Banned Photos...

[Overread]

Views from the moderators side:

1) The policy allows the posting of guns in relation to artistic display. This is to allow guns to be photographed and shown, however its also present to prevent a general "here's my gun" thread style.

2) The thread in question was very much a "here's my gun" style with multiple members simply showing their guns off without artistic concern nor as a focal point of the discussion.

3) The original full ban on guns was brought in because they had proven to be a hot-topic. Causing many derailments and long, heated arguments between members. As a result of this we banned their posting on the site a long while back to prevent further disruption to the site.
Upon revision of the rule we decided to allow their posting within artistic context and general editorial display; indeed we'd actually had several threads following armed forces with guns that hadn't been shut down, plus display of old ancient fire-arms had been hit and miss with how moderators had removed or allowed. The rule was changed to reflect the spirit of the rule the moderators were enforcing and with the additional allowance of artistic context being added.


Honestly the mod team as individuals have no problem with guns (heck several of the mod team have and shoot guns). The problem exists purely as a social one that has proven impossible to shift from the site due to differences in social background of different peoples. This is why we keep it to artistic direction, much in the same way as we allow photography of religious events and symbols so long as the discussion does not to into religious debate - same is true of politics - you can show photographs of political events all you want so long as the discussion does not turn to politics.

 

[sm4him]

Agreed. If someone derails a thread, deal with them. Period. Shutting down threads out of fear is kinda' silly...

You derailed your own thread by doing something you knew would get a reaction. Now you are crying pity poor me. Seems to me if you hadn't pulled a bs move and started a thread with false intentions this all could have been avoided. **** even if you had made a thread called "look at my sweet gun" no one would have given a ****.

I dislike censorship very much but there is a difference between wrongfully incriminated and just stirring **** up.

To be fair, Steve didn't *really* derail his own thread. He was NOT the first, nor even the second to post a photo of a weapon. Was his title intentionally misleading? Sure; but I took it to be misleading for the sake of humor, not to "get a reaction." Many of us, myself included, do the same thing--try to come up with clever titles, like "Big Tits" when the thread is really just a photo of an unusually large Tufted Titmouse. I thought his title was clever.

Mods: A point of clarification, please. If I started a thread with a picture of my church, and invited others to post pictures of THEIR churches, synagogues, temples, etc.--but did NOT start a conversation about religion--would that be allowed, or would the photos be removed even BEFORE any discussion about religion happened?

 

[runnah]

To be fair, Steve didn't *really* derail his own thread. He was NOT the first, nor even the second to post a photo of a weapon. Was his title intentionally misleading? Sure; but I took it to be misleading for the sake of humor, not to "get a reaction." Many of us, myself included, do the same thing--try to come up with clever titles, like "Big Tits" when the thread is really just a photo of an unusually large Tufted Titmouse. I thought his title was clever. Mods: A point of clarification, please. If I started a thread with a picture of my church, and invited others to post pictures of THEIR churches, synagogues, temples, etc.--but did NOT start a conversation about religion--would that be allowed, or would the photos be removed even BEFORE any discussion about religion happened?

If I could I would ban you based on the false promise of large bosoms.

Any way like my high school principal told me, "you've got a reputation as a trouble maker so I am going to pay closer attention to your actions" holds true in this case.

 

[Steve5D]

Agreed. If someone derails a thread, deal with them. Period. Shutting down threads out of fear is kinda' silly...

You derailed your own thread by doing something you knew would get a reaction. Now you are crying pity poor me. Seems to me if you hadn't pulled a bs move and started a thread with false intentions this all could have been avoided. **** even if you had made a thread called "look at my sweet gun" no one would have given a ****.

I dislike censorship very much but there is a difference between wrongfully incriminated and just stirring **** up.

And all someone had to do was read the post I made, which made exactly ZERO reference to guns...

 

[Steve5D]

The bothersome part of the whole thing is that some moderators have wrapped themselves around the text of the rule instead of moderating in the spirit the rule was made. Sure SOME post about guns derail and get heated. None of the censorship I've seen lately was done because a debate about beliefs or political views ensued. That's what is so ridiculous about it. The posts and photos are being removed for the wrong reasons.

Exactly THAT...

 

[Steve5D]

Views from the moderators side:

1) The policy allows the posting of guns in relation to artistic display. This is to allow guns to be photographed and shown, however its also present to prevent a general "here's my gun" thread style.

2) The thread in question was very much a "here's my gun" style with multiple members simply showing their guns off without artistic concern nor as a focal point of the discussion.

3) The original full ban on guns was brought in because they had proven to be a hot-topic. Causing many derailments and long, heated arguments between members. As a result of this we banned their posting on the site a long while back to prevent further disruption to the site.
Upon revision of the rule we decided to allow their posting within artistic context and general editorial display; indeed we'd actually had several threads following armed forces with guns that hadn't been shut down, plus display of old ancient fire-arms had been hit and miss with how moderators had removed or allowed. The rule was changed to reflect the spirit of the rule the moderators were enforcing and with the additional allowance of artistic context being added.


Honestly the mod team as individuals have no problem with guns (heck several of the mod team have and shoot guns). The problem exists purely as a social one that has proven impossible to shift from the site due to differences in social background of different peoples. This is why we keep it to artistic direction, much in the same way as we allow photography of religious events and symbols so long as the discussion does not to into religious debate - same is true of politics - you can show photographs of political events all you want so long as the discussion does not turn to politics.

