Mike Cummings wrote:

Yep that happened to me at work. Now because some twit could not mark a tits out picture 18+ I am unable to read the site at work. Sucks big time.

You're supposed to be working anyway.  Log off and quit loafing.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

There are lots of images just as "inappropriate" used as avatars by people who post all day on the forums.  The fact is, it all depends on who you are and who likes or dislikes your work.  I'm walking, talking evidence of that fact.

No Melvin, you are not.

As much as you want to be called a pornographer... your images don't fall in that category... and it's not because moderators like you, it's because, well... we don't consider your stuff porn.

We had to remove images and members who refused to remove images whose images were considered porn: actual depiction of sexual intercourse and such position.

Your art is borderline, but not so borderline that it's considered that way. If you start to load up actual porn, or don't mark images that have to be marked as 18+, you'll be treated like everybody else.

Udo

UdoR wrote:
No Melvin, you are not.

As much as you want to be called a pornographer... your images don't fall in that category... and it's not because moderators like you, it's because, well... we don't consider your stuff porn.

We had to remove images and members who refused to remove images whose images were considered porn: actual depiction of sexual intercourse and such position.

Your art is borderline, but not so borderline that it's considered that way. If you start to load up actual porn, or don't mark images that have to be marked as 18+, you'll be treated like everybody else.

Udo

Actually, you're proving my point.  Whether you like it or not, my work does all the same things that "pornography" does...and it's certainly bondage-oriented.  The only thing that makes it "not" porn [unporn?] is the fact that I strive for a certain level of artistry...Which I suppose makes it porn that people can feel okay looking at.  As for the bondage element in what I do, it's literally right there in front of you...and my current avatar has made several prior appearances in the forums, with no issue raised.  It may have some pretty colors, but it's a bondage image nonetheless.

The truth is the moderators don't have a clear idea of what they're supposed to be policing, which has been my point all along...The rules aren't the problem, it's the uneven, haphazard enforcement of them that gives pause.  One moderator has already weighed in with the opinion that Dave Naz's avatar didn't warrant a sudden change in it's status, so how much logic is being applied here?  I'd like to think that intelligent, creative, thoughtful people could do better than "I know porn when I see it...I think."  Would it really be so difficult for the moderators to get together and come up with a basic set of rules for what does and dosen't constitute an inappropriate image?  Until some unity of purpose is accomplished, this sort of debate will continue to pop up. 

Of course if you don't mind going around the maypole about it over and over, knock yourselves out.

RStephenT wrote:
Not ANOTHER argument over a 18+ photo....geeesh!

my thoughts exactly

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

Actually, you're proving my point.  Whether you like it or not, my work does all the same things that "pornography" does...and it's certainly bondage-oriented.  If you can't see the D/s element in what I do, that dosen't mean it isn't there...It just means that the moderators don't have a clear idea of what they're supposed to be policing, which has been my point all along...The rules aren't the problem, it's the uneven, haphazard enforcement of them that gives pause.  One moderator has already weighed in with the opinion that Dave Naz's avatar didn't warrant a sudden change in it's status, so how much logic is being applied here?  I'd like to think that intelligent, creative, thoughtful people could do better than "I know porn when I see it...I think."  Would it really be so difficult for the moderators to get together and come up with a basic set of rules for what does and dosen't constitute an inappropriate image?  Until some unity of purpose is accomplished, this sort of debate will continue to pop up. 

Of course if you don't mind going around the maypole about it over and over, knock yourselves out.

I guess, for me to see your images as sexually arousing, which is obviously your intention, I would have to have that particular fetish, bondage in that case.

But, since I don't have that kind of fixiation, I see those images as a strange curiosity and interesting and all. I probably interpret other meanings behind the images.

UdoR wrote:
I guess, for me to see your images as sexually arousing, which is obviously your intention, I would have to have that particular fetish, bondage in that case.

But, since I don't have that kind of fixiation, I see those images as a strange curiosity and interesting and all. I probably interpret other meanings behind the images.

The fact that you personally don't find my work to be sexual dosen't make them not sexual...it makes them not your particular thing.  The idea that personal arousal is the litmus test for site-appropriate images opens the door for some rather interesting occurances.  I can't wait until a moderator signs on who has a shoe fetish -- the fashion section will never be the same.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

The fact that you personally don't find my work to be sexual dosen't make them not sexual...it makes them not your particular thing.  The idea that personal arousal is the litmus test for site-appropriate images opens the door for some rather interesting occurances.  I can't wait until a moderator signs on who has a shoe fetish -- the fashion section will never be the same.

Well, the personal arousal thing is not a litmus test at all. We have pretty clear rules on what we consider nudity and what kind of images have to be marked as 18+. Most of those are very far away from being arousing... but very clear... is a non sheer fabric covering the genitals? Yes? No? If No, it's supposed to be 18+, if genitals are covered by fabric, it doesn't have to be marked. Hands or heads don't count as covering.

