Has CEHST Become a Liberal Campfire Club?

[GandD 5,966]

If the world revolved ONLY around YOU, then that would matter.

Well, "the world" doesn't but "my world" does.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think its pretty obvious that the sheer portion would have to be covering the naughty bits. A wedding veil would not be included.

If you lot are going to implement a TOS with a billion caveats about acceptable conduct in which a screenshot of Jessica Rabbit is removed as a TOS violation (perhaps with further actions for 'persistent offenders') then you need to make sure that the language used in the site rules is clear and unambiguous.

Otherwise it gives individuals a wide latitude of discretion to find a TOS violation for one poster and not for others.

As we have seen with the language use issue around the word filter, there are... 'inconsistencies'.

The fact remains that is written there about unacceptable imagery says that a wedding veil is against the TOS.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Venkman

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Merit badges are usually earned and should be displayed properly on the liberal sash.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you can't have a pic of Jessica Rabbit or Wilma Flintstone in a bikini, that photo has to be right out.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Burqua wearing women have nice legs too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure. VJ's TOS just doesn't permit them to be seen.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Ouchy!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Let's all slam some Christians. That's like fun, and en-vogue in today's America. After all, their just citizens, or I guess from the liberal perspective there quite a bit less than that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ouchy!

Let's all slam some Christians. That's like fun, and en-vogue in today's America. After all, their just citizens, or I guess from the liberal perspective there quite a bit less than that.

Is this overspill from your Facebook or something?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So what constitutes nudity or partial nudity for the purposes of the VJ TOS?

Is it exposed leg? Midriff? If it's leg, how much leg is allowed? Below the knee?

I realise this sounds facetious, and it is, but the idea that all of this stuff is common sense when there isn't a consensus of thought (once again) means that the values of individuals rather than community standards are dictating moderation decisions.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Let's all slam some Christians. That's like fun, and en-vogue in today's America. After all, their just citizens, or I guess from the liberal perspective there quite a bit less than that.

That is fair game on here all the time . That is just how liberals roll .

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is fair game on here all the time . That is just how liberals roll .

Prove it.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

So what constitutes nudity or partial nudity for the purposes of the VJ TOS?

Is it exposed leg? Midriff? If it's leg, how much leg is allowed? Below the knee?

I realise this sounds facetious, and it is, but the idea that all of this stuff is common sense when there isn't a consensus of thought (once again) means that the values of individuals rather than community standards are dictating moderation decisions.

I agree, and this is one of the issues I've tried to raise in the thread I posted in Site Discussion. The TOS's flexibility is great because it does allow for discretion. However, the more specific prohibitions become, the more ludicrous the results can be. For example, a woman in a bridal veil is most certainly in sheer or see-through clothing by any definition. This is prohibited by the section entitled "Permitted Uses." So, all pictures of women in sheer veils need to be removed. There are many photos in the Gallery of female VJers wearing bikinis and male VJers wearing smallish swim trunks. These are both examples of "strategically covered nudity," which is also prohibited under "Permitted Uses." And of course, there is no definition of what makes a pose "provocative" -- is it only sexually provocative, or is it provocative of emotion in general? Further, what is provocative to one may not be to many. The photo of the woman in a burqa who is exposing her legs is arguably provocative both sexually and emotionally.

I don't mean this as an attack on the mods. You have a terrible set of tools to work with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree. I think it's hard to argue that there can be any consistency when the stipulations are so specific but at the same time so non specific.

Pornographic and sexual imagery is pretty obvious but when the definition of nudity extends to cartoon characters and women's summer clothes - you need clear guidelines of what that actually is in very clear terms, otherwise the decision is being made on an individual basis which might result in some posters being treated unfairly and inconsistently from others.

If you're going to cover the issue of strategic nudity you have to ask what is meant by that. It sounds obvious but it's really not. If Wilma Flintstone and Jessica Rabbit are in bikinis is it more, less or equally objectionable is one more 'offensive' because it's more anatomicals correct?

If a woman in crop top and Jean shorts equates to 'nudity' does the same reasoning apply to men wearing shorts and a wife beater top?

The burqa photo is a perfect example. How much leg is allowed for a woman? Is it the same, more or less for a man?

This situation seems guaranteed to result in bizarre outcomes - and oddly enough it is almost promoting sexual inequality as well.

As I said, most of this is facetious, but these considerations are driving moderation decisions.

At the very least its a mismatch of engagement between the admins and the general membership.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I get all "KOOM-BUY-YA" when I see the sweet and caring lib-caring-topics that add further stigma to the people of America. When it comes to gettin-along, we all need to just phone a lib or attend one of their campfires to sing. Yellow-skinned Asian women, mail order brides, white American men should be ashamed and give in to the caring group we now call secular progressives.