Banned Photos...

[Overread]

The guns rule is, as said, only in place due to repeat disruption of the site in the form of arguments between members when guns were posted. We only brought in the rule due to this disruption not because mods/admin don't like guns (interesting fact the site owners own and operate several large forums focused around guns). We have relaxed this rule now so long as the posting of guns remains without an artistic or editorial context.

Posting "here's the gun I carry/like/use" and further discussion relating to personal use is what is being removed and is the only thing that has been removed.


As with all areas of moderation the moderators make judgement calls on what is and isn't suitable and what does and doesn't fit the rules of the site; with admin overhead of them as well. We do listen to users and attempt to adjust the working operation and interpretation of situations should users feel that we are interpreting things wrong.

With the specific context of the earlier edited thread I've yet (and the other mods too) to be convinced that the display of photos was for anything but the showing off of ones owned guns. It wasn't artistic and most of the photos (though not all) were snapshots. Thus the general tone and content of the thread was moderated.

We don't operate restrictions on other weapons, so long as their posting remains within bounds of existing site rules (same as any other photo). Note that when threads are cleaned up by moderators sometimes content that isn't in direct violation of the rule gets removed because its so closely intertwined with the content that it is in violation that its pointless to leave it standing. It is for this reason that sometimes we don't clean up threads because the violating content is too intertwined with the rest.




note - I get that you don't like your thread being moderated - no one does in general; but it happens. Even the moderators are subject to having content moderated if they happen to break rules (whilst we strive to follow them we all make our own mistakes).

 

[manicmike]

Maybe instead of crying about a picture of a gun, people should put their big boy pants on and just avoid the thread. I guess every time there is a post bashing a Christian or something I don't agree with I should report huh?

If we could only post what doesn't offend anyone, we would only be able to post pictures of bacon. And even that would offend certain groups of people.

 

[ORourkeK]

I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. You continue to ask them to specify what the rules are, and you continue to ignore them. At least I am assuming you are ignoring them, because if you weren't, then you would have moved on by now. You keep questioning how they determine what is and isn't "art", and they give you an answer. Yet here you are, asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered. I think it has been made clear that if you are posting about a gun, then it must be in an artistic way. When the thread starts to turn into snapshots of what weapons people have, it is going to be removed. It seems pretty simple to me.

 

[RichieT]

I'm a member of several different forums on a variety of topics. What I see on the majority of these forums is that they have a firearm thread in their off topic/hobby sub-forums. Maybe a good compromise would be for the mods to allow a firearm thread in off topic chat where people could post pictures if they want and people who would be offended can just avoid the thread. If an anti is looking for a "discussion", as long as it doesn't get personal, this could be allowed in that thread. This would help isolate the anti's from a topic they want to avoid and give the pro's an outlet for their pictures.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I get the concept of attempting to avoid hostile thread by not allowing hot button topics or pictures.

I must say, however, that I see MANY threads and pictures on TPF that I find extremely offensive and near vulgarity in my view. I find that many of the so called “street photographs” are about subjects that are intended to shock, offend and to otherwise cause tension. How can one target pictures of guns, with no mention whatsoever about any kind of violence, yet we allow staged pictures of murdered people, complete with fake blood and allow that in the name of “art”? How about the recent “dead tranny”? Did anyone other than me find that offensive?

Let’s take this a step further. We delete pictures of items that that have been deemed as hot topics and lead to “heated” conversation and / or arguments (in this case, there was no heated conversation at all, as everyone seemed to have been having a fun conversation), but we allow the handful of members (we all know who they are) who seem to have a soul purpose of inciting heated conversation and arguments and contribute very little, if any, constructive and social dialog?

Sorry, I am all for ensuring that the forum runs smoothly for all to enjoy. I know that the mod’s jobs are difficult, thankless and done as a service to the forum. But some moderation just seem to be out of balance, target certain people, but ignore others and frankly make little sense at times.

I’m done now. I have vowed to stay out of these conversations, but felt compelled to step speak up this time.

 

[HughGuessWho]

I don't understand where the confusion is coming from. You continue to ask them to specify what the rules are, and you continue to ignore them. At least I am assuming you are ignoring them, because if you weren't, then you would have moved on by now. You keep questioning how they determine what is and isn't "art", and they give you an answer. Yet here you are, asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered. I think it has been made clear that if you are posting about a gun, then it must be in an artistic way. When the thread starts to turn into snapshots of what weapons people have, it is going to be removed. It seems pretty simple to me.

