I was told to stop posting about this in the TL community ABL thread so I'm finally making a thread here. The discussion in the ABL thread looked like this:
On June 01 2012 10:32 GMarshal wrote: Thats website feedback material, not laugh about people getting banned material -__-
You were right until arguing over this picture caused 1 perm and 1 temp ban. And even before that, my post was at least related to taking moderating action as reaction to a post, unlike some offtopic stuff that happens to be posted in this thread. As a former contributor of the 1st pic thread and from time to time contributor of the current pic thread I don't like it when people lower the quality of that thread with their posts, when I post I expect the quality to get better. I don't get your reason to be strict as to where this stuff should be posted when post I quoted offends at least 33% TL users, because this is how many TL users are Americans. I'm really, really surprised 71% people voted "No" in my poll.
The permed guy I reported because he was arguing in the pics thread. The temped guy was banned because he was arguing with the permed guy. None of this has anything to do with you coming in here to complain about a picture you found offensive. If you want the Nyan Eleven guy moderated, report his post. If you disagree with the way your report is handled, take it to Website Feedback.
TLDR; I got a guy permed. :: report dance ::
What? Go to the pic thread and read their argument, starting from the 1st person offended by the nyan WTC picture, on the page earlier. Everything started because of this picture. Does a plane has to be hijacked by terrorists and hit a tall building in Germany before you get how people get offended?
They should not have argued in the thread. That is the only reason to why they where banned. (One of them permed because he was a shitty poster normally). They could have taken it in PMs if they had problems with the pics. The discussion if offending pictures should be banned from the pic thread or not is very much so a website feedback discussion. Or at least not here. Since what is offensive is very subjective and what is offensive to you might be hilarious to me, it would be a long discussion tainting this thread.
On topic: I love arbitrageurs ban. Saw him in the "Terrible anti foreigner reporting from MBC" thread and had trouble keeping myself from telling him how extremely stupid he was, without stepping over the line. But I couldn't so i just didn't post. He gave me the feeling of a twelve year old who just have learned some statistic math and then suddenly have to show it off to all his friends. Except for the fact that twelve year olds don't learn statistics unless they are extremely intelligent and skip years. And he is not particularly intelligent.
Surely you could've picked something less offensive to put that retarded cat on.
Oblig:
That makes absolutely no sense. You can be offended without being emotional at all. Even if someone is outraged that's not an indication that they can't control their emotions. Any person can be outraged, especially when that outrage is completely justified as it would be in this case.
It's not even a remotely funny image anyway so it's not worth the risk. What's truly funny is that I'm trying to reason with someone in this thread.
You are right, it is really funny considering its a big fat warning on top of the thread telling you not to. I guess reading is hard.
User was temp banned for this post.
Summary:
user Special Endrey posts offending picture, like clearly offending considering more than 2800 people died in WTC towers. To not consider it offending you must either hate USA or be really immature. We are not talking 1 user over reacting and getting butthurt here, [SFW] Random pics that make you laugh thread has 27 129 097 views and 33% of TL users are Americans and I would guess there is more people from countries other than US, people with common sense like me who at least don't find it funny.
user LazyDT shows his dislike for the picture, possibly gets offended
user Hypemeup shows he can laugh about a massacre of thousands of people and starts an argument with a retarded picture. DO NOTE IT: he argues using a picture
user Silvertine correctly states that Hypemeup argument picture makes no sense, unfortunately what he does with that is he argues and gets permed for that and for being a shitty user
user Hypemeup keeps on arguing and gets temp ban.
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
What should be done? I think making a 3rd rule for the pic thread is unnecessary, just consider blatantly offensive pictures as NSFW and sacrifice the users who post such pictures to the Ban Gods.
Poll: Did NYAN-ELEVEN picture made you laugh?
Yes (21)
53%
No (19)
48%
40 total votes
Your vote: Did NYAN-ELEVEN picture made you laugh?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
I disagree, they could have been arguing about anything and still received the same moderation. Regardless of the content of the images (execpt where the content of the image is an argumentative device) the ban reason was related only to arguing. Therefore the images concerned were only indirectly related to the moderation.
With all due respect my ban-praising friend, beetlelisk I think it's really two issues you have confused here 1) the moderation of the posters and 2) the content of the images.
I think your main concern actually, is the content of the image quoted in the OP and that moderation was NOT directly related to it (at least so it seems), here is the link to Silvertine's ban note:
It is ambiguous whether the ban stems from the content of the image or the argument in the images thread, probably both.
It would good to get clarification on why Silvertine was banned (although I type slow so you probably have this).
Marco images usually suck in that thread.
Realistically I think it's a little too pedantic for my tastes to formulate a rigorous definition of 'offensive' purely for the benefit of moderating an thread on a forum. I'd suggest it would be best to keep it simple (as it is) and have the approach that, if yuo find an offensive image on the thread you report it to get a mod's opinion.
As an addendum, the spirit of the SFW tag was so that pornographic and related images were barred from the thread I believe. It wasn’t to placitate the thread towards the sensibilities of the forum goers, more to prevent it becoming an dumping ground for just the same kind of images. In fact, foremostly, was the tag even intended to protect users that view it at work?
