Please Pay Attention To The Photo Guidelines

[John Doe]

People need to take a stand for democracy. All of it, not just the right to view porn. I do and I know you do. Take care my friend.

True, but I feel the porn part is particularly important, though that's clearly due to the fact I'm a perv.

 

[69forever]

Nothing wrong with being a perv. At least we're honest about it. Unlike many of the closet pervs, carrying their Bibles in one hand and their hand in their pocket on the other side. Or in a childs.

Even though I suck cock as well as pussy, I've got principles of decency. Unlike some of the biggest zealots I've ever seen....Child molestation or incest are abhorrent, devient and sick. Yet they'd judge me, heh.

It's perfectly fine to kill as many Muslims as there are bullets, *can I get an Amen?* But post an image of two consensual adults engaged in erotic play and the outcry shakes the ground, fire and brimstone raining down from above.

Any wonder why we're the laughing stock of the rest of humanity???

 

[mansome]

Ok, I've calmed down enough now. I know there are plenty of other threads that could be and might be removed for violition of the guidelines.

If I had the key to do the editing, I'd have taken the time to do it myself, instead of losing the entire thread. That's not possible, so we live with things the way they are for now. It's for certain not the end of the world. There are many more important things to concern ourselves with right now politically and socially.

People need to take a stand for democracy. All of it, not just the right to view porn. I do and I know you do. Take care my friend.

Is it really necessary or salient to get all upset about a thread? start a new one.... I know this has upset you so much...... *pats* him on the head.. it will be ok... *tussles* his hair......

 

[69forever]

Darn mosquito's. Late in the year for them. Oh well, just a little prick after all....

 

[Mary Hall]

It's perfectly fine to kill as many Muslims as there are bullets

No wonder the human race is fucked up with attitudes like that

 

[John Doe]

Nothing wrong with being a perv. At least we're honest about it. Unlike many of the closet pervs, carrying their Bibles in one hand and their hand in their pocket on the other side. Or in a childs.

Even though I suck cock as well as pussy, I've got principles of decency. Unlike some of the biggest zealots I've ever seen....Child molestation or incest are abhorrent, devient and sick. Yet they'd judge me, heh.

It's perfectly fine to kill as many Muslims as there are bullets, *can I get an Amen?* But post an image of two consensual adults engaged in erotic play and the outcry shakes the ground, fire and brimstone raining down from above.

Um...what?

Any wonder why we're the laughing stock of the rest of humanity???

IMO, part of the reason America (?) isn't taken seriously by the rest of the world is that we don't seem to mean what we say and vice versa, but maybe that's what you're getting at?

 

[Queersetti]

Ok, I've calmed down enough now. I know there are plenty of other threads that could be and might be removed for violition of the guidelines.

If I had the key to do the editing, I'd have taken the time to do it myself, instead of losing the entire thread. That's not possible, so we live with things the way they are for now. It's for certain not the end of the world. There are many more important things to concern ourselves with right now politically and socially.

People need to take a stand for democracy. All of it, not just the right to view porn. I do and I know you do. Take care my friend.

When some threads were removed or edited on the AMPIcs Forum, a number of people thought that Laurel should take a defiant stand, and refuse to bow to the law. I understand the emotional appeal of that position, but, ultimately, it plays right into the hands of the censors. The religious right does not want sites to Lit to "tone it down", they want them eliminated. Refusing to accede to the law would not result in any positive change, but only a further stifling of adult content on the net. This fight will have to be won in other venues.

 

[Queersetti]

No wonder the human race is fucked up with attitudes like that

I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic.

 

[mansome]

I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic.

I don't know... this place has been woven into his life so tightly that everything that happens here he takes personally.... who cares if a post is taken off or a pic or two......... or even a thread... big fuckin' deal..... it's not intellectual property that is so salient that it can't be preserved in some other form.. and if it was... and this is the only place you choose to post it.. well then you are fucked....... you get what you pay for....

 

[Mary Hall]

If he was sarcastic, why add this after the comment?

*can I get an Amen?*

Doesn`t seem to be a joke to me

 

[ZZChief]

No wonder the human race is fucked up with attitudes like that

Incest fucks it up too.

 

[Dazz Hetfield]

Incest fucks it up too.

Really? I haven't found that to be anywhere near true. Racism, whether sarcastic or not, isn't and shouldn't be tolerated by any society.

 

[Etoile]

BTW, 69forever, I don't know if this was mentioned to you, but since you mentioned wishing you'd had the chance to save it - for the record, Q and I were not aware the thread was going to be removed until it already happened. We got the PM from Laurel after the thread had been moved.

 

[Queersetti]

If he was sarcastic, why add this after the comment?




Doesn`t seem to be a joke to me

I thought the "Amen", if anythng, emphasized the sarcasm in his post. I've read enough of his posts to feel certain that he was being ironic.

Look at what he said again:

"It's perfectly fine to kill as many Muslims as there are bullets, *can I get an Amen?* But post an image of two consensual adults engaged in erotic play and the outcry shakes the ground, fire and brimstone raining down from above.

Any wonder why we're the laughing stock of the rest of humanity???"

