I know that this is TWW, and of course there are gonna be explicit pictures posted on here (I have the Hottest Girl thread in my favorites), but seriously, there is a time and place for them, and I really don't think the Soap Box is either. Case in point, I'm sitting in Tompkins reading the diamond ring thread, when all of a sudden, I click to page 3 and there's a siloutte of some guy getting a blow job. So I click off of it, but not before I look around and see the monitor giving me a dirty look. Now, other than having the Debeers logo in the picture, that was about as off topic as you could get. I would really request that moderation on these types of threads be a little stricter, because I honestly don't feel like having my unity computing privileges revoked, or even having to put up with lewd or pornographic pictures popping up in threads that they have no place in.

Yeah, start flaming.

7/2/2003 11:33:37 AM

i totally agree, i've been in the same situation

7/2/2003 11:37:16 AM

i had the same thought in the same thread.

7/2/2003 12:14:49 PM

ex·plic·it ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-splst)
adj.

Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.
Fully and clearly defined or formulated: “generalizations that are powerful, precise, and explicit” (Frederick Turner).

7/2/2003 12:22:33 PM

Quote :

" Case in point, I'm sitting in Tompkins reading the diamond ring thread, when all of a sudden, I click to page 3 and there's a siloutte of some guy getting a blow job. So I click off of it, but not before I look around and see the monitor giving me a dirty look."

first of all, you fucking whiny asshole. i was at work and saw that and got a bit scared, but its not that bad and for fuck's sake - what the fuck is a lab op gonna do to you?? LAME

second, it was entirely relevant to the thread unless you're one of those hard right christian moralist nutcases who is afraid of any sort of allusion to sex at all.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, IT WAS A SILLOUHETTE!!!!! ugh.

7/2/2003 12:35:11 PM

first of all its against university policy to display that image in the lab. policy is policy, no matter what yours or mine opinion of it is.

second, people at work, like me and like others in this thread, are not in a position where seeing that is cool. i don't know where you work, but i work for the federal government.

if its not on topic, and it wasnt, put it in chit chat.

7/2/2003 12:38:01 PM

Quote :

"first of all its against university policy to display that image in the lab. policy is policy"

no, its actually not against policy. They aren't actually allowed to do anything more than pay lip service to a policy which DISCOURAGES (as opposed to bans) viewing something off-color.

If you'd actually READ the policy, you will see that they leave loop-holes wide enough for Hugh Heffner to drive through.

And lastly, YES, it was totally on-topic.

7/2/2003 1:27:14 PM

Anyway I think there should be the ablity to mark a thread not appropriate at work, or something like fazed.net style, which would require the courtesy of others, but still would be nice to have the option

__________

7/2/2003 1:39:17 PM

Quote :

"IT WAS A SILLOUHETTE!!!!! "

it's silhouette, and it's not that it isn't relevant, but the illicit image wasn't expected when reading a thread on marriage rings.

7/2/2003 2:21:35 PM

HAHA I POSTED THAT

AND IT WAS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO THE THREAD

LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU

ACCORDING TO THE "AD"

DEBEERS DIAMONDS ARE SO GOOD

SHE'LL PRACTIALLY HAVE TO SUCK YOUR COCK

I.E.

A LIFETIME OF COCKSUCKING IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT

FROM AN ENGAGEMENT RING

7/2/2003 3:23:38 PM

Oh, I get it now, you're so fucking clever.




























































Or not. Yeah, I'm going to have to go for the "or not" answer.

7/2/2003 3:49:55 PM

heres a big fuck you for whining

7/2/2003 3:50:41 PM

p.s. what are you doing on a lab computer wasting resources on TWW?

7/2/2003 3:54:36 PM

Quote :

"but i work for the federal government. "

i work in state government

blow me like the girl in the silhouette

7/2/2003 3:56:04 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I get it now, you're so fucking clever."

I'm not the clever one here sweetheart. Lets give credit where credit is due. I sure as hell didn't photo shop that picture. All I did was post it.

