Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Mods, I think you should reconsider... Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post 2kewl4u2know Posted at 6:27 pm on Aug. 27, 2008 Please, mods?  Really, the pic is very tasteful artistically, and you can barely see the butt (which is the part I'm assuming got it denied). Just asking.  I mean, it is a lovely picture, is it not? http://www.alexisarts.com/images/PinoDressingTable.JPG" target="_top">http://http://www.alexisarts.com/images/PinoDressingTable.JPG

Replies iconoclast Posted at 9:39 am on Aug. 30, 2008 torture is not permitted on live wire micus Micus Posted at 9:16 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 12:12 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Micus at 12:07 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 11:54 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Micus, But this is the inconsistency by moderators that everyone is talking about. Well, the loudest members.    I know, that's what I'm saying.    I've seen worse avatars allowed to stay, and I've seen better ones taken down. Im curious to know where you stand. Should the statue of david with his big penis be allowed? If I really had to cast a definitive vote in this, I say the statue of davjs should be allowed in context. the art forum only, perhaps. jamesish Posted at 9:12 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Micus at 12:07 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 11:54 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Micus, But this is the inconsistency by moderators that everyone is talking about.  Well, the loudest members. I know, that's what I'm saying. I've seen worse avatars allowed to stay, and I've seen better ones taken down. Im curious to know where you stand.  Should the statue of david with his big penis be allowed? Micus Posted at 9:07 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 11:54 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Micus, But this is the inconsistency by moderators that everyone is talking about. Well, the loudest members. I know, that's what I'm saying. I've seen worse avatars allowed to stay, and I've seen better ones taken down. Forever Angel Posted at 9:06 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Micus at 10:40 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:46 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 9:17 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:35 am on Aug. 30, 2008  And there is no need for a "bunch of restrictive rules" if the previously existing rules are applied consistently and evenly. It's when there is a failure of 'consistent' moderation that the problem arises. If a rule change is needed it should one aimed at Moderators more so than the members in this case.     How do they go about doing that consistent moderation?  I think they have to agree on the subject first.  And I dont see that happening. Unfortunately, you're right. But that is (or should be) one of the purposes of 'mod forum' I believe, to discuss their opinions and different points of view.    But for some Mods, it seems that being a Mod is an ego trip that puts them above regular members and outside of some of the rules. FA I'm surprised that they let you keep your angel avatar. I mean hell, there's nudity in it. Well, they did take one away that had more obvious nudity. And they (one of them anyway) wouldn't approve the larger version of this avatar for my IB. jamesish Posted at 8:54 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Micus at 11:40 am on Aug. 30, 2008 FA I'm surprised that they let you keep your angel avatar. I mean hell, there's nudity in it. FA, nothing against you.  You're avatar is fine to me. Micus, But this is the inconsistency by moderators that everyone is talking about.  Well, the loudest members. Guidelines were given and they're clearly just not enough.  We can't just complain about avatars.  Because some mods will agree that its ok, and some wont.  We just have to wait for them to work it all out. And then maybe we can have a decent LW discussion about it based on exact LW guidelines and not individual opinions.  Yes we have guidelines already, but maybe they just weren't exact enough. Or maybe I'm wrong.  It sounded right. Micus Posted at 8:40 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:46 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 9:17 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:35 am on Aug. 30, 2008 And there is no need for a "bunch of restrictive rules" if the previously existing rules are applied consistently and evenly. It's when there is a failure of 'consistent' moderation that the problem arises. If a rule change is needed it should one aimed at Moderators more so than the members in this case.    How do they go about doing that consistent moderation? I think they have to agree on the subject first. And I dont see that happening. Unfortunately, you're right. But that is (or should be) one of the purposes of 'mod forum' I believe, to discuss their opinions and different points of view.   But for some Mods, it seems that being a Mod is an ego trip that puts them above regular members and outside of some of the rules. FA I'm surprised that they let you keep your angel avatar. I mean hell, there's nudity in it. Forever Angel Posted at 7:46 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from jamesish at 9:17 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:35 am on Aug. 30, 2008  And there is no need for a "bunch of restrictive rules" if the previously existing rules are applied consistently and evenly. It's when there is a failure of 'consistent' moderation that the problem arises. If a rule change is needed it should one aimed at Moderators more so than the members in this case. How do they go about doing that consistent moderation?  I think they have to agree on the subject first.  