I don't know how you can parse that so that the reference to killing Muslims is seen as anything other than sarcastic. He says that in America, the violence of war is considered more acceptable than imagery of consensual sex. I think there's a great deal of veracity in that statement.

 

[gypsywitch]

I'm giving this a bump and bringing the discussion over to the General Board.


Nice plump ass there Q!

 

[chrk1]

i don't believe moderators, or administrators, understand the complaint here.so here it is. the threads that were removed were long running threads. the ts thread had about 90 pages. i can see by the amount of posts our mods have, that they are in and out of threads all over lits forums. therefore i know that they had been into the threads that were removed various times during the life of the thread. they saw well in advance that those threads were not meeting their forum guidlines. at any time one of the mods could have posted and said we are not conforming to guidlines. which seems to me would be part of their duty as a moderator. instead they did nothing. since the threads were allowed to run that long space of time, and generated so much interest from users, it would then seem to me, since both users and mods were lax, the administrators should have said we have to clean it up or it has to go, and moderators should have devoted a little time to helping us make those threads conform to the guidlines. users were willing to do their part. that was demonstrated in the second ts thread that was removed. but instead administrators removed the threads without even offering an explaination at the time they were removed. that's what pissed everyone off.
i hope by saying this i will convince all persons in athorative positions to handle it differently in the future.

 

[Queersetti]

i don't believe moderators, or administrators, understand the complaint here.so here it is. the threads that were removed were long running threads. the ts thread had about 90 pages. i can see by the amount of posts our mods have, that they are in and out of threads all over lits forums. therefore i know that they had been into the threads that were removed various times during the life of the thread. they saw well in advance that those threads were not meeting their forum guidlines. at any time one of the mods could have posted and said we are not conforming to guidlines. which seems to me would be part of their duty as a moderator. instead they did nothing. since the threads were allowed to run that long space of time, and generated so much interest from users, it would then seem to me, since both users and mods were lax, the administrators should have said we have to clean it up or it has to go, and moderators should have devoted a little time to helping us make those threads conform to the guidlines. users were willing to do their part. that was demonstrated in the second ts thread that was removed. but instead administrators removed the threads without even offering an explaination at the time they were removed. that's what pissed everyone off.
i hope by saying this i will convince all persons in athorative positions to handle it differently in the future.

I think that you've made a reasonable argument, but it assumes that no external factors have changed, and that is not the case. The lae regarding internet content has changed, and the level of enforcement of those laws has changed. What was acceptable content a year ago will get a site shut down now.

Unfortunately, many members of Lit have been anything but cooperative in light of these problems. In fact, I think the most common response when content has had to be removed from the Playground, the AmPics board, etc, has been negative. Vitriol, name calling, attempts to disrupt the forum and even theft of service type attacks have followed administrative action, even when the removal did not occur until after the posters in question had been given fair warning. So, I can understand if Laurel and Manu follow a zero tolerance policy.

You may be right, maybe Etolie and I should have been more draconian in what we allowed in the past. But, somehow, I suspect we'd have been vilified for that as well.

 

[Etoile]

i don't believe moderators, or administrators, understand the complaint here.so here it is. the threads that were removed were long running threads. the ts thread had about 90 pages. i can see by the amount of posts our mods have, that they are in and out of threads all over lits forums. therefore i know that they had been into the threads that were removed various times during the life of the thread. they saw well in advance that those threads were not meeting their forum guidlines. at any time one of the mods could have posted and said we are not conforming to guidlines. which seems to me would be part of their duty as a moderator. instead they did nothing. since the threads were allowed to run that long space of time, and generated so much interest from users, it would then seem to me, since both users and mods were lax, the administrators should have said we have to clean it up or it has to go, and moderators should have devoted a little time to helping us make those threads conform to the guidlines. users were willing to do their part. that was demonstrated in the second ts thread that was removed. but instead administrators removed the threads without even offering an explaination at the time they were removed. that's what pissed everyone off.
i hope by saying this i will convince all persons in athorative positions to handle it differently in the future.

You are assuming quite a lot here, and I take offense to the statement that I/we "should have" done something sooner. My post count has very little to do with anything you are mentioning here, except that I do post in a few different sections of Lit. The assumption that I had "been into" the threads and "saw well in advance" what was happening is completely unfounded. To be perfectly honest - and maybe this was a mistake on my part as well - I don't think I ever went into the transgendered pics thread. Not that I remember anyway. Yes, I could have known what was in it without going in there, and I probably did.

As for not saying anything, careful searching of my post history will find that I have repeatedly mentioned not posting photos that violate the forum rules. I have been almost universally ignored. I have seen posters say "oh oops, sorry" and then go and post more of the same in other threads. What am I supposed to do, spank them? Send them to bed without dinner?

As for the moderators working with posters to bring the thread into compliance, I would like to repeat to you that we were not given the chance. As I have said previously, we received no warning from administrators. The first we knew that these threads were even under review was when we got a PM saying "hey, this is a done deal, but thought you should know." So don't blame us for that part - if you want to blame the administrators for not contacting us sooner, that's between you and them, but the suggestion that we "should have" done something sooner implies that at some point we knew something you didn't - which was not the case.

