Rule 6

[CommanderJameson]

Rule 6 is interesting.

It reads thus:

The Posting Rules said:

When using this website you agree not to:
.
.
.
6. Post material or links to material that may be considered pornographic, violent, racist, sexist or voyeuristic or is otherwise offensive or unlawful.

The first three are pretty "well, duh".

However, the next two terms are most interesting. "Sexist"? Well, that's half the P&P gone and Big Al's "bin" finger in a splint, worn out and broken.

"Voyeuristic"? Difficult. Grid Girls thread? Toast, surely?

The reason I bring this up is because Al (probably correctly, I didn't see the link) squashed a post in this thread and wondered if there's anything to guide people in posting links to people with not many clothes on.

Long version short: what do the PH mods regard as "sexist" and "voyeuristic"?

[Kinky]

CJ - I'll be honest .....

It was lucky that Al got there before I did - as I would have permanently banned the poster straight off, without hesitation.

I guess I'm less tolerant of this type of crap, that everyone complains about - but yet continue to post.

K

[Big Al.]

Somebody reported that post had a link to a porn video, on viewing said link it was indeed a porn video and was subsequently removed.

The Poster of that link knew exactly what the video contained so I had no need to point as to what part of the rule was broken.

Hope that clarifies.

[ali_kat]

Big Al said:

The Poster of that link knew exactly what the video contained so I had no need to point as to what part of the rule was broken.

And yet another long standing member of PH was banned last year for a similar offence

The Mods really do need to have a clear 'rule' on what action to take for this so all do the same, not one tolerate & remove the post, another remove & sin bin, and yet another ban (not just K that feels that way!)

[Big Al.]

I don't know whether you saw the clip that was linked, and whilst I did consider it to be pornography, it was certainly not in the same disgusting league and the one where the other PH got banned for.

Lets just say on this occasion I got it wrong, and didn't ban him.

[ali_kat]

I didn't Al, nor did I see the other one - fortunately

I don't know if you got it wrong or not, I just think it is not right for you guys to not have a hard and fast rule on how to react to porn being linked here, it is the luck of the draw as to who sees it first (and what mood they are in )


P&P needs cleaning up, I'm on your side, not theirs

[RacingPete]

ali_kat said:

I just think it is not right for you guys to not have a hard and fast rule on how to react to porn being linked here

I think it is very hard to come up with a black and white ruling for every case that we will see on the site, most luckily are quite clear but it is the numerous gray areas where the decision making gets difficult (and I must say the moderators do a tremendous job at dealing with these).

It is very clear that we do not tolerate porn on this site, or linking to it, the punishment for such offence can vary depending on the way it was used or the type of porn linked, it is extremely subjective.

All across society you could argue these rules are not clear: driving offences for speeding vary from a ticking off to bans for what could be seen the same offence. Football referees give various decisions and cards (I know it is spur of the moment, but even the review board give different penalties using video evidence).

I know it doesn't help out with the question, but we are a car forum site and thus surely linking to risque things is outside the remit of the site. If you are unsure whether it will break the rules by being borderline risque then don't post it.

[130R]

CommanderJameson said:

"Voyeuristic"? Difficult. Grid Girls thread?

IMO it is not threads like the grid girls one that are the problem because it is pretty obvious from the title what is in it. I know not to open it at work when I don't know who might be stood behind me. What I could do without is people posting those sort of pictures in innocuous looking threads and TBH I don't open half the stuff in the Pie & Piston at work any more because of it. I don't have websense etc at work but I know a lot of people do and they might find they can't access this site pretty soon.

[ali_kat]

RacingPete said:

ali_kat said:

I just think it is not right for you guys to not have a hard and fast rule on how to react to porn being linked here

I think it is very hard to come up with a black and white ruling for every case that we will see on the site, most luckily are quite clear but it is the numerous gray areas where the decision making gets difficult (and I must say the moderators do a tremendous job at dealing with these).

It is very clear that we do not tolerate porn on this site, or linking to it, the punishment for such offence can vary depending on the way it was used or the type of porn linked, it is extremely subjective.