7/2/2003 4:01:56 PM

hahaha motherfucker can't stop

7/2/2003 4:10:10 PM

i thought i told you that we wont stop i thought i told you that we wont stop uh huh

7/2/2003 4:15:58 PM

I wonder who will be the first person to post a huge naked spread eagle shot....


I think that would add some class and substance to this thread

7/2/2003 4:34:49 PM

damn, I was expecting pr0n

7/2/2003 4:38:22 PM

Look people, here is how this works:

"Explicit" pictures are always going to be a very circumstantial topic and deciding which pictures are explicit and which ones aren't is going to be in the eyes of the beholder. In addition, there's absolutely NO way that Jake/Joe are going to spend the time to moderate pictures in the manner you're suggesting. They don't have the time. They probably don't have the desire, either. And coding a system for voting whether pictures are okay or not is probably not something they'll spring for, either. As a result, it is up to you to do your own moderation. Here's how to do it in IE:

Go to Tools>Internet Options.
Click on the Advanced tab.
Scroll down to the Multimedia section.
Uncheck the "show pictures" option.




The only other alternative is the obvious "stop complaning about it and don't look at TWW in situations where it can backfire on you."

-bigginal

7/2/2003 5:48:04 PM

i think the issue of whether or not the picture was relevant to the topic is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it should have been moderated, or belonged in the SB.

the larger issue here, which we've divulged from, is that it would be nice in FeebleMinded's opinion to have moderators in the non-ChitChat/Lounge/(maybe Entertainment) forums be a little stricter in what they allow to be posted. i, for one, know that i tend to stay away from ChitChat threads at work in general, unless i'm positive they wouldn't have anything "unexpected" in them that coworkers wouldn't mind seeing if they walked by. i think it's a good idea in theory, but would be difficult to define and reach a consensus on what's acceptable in practice.

7/2/2003 6:09:38 PM

I don't think implementation of this policy would be difficult at all:

1.) Place policy in rules. Something to the effect of no vulgar pictures posted in threads other than Chit Chat unless they are directly pertaining to the topic at hand. This would be subjective, and of course there are grey areas, and those would be for the moderator to decide. I think the picture I referenced in the beginning of this thread obviously falls into the category which I describe.

2.) Give a grace period of about a week to let things slide. After the week grace period, issue warnings for pictures which fall into the said criteria. Keep these warnings on file, and after a person is given a warning and then breaks the rule again, suspend them or terminate their account. I think after one of the "big shots" in here get suspended for good, the problem will take care of itself and others will follow the rule. (Note, when I use the term big shot, I refer to one of the users who has some abominable post count and believes that this makes him better than us.) (Note 2, this does not apply to all people with high post counts.)

I mean, seriously, this is an issue about making TWW better for everyone. The same people who flip out when someone new accidentally posts a thread in Chit Chat that belongs in the Soap Box or who tries to sell a textbook in Classifieds are the same ones who seem to do this shit. It's annoying, rude, and a practice that IMO, most likely discourages new potential users from becoming active (and perhaps premium) members when they see some girls cooch in a thread that's supposed to be about Landing on Mars.

7/2/2003 7:54:56 PM

why dont you try going premium and then maybe something you whine about will get some notice

[Edited on July 2, 2003 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2003 8:32:13 PM

Quote :

"Go to Tools>Internet Options. Click on the Advanced tab. Scroll down to the Multimedia section. Uncheck the "show pictures" option. "

7/2/2003 8:45:19 PM

It jsut happened to me while I was sitting in class and not paying attention. thats kinda embarrasing.

7/2/2003 9:35:55 PM

thats what you get for browsing tww when you should be taking note, asshole.