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
It's called hyperbole.
But seriously, the SFW Pics thread is essentially a containment aparatus for 4chan content to keep it off the rest of TL. It's sort of like a purgatory somewhere in between the rest of the forum and the closed section where the inherent laws of TL break down. Trying to apply standards to that would be an excercise in futility, and any standards concerning offensive material would be entirely arbirary and open to wild interpretation.
Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Considering my place of employment's rules on offensive material, I wouldn't dream of opening the SFW image thread at work. That said, I'm okay with that since not everybody's workplace cares if you look at WTC jokes whereas porn is pretty much a no-no across the board (unless you, say, work for a porn studio).
On June 02 2012 01:56 bonifaceviii wrote: Considering my place of employment's rules on offensive material, I wouldn't dream of opening the SFW image thread at work. That said, I'm okay with that since not everybody's workplace cares if you look at WTC jokes whereas porn is pretty much a no-no across the board (unless you, say, work for a porn studio).
At that point, I think the biggest concern would be plagiarism. Speaking of which, that would be about the world's funniest lawsuit.
How would you argue your case without being held in contempt of court, anyways?
On June 02 2012 01:54 JingleHell wrote: Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
That remibnds me of a saying, 'You falling over is a comedy, me falling over if a tragedy'
To make it shorter - offensive picture causes a user to get offended which starts bannable, in that thread, argument. Posting offensive picture is directly related to 2 users getting banned.
I disagree, they could have been arguing about anything and still received the same moderation. Regardless of the content of the images (execpt where the content of the image is an argumentative device) the ban reason was related only to arguing. Therefore the images concerned were only indirectly related to the moderation.
I'm all for people arguing there getting banned and warned. I still stand my ground though, offensive pictures force a reaction and that's how arguments start, therefore offensive pictures start arguments.
With all due respect my ban-praising friend
HAIL THE BAN GODS!!!!
, beetlelisk I think it's really two issues you have confused here 1) the moderation of the posters and 2) the content of the images.
I think your main concern actually, is the content of the image quoted in the OP and that moderation was NOT directly related to it (at least so it seems), here is the link to Silvertine's ban note:
It is ambiguous whether the ban stems from the content of the image or the argument in the images thread, probably both.
It would good to get clarification on why Silvertine was banned (although I type slow so you probably have this).
I think the ban was for arguing, perm was used because he was a shitty poster.
Marco images usually suck in that thread.
Realistically I think it's a little too pedantic for my tastes to formulate a rigorous definition of 'offensive' purely for the benefit of moderating an thread on a forum. I'd suggest it would be best to keep it simple (as it is) and have the approach that, if yuo find an offensive image on the thread you report it to get a mod's opinion.
Except this example shows it's not a bannable offense so reporting doesn't do anything. Like I say in my OP, focus on the blatantly offensive pictures and consider them NSFW instead of formulating a definition of offensive.
As an addendum, the spirit of the SFW tag was so that pornographic and related images were barred from the thread I believe. It wasn’t to placitate the thread towards the sensibilities of the forum goers, more to prevent it becoming an dumping ground for just the same kind of images. In fact, foremostly, was the tag even intended to protect users that view it at work?
I think there is enough users who view the thread at work for this rule to be useful. My personal view on SFW rule is NSFW images and gifs created a environment of doing whatever the fuck you want in the old pic thread and that wasn't looking nice.
I have to be vaguely curious why it's a guy from Poland attacking that anyways. Maybe if it was a New Yorker. Have those posters got any history, by any chance?
Special Endrey is from Germany, no less. I'm sensing some sort of shenanigans. Maybe I should go break out the tinfoil, but seriously, this strikes me as being more than meets the eye.
On June 02 2012 01:32 TheToast wrote: Haven't we had this discussion before?
Anyway, 90% of the pictures in the thread are offensive. I don't see how you make an arbitrary deliniation between what's harmlessly offensive and what's harmfully offensive. Personally, I just don't every go into the thread, problem solved.
Dude, how the hell do you find 90% of pictures offensive? Also brb, putting dat red and big tags on words "blatantly offensive" in my OP.
It's called hyperbole.
But seriously, the SFW Pics thread is essentially a containment aparatus for 4chan content to keep it off the rest of TL. It's sort of like a purgatory somewhere in between the rest of the forum and the closed section where the inherent laws of TL break down. Trying to apply standards to that would be an excercise in futility, and any standards concerning offensive material would be entirely arbirary and open to wild interpretation.
There are standards set on that thread already and if you followed the 1st pic thread then you can easily say that difference is huge between pic thread no1 and 2. Those standards are rules to always post with a pic and do not argue. They are enough to do wonders. 4chan can deliver also a good stuff like bachelor frog meme, memes in general if not over used can be and are funny but I don't think they are anywhere close to be a majority of pictures. I don't really see more evil 4chan stuff in that thread.