And I dont see that happening. Unfortunately, you're right. But that is (or should be) one of the purposes of 'mod forum' I believe, to discuss their opinions and different points of view. But for some Mods, it seems that being a Mod is an ego trip that puts them above regular members and outside of some of the rules. jamesish Posted at 7:17 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:35 am on Aug. 30, 2008  And there is no need for a "bunch of restrictive rules" if the previously existing rules are applied consistently and evenly. It's when there is a failure of 'consistent' moderation that the problem arises. If a rule change is needed it should one aimed at Moderators more so than the members in this case. How do they go about doing that consistent moderation?  I think they have to agree on the subject first.  And I dont see that happening. Forever Angel Posted at 5:35 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from FurryPanther at 12:24 am on Aug. 30, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:03 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 From conversations I've had, it's no longer up for discussion. That point was passed when the 'Three Musketeers' took over. And you call this a 'non-iron fist' policy? I'd really hate to see one that was then. No, this is strict, but it could be worse. It could also be better. Reality is, if members hadn't started the push, and had been reasonable, the moderators wouldn't have had the spark to do what they did. Things here work the same way they do in the real world. If people live within reasonable limits, things are good. As soon as they push it, policy has to be made to keep things reasonable, because the people can't use their heads and do it themselves. The problem with that is a lot of good stuff goes too, and the bystanders who weren't involved suffer because of those rebellious few. FP But when the Mods fail to do their job and then join in with excessive behavior everyone loses. When the many succumb to the few it would be time to review the whole process. That we now have a 'rule' that only those 'few' agree with seems quite a bit different than "the real world" action. And there is no need for a "bunch of restrictive rules" if the previously existing rules are applied consistently and evenly. It's when there is a failure of 'consistent' moderation that the problem arises. If a rule change is needed it should one aimed at Moderators more so than the members in this case. FurryPanther Posted at 10:28 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from RedNoir at 11:26 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Crack kills!   No seriously I think it is fine I see no crack... but I again must complain why people want to always try to get around the rules! It's annoying. Just leave anything approaching breaking the rules alone! And if people did, we wouldn't need a bunch of restrictive rules to keep them in check. But there's that select group that has to push until we react, then go on to the next thing. FP RedNoir Posted at 10:26 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Crack kills! No seriously I think it is fine I see no crack... but I again must complain why people want to always try to get around the rules! It's annoying. Just leave anything approaching breaking the rules alone! FurryPanther Posted at 10:24 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 10:03 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 From conversations I've had, it's no longer up for discussion. That point was passed when the 'Three Musketeers' took over. And you call this a 'non-iron fist' policy? I'd really hate to see one that was then. No, this is strict, but it could be worse. It could also be better. Reality is, if members hadn't started the push, and had been reasonable, the moderators wouldn't have had the spark to do what they did. Things here work the same way they do in the real world. If people live within reasonable limits, things are good. As soon as they push it, policy has to be made to keep things reasonable, because the people can't use their heads and do it themselves. The problem with that is a lot of good stuff goes too, and the bystanders who weren't involved suffer because of those rebellious few. FP Forever Angel Posted at 9:03 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from FurryPanther at 9:02 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:35 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from FurryPanther at 8:07 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 I just didn't see it happen.     FP You didn't see it happen because it wasn't allowed to happen. Once I saw the possibility of a non-iron fist policy, I was happy with it. That's what we've got now. Agreed, given more time, it could have gotten better. I didn't push for immediate implementation. I said I liked the suggestion, well aware it was far from perfect. It is possible for something more... elastic to develop, and if we want to change it, using the current policy as a temporary countermeasure, I'd be open to discussion. FP From conversations I've had, it's no longer up for discussion. That point was passed when the 'Three Musketeers' took over. And you call this a 'non-iron fist' policy? I'd really hate to see one that was then. FurryPanther Posted at 7:02 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 7:35 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 Quote: from FurryPanther at 8:07 pm on Aug. 29, 2008 I just didn't see it happen.  FP You didn't see it happen because it wasn't allowed to happen. Once I saw the possibility of a non-iron fist policy, I was happy with it. That's what we've got now. Agreed, given more time, it could have gotten better. I didn't push for immediate implementation. I said I liked the suggestion, well aware it was far from perfect. It is possible for something more... elastic to develop, and if we want to change it, using the current policy as a temporary countermeasure, I'd be open to discussion. FP Most recent 15 of 77 previous replies displayed.