7/3/2003 12:52:30 PM

Quote :

"why dont you try going premium and then maybe something you whine about will get some notice"

Ya know, maybe you have a valid point here. So here's my proposal. If this gets implemented, I'll go premium, as well as donate some $Texas to the site, I'll say $100. And when I say implemented, I mean implemented and strictly enforced. That way fuckwads like packguy381 and BiggieSmalls will be forced into showing a little courtesy to other users.

7/3/2003 1:17:49 PM

1) I've been premium for over a year now. That means that I have a financial stake in this site. I will not refer to it as an investment, but my privlidge to post whatever I want supercedes your whining drivil about seeing a picture of a blowjob silhouette.
2) I've also been around for over 700 days on this site, and have contributed countless postive things to the "culture" of TWW, whereas you...not so much.
3) Kill yourself

7/3/2003 1:23:17 PM

t0t411y sw33t!!11!

7/3/2003 1:27:19 PM

^^
I imagine you've driven off more potential premium members which supercedes anything positive you could have possibly "contributed" to this site. I highly doubt that you have contributed anything worthwhile, as from what I have seen, most people on here hate you.

So gg on the $5 or whatever you payed to be a premium. Other than that, you suck at the internet and life.

[Edited on July 3, 2003 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2003 1:27:48 PM

oic

7/3/2003 1:28:44 PM

p.s.

how about gg $40 b/c im on the 3/mo. payment plan. also, im the calender mod.

seriously man, you're whining like a bitch. if you have a problem with "offensive" pictures, do exactly what every one suggested and turn it off while you're browsing TWW.

no one is going to bend to your suggestion because its fucking irrational.

i dare you to once again try to disconnect the relevance of that picture to said thread.

[Edited on July 3, 2003 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2003 1:32:39 PM

there. now you will get in trouble with the lab mod again for continuing to be a bitch.

7/3/2003 1:43:33 PM

ATTN FEEBLEMINDED:


stop being a fucking whiny faggot now


thanks.

7/3/2003 2:11:53 PM

^^I've always wanted to go on a fishing trip like that.

7/3/2003 2:19:28 PM

wtf is wrong with that girl on the rights back? it looks all jackedup

7/3/2003 2:23:45 PM

SARS

7/3/2003 2:38:26 PM

i dont think the gnat can read.

7/3/2003 3:14:46 PM

7/3/2003 4:26:21 PM

I agree with FeebleMinded. I may not post a lot, but I have been on here for a while, and I see how stupid some of you are, specifically packguy381. There's nothing wrong with a little moderation of posts.... it's not a free for all like you might assume.

7/3/2003 8:36:00 PM

Quote :

"it's not a free for all like you might assume."

So do you have any validation for that statement, or you just pulling shit out of your ass.

7/4/2003 11:21:50 AM

I think what jpjavier97 is trying to say.... well I'm not 100% sure. But here's what I make of it. Although the Wolf Web is a website that is predominately used by college students, there is no reason that it can not have some decency and order to it. Probably 75% of the people on this site have never held a serious job, one in which you are not required to ask "Would you like fries with that?" Most people are probably still living under the protective cloak of their parents, who give them money, pay for some or all of their college/college expenses, and provide them housing in the summer time. And lastly, most of the people on here have never had a place where they had any real freedom to say or do whatever they wanted.... not school or at home.

So basically, there are a bunch of little kids disguised in big people's bodies running loose on this website. They post whatever and whenever they want, and basically contribute to the general disorder of the site. When I say a bunch, I mean like maybe 25 or 30 people, who post so often it just seems like there is a huge amount. So really, it is a rather small percentage of the total Wolf Web population who acts like this. Of course, this thread draws the attention of those people, and thus they are very likely to challenge the ideas I present in this thread because it attacks the "freedom" they think they have on the Wolf Web. Thus, you see a lot of posts from them because they realize I have a very strong point, and they feel that the strength in their "numbers" will make it appear my idea is foolish. Others, who probably feel the same way I do, are unlikely to post because here because they don't want to appear "uncool" or because they have given up on any hope of decency on here, believing it is a lost cause.

