Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Community Center F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 02 4:06 pm)
I like the idea of voting as far as it has been taken. Along with that concept, it seems to me that votes FOR keeping an image should also be tallied. The Forum can set the threshold any where it likes, a simple majority, 2/3s of the Forum membership etc. At least that way all sides could be heard and the diversity of opinions respected by those involved. If you don't vote then you can't gripe.
Simple majority won't work. If the first vote (or two or three) is "no", then "no" has the simple majority, and the image "vanishes", no one else ever gets to see it, and "yes" doesn't stand a chance. Majority of members? You'll have to somehow define a majority of "active members" or you'll never get a quorum. And most governments have a number of safeguards to protect people from the "tyrany of the majority". That's why the US, UK, Germany, ets. are all set up as republics, not democracies. We don't vote directly on laws, we vote for lawmakers, who then vote on laws. We have checks and balances (judicial system, etc) so the majority can't enslave the minority.
I agree with most of what Allerleirauh said--except point 6. Two issues there: first, I'd argue that this isn't strictly a "private" site--EdgeNet owns the bookshelf, as it were, but the members own the books. That makes it a public site if you ask me--and therefore the rules, if we must have them to protect the easily offended (or the unattended), ought to be determined by the members--the people whose books are on the shelves. Second, I know pornography, I make pornography--Christina's image wasn't pornography. Sure, most of us agree that porn is off-topic and unwelcome here (that's why I don't post in these parts)--but the whole argument is about the well-intended, arguably on-topic post that gets someone's panties in a knot. If you "suppress" an image that isn't porn (i.e., a graphic sexual image intended to titillate), then you're into issues of taste--you're yanking an image simply because someone bitched about it. THAT's censorship, which violates (if nothing else) a basic principle of fairness, and which ultimately oppresses all of us--not only our freedom to speak, but our freedom to view images others might offensive. A community that "suppresses" ideas because they're controversial quickly runs out of ideas.
The basic idea is this, people can vote that they find a particular image offensive and think it should be pulled. However, each person only gets a limited number of votes for a certain time period, so you will have to be a little choosy. People who upload items to the Fun Stuff pages will probably earn extra votes. Perhaps you can spend a vote in favor of one that's going to be censored to save it. Who knows? I fully plan on a lengthy testing and tweaking process for this, and it might very well be an experiment that ultimately fails. At least we'll know that if it can survive here, it will make it anywhere!!
Kids see porn everyday! When I was pre teen I know I used to find Playboy and Hustler mags and hide them under my bed (image of a young happy Spike)and I know my mom knew they were there because she told me that "rember when you were young" story. My Mom and Dad did not want me to see porn but they also knew that I did see it. kids see porn! It's just a fact! No way around it! It is not my place to tell you how to raise your kids. But it is my place to follow the laws and rules of the land. fur will make the laws here and we will follow them or we can go somewhere else. My vote will go for a "Warning before entering" gallery. I think it,s the best way for all. and I feel it will make everyone happy. This way if you post something that might be in question the worse thing is it will be moved to the "Warning before entering" gallery. Spike
You can't call it work if you love
it... Zen
Tambour
Censorship votes are NOT the way to go. If we did this in our REAL lives, we would not see movies like "Tin Drum" and "The Last Temptation of Christ." We would not see books like "The Arabian Nights," "Huckleberry Finn," ... We would not see the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, Sally Mann or Jock Sturges... We would not see the artwork of Hajime Sorayama or Luis Royo... ... because there is a vocal minority who would see to it that they would be banned. -ScottK
I think the post above says it all. Very clearly EdgeNet and their lawyers have made a decision. I would expect the JH and the rest of the fourm management is implementing the directive from above. Don't get on their cases. Write to EdgeNet like the worm who started this and let them (management) know what you think. Christine
Jeff, fur, I wish you two the best of fortune..... I'm relatively new here, what offends me doesn't offend everyone.. and the obverse is also true... a voting system may, and probably will, break down real fast... not all of us can get in here during the "day" and it's be a real shame to not see a posting because it was yanked afore I got here.... the Pre-Warning Gallery sounds like a good idea.. as for the rest? Edge-Net makes the site availiable to us... and their wishes should be observed... "make not waves in your tub? you'll get the floor all wet and fall down" Ta Havath
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
I'm going to look into creating a system where members can vote to censor gallery images. That way if enough people vote to remove a particular image it will be supressed. This way the galleries will be self-regulated by the people viewing it. More details later once I think I have a working solution that is not susceptible to abuse. Roy