On June 02 2012 01:54 JingleHell wrote: Well, partly, the SFW no porn requirement is part of google ads. I had to ask a mod about one of my tattoos in case I post pics in TLHF, and they told me that nudity is disallowed in the google ad agreement.
As for "offensive", well, humor tends to have the potential to offend. The majority of jokes are at the expense of a person or a group of people. If you ban offensive stuff, you're basically going to have knock knock jokes.
I'm talking seriously offensive shit here.
I'd say that if they were going to make a hard and fast rule for "too" offensive, it would need to be time related, and even that can't work, since it would remove any relevancy by the time we went back far enough to prevent holocaust jokes.
Can you explain what do you mean by the "need to be time related"? For me it's really simple - picture about Jewish kids getting killed in Auschwitz? KAFUCKINGBOOM, instant mod reaction.
In other words, leave it case by case, and get some thicker skin if you're going to participate in that thread. Humor will, by nature, be capable of offending someone. Frankly, I found all your comments in the ABL thread to be inanely egotistical (and if I think that, holy shit), implying that you should have veto power due to your contributions. It's a fucking joke thread. I don't go to a comedy club and expect not to have the potential to get made fun of. That's what you're fucking THERE for.
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I don't have a problem with a majority of pictures there, if I don't laugh at some then I just scroll down and add my own. I'm getting personally connected to the thread I contribute to because it takes hours a day, that's why I may be over reacting. This is issue of more of a potential threat than currently existing, returning, big problem.
On June 02 2012 02:08 JingleHell wrote: I have to be vaguely curious why it's a guy from Poland attacking that anyways. Maybe if it was a New Yorker. Have those posters got any history, by any chance?
Special Endrey is from Germany, no less. I'm sensing some sort of shenanigans. Maybe I should go break out the tinfoil, but seriously, this strikes me as being more than meets the eye.
LMFAO, I will repeat myself - I'm getting personally connected to thread I contribute to. We can say that this thread in website feedback is a territorial threat display - if you are not going to post something funny in "my" funny pictures thread and post something causing trouble instead then fuck off here and now.
"Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: "Your" thread? I just checked, Intrigue is the OP.
I think you're failing to get the point. There IS no formula for "offensive" that's guaranteed to work. And judging by how many people seem to think you're utterly off-base and overreacting, I'd say that your papal decree to be the inquisitor of all that's offensive has been revoked.
Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
That's why I put "my" in quotation marks, I mean myself and everyone else who invests his time to make the pic thread going. The formula is simple - if it's too offensive, punish it. Disregard everything less offensive. I never really considered myself to be an inquisitor, if it would be so then I would report the nyan - eleven post but I didn't because I knew there would be no reaction. So I decided to bring this to attention instead so future posts like this can be punished. I guess I overestimated the power of offensiveness that picture delivered.
I didn't really see a lot of Americans shrugging it off. I'm not terribly moved by that picture, it's just that for me there are some things you don't make fun of. Hey I even like to sometimes listen to the nyan cat.
You didn't just report it, you tried to take it a level beyond that, you wanted to get rules specially made or changed to fit your definition of offensive, due to some bizarre claim on the thread. There is no final authority on funny. If you know it's not worth reporting, why would you turn it into some giant deal, complete with polls, in the ABL thread, before moving it here? You clearly thought it was ban-worthy, or you wouldn't have brought it up there initially.
This is ridiculous, in my eyes. I'm probably more jaded than most, but lets face it, that's pretty benign as a general thing. If it offended specific people, for specific reasons, there might be a case for those people to complain, but this is either a different grievance manifesting through that outlet, or an attempt to set a precedent to police humor.
The thread is a shit fest. Everyone expects that. It's not exactly the Louvre. It's like a compost pit. You throw all the moldy leftovers of the internet in there to safely decompose out of public view.
On June 02 2012 02:51 JingleHell wrote: Tell me again why you're so horribly offended on behalf of 9/11, while a lot of Americans are just shrugging it off?
I wouldn't say I'm shrugging it off. That's a picture of hundreds of people being instantly killed, their bodies torn apart and burned beyong recognition.
But at the same time, it's become so prevalent in the US media over the past 10 years I think many of us have become desensitized to it.
That's pretty much what shrugging something off is, in my book. It's not saying it doesn't affect you, it's saying that you're able to avoid knee jerking, see it for what it is, and keep moving.
I'm so glad you made this thread, and thus finally created a context in which to say that I found that picture hilarious. I don't hate my homeland, and I'm not a terrible, immature person. I just found the juxtaposition of the two images to be very, very funny. Failing to find it funny wouldn't have helped any of the people who died on 9/11, and the fact that you're so terribly offended by it isn't doing any of them any good, either.
Your argument that anything that might tempt someone to respond in a bannable fashion should be prohibited on TL is also hilarious, though probably not as intentionally so as the NYAN-ELEVEN picture.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2012/05/246451-370669689664867-516952268-n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vDV1r.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UaB5c.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.traemcneely.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wpid-offended-e13324479039041.png)
![[image loading]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgr0kxV1lt1qa0o9zo1_500.gif)