But I believe it's not a lost cause. I think if the moderators and site owners were to actually start enforcing the rules here: http://brentroad.com/site_postguide.aspx, then this site would attract many more people and make a lot more money. I am not talking about censorship either. Leave chit chat and the lounge the way they are. But regardless of what anyone says, photoshopping a picture of George Bush with a bunch of lesbians into a thread about Bush's policies in the Soap Box is not on topic. There are different forums for a reason, so obviously the intent was originally to have some sense of order here.

7/4/2003 2:56:54 PM

I think you're missing the point that this site is FOR THE STUDENTS. If you have a job where the possibility of there being something inappropriate on a website can get you in trouble, how about NOT LOOKING AT SAID WEBSITE.

I also have a fulltime job and mostly read this site while at work. However, i happen to be fortunate enough to work for a company that doesn't spy on it's employees web surfing habits, and the random dick or titty that pops up on the screen will never get me in trouble.

So either take bigginal's advice, or http://www.brentroad.com/user_logout.aspx

7/4/2003 9:06:38 PM

Quote :

"I think if the moderators and site owners were to actually start enforcing the rules here: http://brentroad.com/site_postguide.aspx, then this site would attract many more people and make a lot more money"

you're a moron if you think that comment is going to persuade anyone... most of the people that actually give something back to this site financially (i'm renewing mine soon jake) are people like me that just fuck around and don't really take it too seriously. if this site WERE full of uptight pricks like you, then the little bit of money they do get would go out the door

durrr

7/5/2003 3:52:24 PM

I know the truth hurts, my needle dicked friend. I have aready received pm's from people who agree with me. And I am far from uptight.... all I said was moderate pictures in certain sections.

PS:

Dear jackleg,

I thought you were a loser on here, and then I met your pathetic ass in real life. Now I understand why you sit on here all day and make posts.

Yours Truly,
FeebleMinded

7/5/2003 5:02:04 PM

resorting to insults...always a good plan of action

7/5/2003 8:09:05 PM

yeah i'll say... i don't remember meeting this guy, but i'm sure if i really did he wouldn't be calling me a loser. ive been on here like 2.5 years, it's getting kind of old when people insult me just because they're insecure... omfg this jackleg guy must be like me - EXCEPT 10 TIMES DORKIER

aha

ps next time you "meet" me say it to my face

7/5/2003 9:07:07 PM

jackleg wins!

7/6/2003 12:59:22 AM

ok im not too fond of looking at pics like that goat thing nor am i fond of all the naked pics. BUT, this is tww and i realize that so i don't look at it if i am worried about my boss seeing it and such. lighten up ok.

7/6/2003 2:20:30 AM

So how do you propose the pictures be moderated?

A voting system? 5 votes and the picture gets posted? So 5 people get to the thread before you and say "Hahahah, this is pretty funny. I'll ok the picture." Well, that just defeated the purpose of it. Or are you going to say just because it's found inappropriate by one person, no one gets to see it?

Another kind of voting system where it's 5 votes to mark it lewd or explicit? Well, say we take your example. The picture has been posted and people have seen it enough to reply -- most of the replies feature "Hahahaha" after a bunch of other posts, enough votes are mustered to mark it 'inappropriate', but you're curious and want to know what's so funny. So you click to see the picture...

And BAM. Blowjob.

An "explicit" or "lewd" tag on the thread? What's explicit to one person, may not be explicit or lewd to another. Say a picture of the Michaelangelo was posted in a thread. A penis is clearly shown. Is it explicit? Is it lewd? Not to me, not to a majority of people, but there's always going to be the one person in the back screaming "OMFG PENIS EW EW EW"

I mean, maybe if you could come up with a decent idea as to how to implement such a thing, it'd be possible to do (though unlikely to be implemented), but unless you've got a particular, good idea on how to implement it, I don't see why Jake or Joe should take the time to cater to a small minority.

7/6/2003 3:29:48 PM