I apply the common "street law" for nudity or indecent exposure. If the model would get arrested in the condition he/she is on the image if he/she would be out on the street. It's 18+... nude by law.

If the model is walking on the street, but wears a brazillian thong bikini, as itzy bitzy as it is... she will not get arrested (except maybe in some rural areas in the States).

This is pretty much how I handle it here and the other moderators as well.

Particular fetishes don't count.

UdoR wrote:
The idea that personal arousal is the litmus test for site-appropriate images opens the door for some rather interesting occurances.




Personal arousal???  I found the images kinda silly. bs

UdoR wrote:

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Well, the personal arousal thing is not a litmus test at all. We have pretty clear rules on what we consider nudity and what kind of images have to be marked as 18+. Most of those are very far away from being arousing... but very clear... is a non sheer fabric covering the genitals? Yes? No? If No, it's supposed to be 18+, if genitals are covered by fabric, it doesn't have to be marked. Hands or heads don't count as covering.

I apply the common "street law" for nudity or indecent exposure. If the model would get arrested in the condition he/she is on the image if he/she would be out on the street. It's 18+... nude by law.

If the model is walking on the street, but wears a brazillian thong bikini, as itzy bitzy as it is... she will not get arrested (except maybe in some rural areas in the States).

This is pretty much how I handle it here and the other moderators as well.

Particular fetishes don't count.

quoath the raven:

[5] AVATAR. Again, we would like to keep ModelMayhem.com a "work-safe" environment. And since your avatar is open to the public, nudity or any other obscene material ("bloodwork", bondage, etc) is not allowed. If you are unsure if your avatar is acceptable, change it. Simple as that. Moderator's judgment applies here.



Whether or not you now decide my current avatar is unacceptable, the fact remains that i've used numerous sexual and bondage-themed images for avatars in the months that I've been here, with narry an incident...and I'm pretty sure the models were bound, since I do all my own ropework.  Is "no bondage" a rule, or just something they threw in for effect?

I'm sure you think I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm one of those guys who dosen't feel right getting away with things that others don't...I don't think it's fair to have one image stay while another is removed simply because of "style points."

Mike Cummings wrote:
Yep that happened to me at work. Now because some twit could not mark a tits out picture 18+ I am unable to read the site at work. Sucks big time.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
You're supposed to be working anyway.  Log off and quit loafing.

hmmmm...i own and run a few offices...i'd like to think that while they're being paid TO WORK, my employees WOULDN'T be hanging out on MM... or anywhere ELSE on the internet for that matter...

IsabelAurora wrote:
my thoughts exactly

UdoR wrote:
We have pretty clear rules on what we consider nudity and what kind of images have to be marked as 18+. Most of those are very far away from being arousing... but very clear... is a non sheer fabric covering the genitals? Yes? No? If No, it's supposed to be 18+, if genitals are covered by fabric, it doesn't have to be marked. Hands or heads don't count as covering.

But it's not OK when a solid block of INK is covering the Model's genitals? That's more than they do on primetime TV, where they blur them out.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
You're supposed to be working anyway.  Log off and quit loafing.

Well said, Melvin. I think the real loser in all of this is Mike's boss!

theda wrote:
Actually, I HAD seen it. It just hadn't occured to me to find it out of bounds. Damn subjectivity. Although I can see the other mods objections.

Because of this I actually think between all the MODS, certain things should be put to a vote between the MODS. Or at least come up with something that is not so grey area, leading different MODS to different ideas of what is ok.Or how about this, start charging for the site. This site has enough potential paying members now. No more"lure them in with free memberships" tactics needed,lol. Paying memberships will cut down on the minors. But on the other hand I still say that once this site starts needing to make money Tyler will see that the ones he is trying to keep out of this site(underage models, x models,etc) are actually where the most money comes from. The average model starts much younger than 18, and the adult industry has plenty of money behind it.

UdoR wrote:

No Melvin, you are not.

As much as you want to be called a pornographer... your images don't fall in that category...

If you look at the definitions of porn, and what the new porn squad considers porn, yep, bondage is porn. No matter how nicely it is shot. The fetish lifestyle is considered a sexual lifestyle.BeautyBound.com shut down on their own because of this. Some of the best bondage and artisticly done fetish photography on earth done by one of my favorite photographers.

UdoR wrote:
We have pretty clear rules on what we consider nudity and what kind of images have to be marked as 18+.

Obviously they are not very clear at all or one of the other MODS would have have said"Actually, I HAD seen it. It just hadn't occured to me to find it out of bounds." early on in this very thread.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Would you prefer RTFM? It's equally appropriate.

Unless your real intention is to drum up interest in your book, this thread is pointless.

RTFM? I’m not hip to all the internet lingo.

So let me get this straight, you think I may benefit by people reading all about my 160 page Hardcover book "Legs" on Goliath? Hmm. I’ll have to give that some thought.