What I find astounding is that everyone seems wrapped up in the thread title, and the content of the post is being completely ignored.

In this case, what should've happened is the person who derailed the thread should've been dealt with. I'm well aware it was Pixmedic, but I don't believe the moderator's hat should absolve anyone from anything.

The content of the post was clear. How anyone could read that post and say "He's talking about guns" is a mystery.

But, back to the larger point: Can we get clarification on what the moderators consider "artful"? That's a pretty broad term, and it's likely that no two members of TPF hold exactly the same idea as to what it is. Since we've established that the moderators are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't "art" (something which should make everyone here cringe, by the way), I would hope that they're prepared to provide the membership with specific guidelines as to what constitutes proper "art"...

 

[SCraig]

... Mods: A point of clarification, please. If I started a thread with a picture of my church, and invited others to post pictures of THEIR churches, synagogues, temples, etc.--but did NOT start a conversation about religion--would that be allowed, or would the photos be removed even BEFORE any discussion about religion happened?

If you were on the City Council and I took a photo of you that day we walked around Radnor Lake and posted it here would that be considered political?

I don't care what spin the moderators try to put on it, preemptive moderation is just plain unfair regardless of how well-intentioned it was.

 

[runnah]

And all someone had to do was read the post I made, which made exactly ZERO reference to guns...

I am on your side regarding censorship and the knee jerk reaction to ban anything that may be found offensive be someone. I find it all very silly that we as a society are driven to banish offensive material without trying to understand and reason with it.

But you can admit in your heart that you toyed with the line to see if you could get a reaction from people.

 

[Steve5D]

2) The thread in question was very much a "here's my gun" style with multiple members simply showing their guns off without artistic concern nor as a focal point of the discussion.

Did you even bother to read my first post? It had NOTHING to do with guns. Why not go after the first person who derailed the thread and sanction him for breaking the rules? Is it because he's a moderator?

My request for further clarification on "artful" is sincere and earnest. If the moderators are to be the ones who decide what is and isn't art, they should be prepared to provide some specific guidelines to the membership so to help us not turn astray...

 

[Steve5D]

And all someone had to do was read the post I made, which made exactly ZERO reference to guns...

I am on your side regarding censorship and the knee jerk reaction to ban anything that may be found offensive be someone. I find it all very silly that we as a society are driven to banish offensive material without trying to understand and reason with it.

But you can admit in your heart that you toyed with the line to see if you could get a reaction from people.

Nonsense.

If I asked my Mom "What do you carry?", her response would be "My purse".

Anyone reading my post and believing I was soliciting reactions to guns is someone who probably shouldn't be allowed access to the internet...

 

[Steve5D]

...preemptive moderation is just plain unfair regardless of how well-intentioned it was.

It's not "unfair", it's "wrong"...

 

[The_Traveler]

There are certain items that carry with them such a cultural burden that they immediately send up alarms signals just because the items, while innocent in themselves, have strong allusions.

If, for example, persons posted pictures of slave bracelets from the American South or torture implements or Nazi memorabilia. The occasional posting in the name of art might be seen as tolerable but making them common currency would clearly make the environment an unpleasant one for those who find this kind of item offensive.
Knowing that any site would so discount my feelings, as an example, and allow these kinds of pictures to be posted would make think of this site as a unpleasant place and one where I would not want to be.

Like it or not, the reality is that guns have that burden; they represent something that many people truly hate and treating them as common currency will inevitably be seen as offensive and will create the impression that the site is willing to ignore the feelings of many for a marginally important expression.

I am pretty much a First Amendment absolutist but this is not a public place and the First Amendment doesn't count here. Saying you post these as an expression of art doesn't mean much to me and certainly fails the balancing act.

If you want to show pictures of guns, there are places to do it that aren't here, showing them here is an intentional provocation and if the slightest toe over the line causes the thread to be closed or removed, well, you knew the situation going in.

 

[TWright33]

I just realized the picture of my pistol, and pocket knife were removed.

That was a big blow to my Wednesday morning.

 

[Overread]

It wasn't the title - it was the fact that the gun content wasn't being posted in an artistic context but a "show your gun style". Yes it wasn't the intent of the thread and not all posters were posting guns, but its what had happened to the thread after a while. Even the single posting of a gun photo in that thread shouldn't be allowed under the rules.

 

[Steve5D]

It wasn't the title - it was the fact that the gun content wasn't being posted in an artistic context but a "show your gun style". Yes it wasn't the intent of the thread and not all posters were posting guns, but its what had happened to the thread after a while. Even the single posting of a gun photo in that thread shouldn't be allowed under the rules.

I'll again ask that the moderating staff provide clear and specific guideline as to what constitutes an "artistic style". Furthermore, is it weapons in general which are not allowed, or just firearms?

Are there other topics which are "persona non grata" here? Personally, I wouldn't want to see to homosexual men kissing. Nothin' against them, I just don't care to see it. I would probably voice my opposition if such a photo was posted. Would that be something which would be dealt with on a "per post" basis, or would the photo itself be deemed to be a "hot button" topic and disallowed?

In all seriousness, the lines of what is and isn't "art" have now become blurred with the realization that the moderators, and not the artists, determine what is and isn't art...