Not that it matters to me, but if you were to actually read what Steve's question was, and read the responses, they have, in fact, NOT answered his question.

 

[Overread]

As a point the suggestion has been put forward to allow a "show your guns" thread in the themes section. This was proposed when the thread in question was originally moderated; however there is still ongoing discussion as to if we will allow this or not (please remember mods are in different timezones/work patterns so it does take time for us to have a detailed discussion).


And yes we will decide how the context of a thread/display is - we are not getting drawn into a debate on what the specific criteria are because that will be an endless debate. Mods/admin will draw a line we feel is fair and in keeping with the rule. We will listen and respond to feedback from the user base as to our dealing with this and adjust, where possible, our stance to best fit the rules and the community.

 

[kathyt]

Steve, your safe with birds and boobs. So go shoot.

 

[Steve5D]

You continue to ask them to specify what the rules are, and you continue to ignore them.

Actually, I don't think anyone here has asked what the rules are. Thanks for chimin' in, though...

You keep questioning how they determine what is and isn't "art", and they give you an answer. Yet here you are, asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered.

No, it hasn't, at least not sufficiently. "Art" now comes down to a committee. If you or I think something is artistic, our opinion does not matter...

I think it has been made clear that if you are posting about a gun, then it must be in an artistic way.

And what I've asked for, and which has not been provided, is the criteria for "artistic"...

 

[Steve5D]

As a point the suggestion has been put forward to allow a "show your guns" thread in the themes section. This was proposed when the thread in question was originally moderated; however there is still ongoing discussion as to if we will allow this or not (please remember mods are in different timezones/work patterns so it does take time for us to have a detailed discussion).

I honestly don't see a reason not to do it, and I would love to see whatever argument is presented against it. If people are unnaturally afraid of guns, then they don't have to go into that area, just as those who dislike nudity know where not to go...

we are not getting drawn into a debate on what the specific criteria are because that will be an endless debate.

And that's the problem. You want the membership to adhere to a rule which you, yourself, are unable to define...

We will listen and respond to feedback from the user base as to our dealing with this and adjust, where possible, our stance to best fit the rules and the community.

I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of TPF membership is comprised of gun owners...

 

[Steve5D]

Steve, your safe with birds and boobs. So go shoot.

But I don't like birds...

 

[The_Traveler]

Art is in the intent.

If the intention is to create art - and not to be an attempt to step over the line - then that will show up in the art.

If the intent fails and the picture comes across as just another gun picture shown in an attempt to make trouble and is erased, then that is a sign that your art has failed in this ticklish subject and you need to become a better photographer.

 

[runnah]

Art is in the intent.

If the intention is to create art - and not to be an attempt to step over the line - then that will show up in the art.

If the intent fails and the picture comes across as just another gun picture shown in an attempt to make trouble and is erased, then that is a sign that your art has failed in this ticklish subject and you need to become a better photographer.

Hold on, the best art is always crossing the line and provoking strong emotions. If a photo gets people emotional in anyway than it is a success in my book.

 

[The_Traveler]

Art is in the intent.

If the intention is to create art - and not to be an attempt to step over the line - then that will show up in the art.

If the intent fails and the picture comes across as just another gun picture shown in an attempt to make trouble and is erased, then that is a sign that your art has failed in this ticklish subject and you need to become a better photographer.

Hold on, the best art is always crossing the line and provoking strong emotions. If a photo gets people emotional in anyway than it is a success in my book.

If someone sat outside your window and played music very, very loud and insisted that was performance art, you wouldn't accept that definition.

If the intent was art with these pictures, then specifically because of the specific content there is increased scrutiny and if it fails as art and is seen only as an act of provocation in the community, then it gets what it earns.

This isn't the public sphere where the first amendment rules, but a private one.
If the mods judge that this is not provocative art but merely a self-focused attempt to be disruptive for the sake of disruption, then it should go.
Asking for a definition of fine line won't be productive because the mods seem to be smarter than providing a line which can be bent.
If those who worship guns as art objects believe their work is art and want it admitted into the community, it behooves them to work really hard at making good art and not dance near the line of the vapid crap it is now.

If I was a mod, the sound of the door closing behind them would follow quickly.

 

[Designer]

Hold on, the best art is always crossing the line and provoking strong emotions. If a photo gets people emotional in anyway than it is a success in my book.

If a work of art pi$$es me off, you might declare it successful, but according my world view it is still junk.