All across society you could argue these rules are not clear: driving offences for speeding vary from a ticking off to bans for what could be seen the same offence. Football referees give various decisions and cards (I know it is spur of the moment, but even the review board give different penalties using video evidence).

I know it doesn't help out with the question, but we are a car forum site and thus surely linking to risque things is outside the remit of the site. If you are unsure whether it will break the rules by being borderline risque then don't post it.

For every case on the site, yes, but the porn bit, should be a hard and fast rule. And that to me is to protect the Moderators (who do do a fabulous job!) from the backlashes that they receive (usually unfairly).

There is a serious problem with the P&P and the Mods are doing their best to clean up.

I've made my feelings pretty clear on the number of 'girly' picture threads that are appearing already, both in the threads (for which I was vilified) and in here, so no need to go over old ground, but making it clear that a link to porn (of any sort) will not be tolerated and result in an automatic ban, rather than a slap on the wrist, will surely help with that? Because to some, the SinBin is seen as a 'badge of honour' rather than a punishment, it certainly doesn't show that porn will not be tolerated, more that it will be 'cleaned up after'.

[ali_kat]

CommanderJameson said:

Long version short: what do the PH mods regard as "sexist" and "voyeuristic"?

Sorry CJ, I've wandered from the point

But surely it should be what do you (the poster) consider to be "sexist" and "voyeuristic"? And if it falls into that, or even if you have to question it, then you don't post it. (not that I think you would ever have that particular question in your head when posting )

[CommanderJameson]

ali_kat said:

CommanderJameson said:

Long version short: what do the PH mods regard as "sexist" and "voyeuristic"?

Sorry CJ, I've wandered from the point

But surely it should be what do you (the poster) consider to be "sexist" and "voyeuristic"? And if it falls into that, or even if you have to question it, then you don't post it. (not that I think you would ever have that particular question in your head when posting )

Well, what I consider to be sexist or voyeuristic is somewhat irrelevant, because I'm not a mod. I could get outraged by seeing a naked table leg, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

[ali_kat]

CommanderJameson said:

Well, what I consider to be sexist or voyeuristic is somewhat irrelevant, because I'm not a mod. I could get outraged by seeing a naked table leg, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

But it is not irrelevant. As posters we have a responsibility to our enjoyment of PH to self moderate. So it does make a difference

If you found that naked table leg offensive, you would not therefore post it......... and as such, if you are offended by said maked table leg being posted by another user, you should report it.

[zetec]

I don't get offended at a video of girls in knickers shaking their bums, yet, I do get offended at girls...ahem...pooing in a cup!!

For some the latter isn't offensive, for some the previous is offensive (especially if viewing on a works PC).

I know and understand it's a tough call, but where is the line to be drawn?

In simpler terms, what is porn?

Edit to add: Not that I'm wanting to post filth, I just don't want to post a video which may include a bare breast and find myself banned!!

Edited by zetec on Wednesday 29th October 00:16

[Meeja]

zetec said:

I don't get offended at a video of girls in knickers shaking their bums, yet, I do get offended at girls...ahem...pooing in a cup!!

For some the latter isn't offensive, for some the previous is offensive (especially if viewing on a works PC).

I know and understand it's a tough call, but where is the line to be drawn?

In simpler terms, what is porn?

Ah..... can open, worms everywhere.

One person would find topless shots (as in The Sun Page 3) pornographic, wheras the next person would find it tittliation, and perfectly acceptable.

For example, the firewall on my office network will flag up images that feature bikini clad women (ie not naked, or topless, just wearing the minimum to hide their taboo zones) as pornographic, and hence blocked. Surf for anything heavier than that, and big men in dark suits and earpeices turn up at your desk, and march you out of the building.

This post refers to a video that contained scenes that you would not be able to access on a high street (even top shelf) - It would have to be a "specialist" shop - and as such I don't see how anyone (even with the broadest mind) would see it as anything BUT pornographic.