TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[luckytxn 2,264]

Then follow them and stop moderating images that are OK. So far it is looking like unfair moderating.

Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, just to name the big ones.

[Darnell 8,478]

Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, just to name the big ones.

And these fellas have content filtering stuff in place, on most levels.

However, if I wanted to find 'egyptian large breasts', photos of,

MicroSoft Bing,

Google Search ,

Yahoo Search

will return the search results to me.

Sure, I understand your TOS, but to use the social standards of MicroSoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook,

you have to understand that these standards vary by:

1. geographical location of the server and

2. geographical location of the web browser and

3. content rules put in place by each company on ALL Levels (there are several, sometimes many, depending)

So, I think your one-liner response on social standards is specious. I also get the concept that you are flailing about. Combined, I am leaning towards the concept of this being yer first rodeo, and you are learning as you go along.

Which, of course, sucks for many USCitizen Members living in the USA. We seem to be suffering as a result of your lack of announcements (or word choice used) and your learning process.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

I'm the same person. Funny though.

Why do you think everyone is in the US? More than a 1/3rd of our visitors are not in the US. Our site is visible in those countries too. As we cater to an international audience we need to be aware that in many countries folks do not share the same view as many Americans do on this issue.

In short, the enforcement of this may have been a bit sudden and we are still working though how / what to moderate (there are many of us, mods included. The TOS is pretty clear as follows:

So a family photo with the mom in a bikini is ok. A lady posing in a suggestive way in a bikini is not. A photo of a runway model in sheer clothing with private parts visible is not ok. a lady lying on a bed with sheets covering "just enough" is not ok (very suggestive). I think these are all common sense, no?

All the rules above are in place to keep VJ on the up and up. Having content violating these guidelines can place the site in jeopardy -- I think that is in no ones interest.

OK, well in the country my husband is from it is offensive to people to take such a hard stand on nudity and suggestive posts. Nothing could be more weird and culturally abnormal than reacting harshly or with offensive to let's say a full frontal naked man on TV (and yes while watching TV with my daughter I caught a scene with men frolicking completely naked on a field).

I am glad that a woman in a bikini is okay now, because focusing all this attention on covering women's bodies in normal activities is offensive to me.

There is an avatar here in which someone's wife is pictured in a full burka. I find that incredibly offensive and I think most of the women and men in my husband's country find it offensive. Somehow repressing women is ok, but acting like women normally act in AMERICA is not?

So, we can ignore Danish sensibilities to prefer Saudi ones? I'm just not getting this at all.

If people in countries with more delicate sensibilities need visa advice could they not make their own website? Don't you think they should be open to American values if they are immigrating to America?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I think you are being extreme on your first point. I should emphasize the bikini can still be bad if it is shown in a way to be suggestive, etc.. I really think it is common sense in the end.

Common sense does not say "remove cartoon avatar because it shows underwear".

You are correct, a photo can be suggestive in full clothing. Per the TOS it would still be against our policy "lewd or suggestive poses".

So what rule did my avatar break? Certainly no lewd or suggestive pose, simply underwear. Is underwear alone suggestive, even on a cartoon character?

[mota bhai 2,675]

There is an avatar here in which someone's wife is pictured in a full burka. I find that incredibly offensive and I think most of the women and men in my husband's country find it offensive. Somehow repressing women is ok, but acting like women normally act in AMERICA is not?

Very well said.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Common sense does not say "remove cartoon avatar because it shows underwear".

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think most of the women and men in my husband's country find it offensive.

That settles it then.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think most people have a good idea what is tasteless, offensive, or appeals to the prurient nature. "I know it when I see it," is the legal standard in the US.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Rather than worry about what is and is not "family friendly", most of the items concerned violate international copyright agreements by being posted here without explicit permission, and on that basis alone, most of the images, videos, and articles posted here should be removed post haste.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I think most people have a good idea what is tasteless, offensive, or appeals to the prurient nature. "I know it when I see it," is the legal standard in the US.

Still doesn't explain the sweatpants removal. Apparently being a woman and having a heinie is suggestive. I've noted that and I am making arrangements to have mine surgically removed.

Common sense does not say "remove cartoon avatar because it shows underwear".

So what rule did my avatar break? Certainly no lewd or suggestive pose, simply underwear. Is underwear alone suggestive, even on a cartoon character?

Tsk tsk, young lady. Being a woman is suggestive.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Still doesn't explain the sweatpants removal. Apparently being a woman and having a heinie is suggestive. I've noted that and I am making arrangements to have mine surgically removed.

Tsk tsk, young lady. Being a woman is suggestive.

It is a threefold standard. I think "tasteless" was the criteria applied there.

Edited March 3, 2014 by The Postmaster

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It is a threefold standard. I think "tasteless" was the criteria applied there.

I agree that Juicy sweatpants are tacky. But I believe* the issue had more to do with suggestiveness than tastelessness.

*I cannot divulge further info on this matter per TOS.

[GandD 5,966]

You guys are just trying to pull lil Ewok into the daily suck.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

There is currently a picture on page 1 of latest uploads in the gallery that shows a lady's bottom from a rear view that is at least as "suggestive" as my lady in sweatpants.

[Teddy B 17,251]