You may be right, maybe Etolie and I should have been more draconian in what we allowed in the past. But, somehow, I suspect we'd have been vilified for that as well.

Yes, absolutely. If Q and I had been moving/removing these posts all along, we would have probably been drummed out by now. I remember Day One of GLBT Chatter (I was the one who asked Laurel to make this place). I was the only mod early on, and a check of my post history around May 2003 (approximately) will show that I tried to impose my own expectations on the forum. I was booed and jeered at, and I stood back. I have said elsewhere that as a result of that experience, I have taken a more hands-off approach to moderating. That is not my preference, but it is what the users wanted. I would prefer to keep things on topic and cut down on fluff and so forth, but the users want mods who remove spam and move personals to the appropriate section and not a lot else.

chrk1, I understand the points you are making, but I think that you should consider our perspective as well. Thanks.

 

[blackieone]

without offending anyone,i think the guidelines were pretty clear.Even before the new rules-rules that i don't like anyway,but that's my problem and i will jus say so,or leave,if i can't /won't comply with them-many people have just decide to ignore them.
Even in the transgerndered thread,i have suggested many times to not post copyrighted images,to no avail.Many didn't have the sense to edit the copyright writings from the pics!
Since i know that many restrictions are not sudden decisions based on mood swings,but there's a reason for them,i've decided to stay here and stick by them,as user.And that applies to my pic thread as well.Even if i'm not happy with it.Besides,the ruels are written in plain english and plain wiew.
The new US rules don't make any sense to me,but i know that it can't be done otherwise.Some have said "the hell with them" and posted explicit pics anyway.I've decided to do otherwise,and not because i'm a prude.
Simply ,i like Lit and the people here.And i'm not fon d of the wholòe situation,but at the moment there's anything ii can do,unless i decide to leave Lit altogether.Meanwhile, i try to comply with the rules ,even if i hate them.Besides,it would be like entering in some other people's house and behave just like i feel to.No t fair,for me.People breaking the rules,more than just being brave,are simply putting the whole site on hazard.
And it's the least smart thing to do,in my eyes.There are other ways to win this battle.One of them was the illfated "art&erotica",where people could post everything they want-yet the uS citizens were breaking the law even there,without knowing-others may be talking about what's happening.
Besides,since all the Lit users are adults,i didn't think it was necessary to open another thread to remind them of what the rules are.
Just my two cents,i hope none was offeded by this

 

[chrk1]

let me begin by saying, what i said in the last posting was not intended as finger pointing, or an attempt to fix blame on moderators. it was mere suggestions, and not intended to offend. since i see you did take offence, please allow me to apoligze to both etoile, and queersetti. the fact is what happened here was not a result of what users or moderators did or did not do. it was not caused by the "religous wrong" as stuponfusious wrongly put it, nor was it a result of a sudden urge by the government to crack down on porn. posting copyrighted pics on this forum, even though it is a copyright infringement, is not enough to spark complaints from copyright owners. but complaints were made, most likely to a government agency, who then, i'm guessing, issued a stern warning to literotica. i know what sparked those complaints, and now i'll tell you what sparked them. some time back i was brousing links to ts pics on a website, and sometimes when i click one of the links, instead of opening the page with the thumbs, it will open another website where i'll find pics or links to pics. on that occasion i clicked one of the links and guess what came up? if you said literotica you got it exactly right.so i'm wondering how i got to lit. i closed the window and clicked the link again. once more it opened lit. now i'm not a lawyer, but i can see this constitutes a commercial use of those pics and would certainly spark complaints from copyright owners. so if anyone wants to point fingers at anyone, at least now you know which direction to point them.

 

[gypsywitch]

Oh jeeez... *bonks forehead against forum wall*

does that mean I should take my ticker down because its promoting a website?

I'll leave it up for a bit in my sig just so peeps know what I mean.

 

[Etoile]

let me begin by saying, what i said in the last posting was not intended as finger pointing, or an attempt to fix blame on moderators. it was mere suggestions, and not intended to offend. since i see you did take offence, please allow me to apoligze to both etoile, and queersetti.

Thank you. I did feel personally attacked by your previous post and I appreciate your clarification.

 

[John Doe]

the fact is what happened here was not a result of what users or moderators did or did not do. it was not caused by the "religous wrong" as stuponfusious wrongly put it, nor was it a result of a sudden urge by the government to crack down on porn.

I did not say it was caused directly by religious Conservatives, nor that it was a sudden crackdown by the gov't. This has been building for a long time and, you might even agree, it's been backed by certain special interest groups. Most notably fundamentalists, but also some misguided women's groups, etc.

This sort of intolerance has been around since even before the Internet came about.

 

[chrk1]

Oh jeeez... *bonks forehead against forum wall*

does that mean I should take my ticker down because its promoting a website?

I'll leave it up for a bit in my sig just so peeps know what I mean.

you must be a blonde.

 

[mansome]

Oh jeeez... *bonks forehead against forum wall*

does that mean I should take my ticker down because its promoting a website?

I'll leave it up for a bit in my sig just so peeps know what I mean.

sorry.. what did you say? I was distracted by your delicious cleavage..

=^)