:OMG WTF LOL? I'm using Google to search for nsfw and the very first thing that pops up is a link to a Wikipedia article titled Not safe for work.

Here's the link to the Google results. Either you're lying about searching, or you have no clue how to use a search engine—or maybe you're just acting tough so you can jump down someone else's throat? Honestly, if you're moderating a sub-forum on the biggest forum in America, you really should know the basic internet slang being used on the site itself, FFS.

Christian Taylor3 said:Beaver, let's get back to talking about porn on the Movie sub-forum:

NOTE: EXPLICIT CONTENT, UNDER 18S SHOULD NOT CLICK THE FIRST LINK IN THIS POST

(PORNOGRAPHY) The end of the movie contains a real oral sex scene. The character Daisy is on Her knees, performing oral sex on the character Bud. This is an actual oral sex scene, where a real penis is shown in the actress' mouth for a substantial length of time. He finishes in her mouth and she swallows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330099/parentalguide

So, those are the moderation criteria over on the Movie sub-forum; they would allow that kind of thing to be posted there, even without a warning. It's just total ignorance and a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Enough for the smart people.

northerncrane4, you're off-topic.

Once again, I'm asking the administration: who do I report to, and how, regarding a moderator's private messages (specifically one containing the most blatant insults toward a user)?

Enough from the smart guys.

briskhound2 said:That is a complete fabrication and a total twisting of what I actually wrote.

I never said anyone should let it fly without a warning—what I was pointing out was that the Movie is categorized as a DRAMA rather than xxx ADULT, just for context. Both of your images are straight-up pornographic. With the first one, you didn't even bother with a warning; you just dropped it right into the chat, and as for the second one, the "warning" you provided has about as much relevance as me trying to find a lost sock in a dark room... I acted based on my understanding of the rules at the time, and I wasn't wrong—which has been explained to you several times now. This whole thing is just noise because the moderators were actually doing their jobs.

If you want to talk about xxx Movies, I'm always down, but don't go calling people uninformed or clueless when that wasn't even the point of my post. You started by dropping a wide shot of female anatomy (which you're now claiming is just an innocent picture similar to certain acts) and then followed it up with a link to oral sex, which you're now acting like doesn't even exist.

Enough from the smart guys.

Unless you're going to address those claims that the Movie sub-forum moderators are restricting communication between users—which is a pretty heavy accusation, by the way—this whole argument is pointless because we're just spinning our wheels...

Regarding the first one, you didn't even issue a warning; you just nuked it right in the chat, and as for the second, the warning you gave had about as much relevance as my interest in moon rock research. I acted based on how the established rules were being interpreted at the time, and I wasn't wrong—which has been politely explained to you several times now. This whole thing is just making a massive scene because the moderator(s) were actually doing their jobs.

Unless you confirm those claims that the moderators of the Movie section are restricting communication between users (which is a pretty heavy accusation), this entire debate is pointless because we're just spinning our wheels.

Christian Taylor3 said:I honestly don't think you even grasp the most basic definition of pornography; you could just check Wikipedia for once: Pornography is the explicit depiction of sexual intercourse. The original meaning of the word is "to illustrate lewdness." Claiming that the first photo was pornographic is an insult to every woman and female user on this Forum, if nothing else. Besides, I've already apologized for both shots.

Regarding the first one, you didn't even issue a warning; you just nuked it right in the chat, and as for the second, the warning you gave had about as much relevance as my interest in moon rock research. I acted based on how the established rules were being interpreted at the time, and I wasn't wrong—which has been politely explained to you several times now. This whole thing is just making a massive scene because the moderator(s) were actually doing their jobs.

Once again, why on earth would the Movie chat be any different from the Soccer one? All the examples and photos are right there in the intro post. There are NO double standards here, and there won't be, unless we're talking about LjES. Those are the final words from the highest authority here, Anderlon. As long as these supposed double standards exist, you've just been reacting to rules that (yet) DON'T exist. And whose fault is that in the end? It certainly isn't mine.

Unless you confirm those claims that the moderators of the Movie section are restricting communication between users (which is a pretty heavy accusation), this entire debate is pointless because we're just spinning our wheels.

I will decisively confirm them using my own example, complete with links and everything, so feel free to go read the thread's opening post.

Some parts of this discussion are definitely nonsense, and we really are starting to repeat ourselves, but the topic itself isn't mindless—the administration hasn't even weighed in yet.

All the examples and photos are right there in the intro post. There’s NO double standard here, and there won't be—unless you count LjES. They are the highest authority here at Anderlon. As long as those double standards exist, you were just following the rules that (don't) exist yet. So whose fault is it? Definitely not mine.

Our policy is pretty much identical to Google’s or any other mainstream site when it comes to blocking explicit content. It's nothing personal. We aren't targeting anyone; it's just crossing a line, going against the rules, and there are consequences for that.

If you ask me, your ban isn't nearly as bad as having an ad pulled for similar reasons, which has happened plenty of times and is super awkward. These are the rules of the game. Take it or leave it.

briskhound2 said:That is a complete fabrication and a total twisting of what I actually wrote.

I never said anyone should let it fly without a warning—what I was pointing out was that the Movie is categorized as a DRAMA rather than xxx ADULT, just for context. Both of your images are straight-up pornographic. With the first one, you didn't even bother with a warning; you just dropped it right into the chat, and as for the second one, the "warning" you provided has about as much relevance as me trying to find a lost sock in a dark room... I acted based on my understanding of the rules at the time, and I wasn't wrong—which has been explained to you several times now. This whole thing is just noise because the moderators were actually doing their jobs.

If you want to talk about xxx Movies, I'm always down, but don't go calling people uninformed or clueless when that wasn't even the point of my post. You started by dropping a wide shot of female anatomy (which you're now claiming is just an innocent picture similar to certain acts) and then followed it up with a link to oral sex, which you're now acting like doesn't even exist.

Enough from the smart guys.

Unless you're going to address those claims that the Movie sub-forum moderators are restricting communication between users—which is a pretty heavy accusation, by the way—this whole argument is pointless because we're just spinning our wheels...

fadedsailor932 said:Look, they can be different. Basically, the chat just depends on how much the moderator of a specific sub-forum wants to deal with it. Some boards have it, some don't. Those that do follow their own local rules and whatever the moderator decides. That’s why something you say in the Soccer chat might fly, but in the Movie section, you’ll get flagged. Or vice versa.

All the examples and photos are right there in the intro post. There’s NO double standard here, and there won't be—unless you count LjES. They are the highest authority here at Anderlon. As long as those double standards exist, you were just following the rules that (don't) exist yet. So whose fault is it? Definitely not mine.

It’s the same way we could have pointed back to the "highest authority" label:

Our policy is pretty much identical to Google’s or any other mainstream site when it comes to blocking explicit content. It's nothing personal. We aren't targeting anyone; it's just crossing a line, going against the rules, and there are consequences for that.

and:

If you ask me, your ban isn't nearly as bad as having an ad pulled for similar reasons, which has happened plenty of times and is super awkward. These are the rules of the game. Take it or leave it.

The real issue here is that the definition of adult content isn't clearly laid out in the rules, so it's basically left up to the "discretion" of the moderators. It's just like the chat—it falls into that gray area where it's up to the individual mod of that thread to decide what stays and what goes. Add in all the confusion regarding links and warnings, and you've got a mess that isn't the fault of the users or us moderators. It's just a "gray zone" on the Forum.hr where both sides were technically right.
I really hope this gets cleared up so we don't have these misunderstandings anymore.