Hazel-wudi posted:

---

Bacon is good on some things, but I really don't get the obsession some people have with it.

---

zuizide posted:

---

Be careful posting that bacon bikini pic. That's the one Tika warned me about saying it was inappropriate even though there is no nudity... *shrug*

---

BigBor posted:

---

zuizide posted:

---

Be careful posting that bacon bikini pic. That's the one Tika warned me about saying it was inappropriate even though there is no nudity... *shrug*

---

Well considering what gets posted on the DT boards, it definitely isn't a problem for IGN. If local mods want to apply thier own standard vs. the company standard then obviously I can't stop them, but I will file that under "not my problem". I haven't seen a different TOS for DT vs. the rest of the vault so I am not sure why there should be that level of inconsistency in forum moderation.

Actual TOS relevant portion:

Babe Threads are only allowed on Community Forums and on Server Forums where Moderators agree to allow them. If we can see nipples, pubic hair or "private parts" the image will be nuked.

I don't see any "nukable" reasons to have a problem with it. And I would hardly classify a single comedy picture as a "babe thread". That would seem an excessive interpretation. No one modded the "man junk" ads that were appearing on the board and those were more revealing that the bacon bikini. I am still having nightmares. *Shrug* as well.

---

zuizide posted:

---

Agreed to all of it. Was just giving you a heads up. Our mods here are often overzealous and pick and choose who they apply what rules to. Just be aware is all I'm saying.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

The pictures of the men in the Calvin Klein ad were not originally placed on the boards by any of us, but by an advertiser. It would have been silly and nonsensical for the mods to remove that picture from our threads, when it was blazing out of the right hand corner every third time the board was refreshed.

---

BigBor posted:

---

---

BigBor posted:

---

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

The pictures of the men in the Calvin Klein ad were not originally placed on the boards by any of us, but by an advertiser. It would have been silly and nonsensical for the mods to remove that picture from our threads, when it was blazing out of the right hand corner every third time the board was refreshed.

---

Yes, but that also makes the larger point that it would be more than hypocritical to force us to see those ads and then censor bacon bikini in a thread. Ohhh we are a family board and must save the children...unless Calvin Klein throws us a benjamin in which case...have a face full o' man junk, yo!

---

blinds_soul posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

---

This is just wrong

BigBor posted:

---

---

See above (not the womenz)

---

BigBor posted:

---

I am actually cool with the ads. My point is that it would be hypocritical to censor the greatness of bacon bikini while using advertising on the same website that is equally revealing.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

I am actually cool with the ads. My point is that it would be hypocritical to censor the greatness of bacon bikini while using advertising on the same website that is equally revealing.

---

I understand that, I'm just saying that the mods only had say-so over the bikinis, not the beefcaeks. You can't blame them for not censoring the beefcaeks when they were unable to keep them off the boards.

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

I am actually cool with the ads. My point is that it would be hypocritical to censor the greatness of bacon bikini while using advertising on the same website that is equally revealing.

---

I understand that, I'm just saying that the mods only had say-so over the bikinis, not the beefcaeks. You can't blame them for not censoring the beefcaeks when they were unable to keep them off the boards.

---

If the company you are modding for is fine with skin (IGN certainly has no problem exposing us to it for their profit), then you need to lighten up on your modding or you are doing it for your own personal agenda and not for any company supported purpose. The mods are not some independant entity. They derive their authority from IGN and should look to them for clues as to what is apporpriate. Obviously, a little skin is not a problem.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

[quote=BigBor]I am actually cool with the ads. My point is that it would be hypocritical to censor the greatness of bacon bikini while using advertising on the same website that is equally revealing.

---

I understand that, I'm just saying that the mods only had say-so over the bikinis, not the beefcaeks. You can't blame them for not censoring the beefcaeks when they were unable to keep them off the boards.

---

If the company you are modding for is fine with skin (IGN certainly has no problem exposing us to it for their profit), then you need to lighten up on your modding or you are doing it for your own personal agenda and not for any company supported purpose. The mods are not some independant entity. They derive their authority from IGN and should look to them for clues as to what is apporpriate. Obviously, a little skin is not a problem.

---

BigBor posted:

---

If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.

---

You're arguing from an idealistic standpoint, I'm arguing from a pragmatic one. Until IGN specifically revokes that portion of the clause ("where Moderators agree to allow them"), it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it.

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

If the mods are enforcing rules beyond what the company demands, then that is a personal agenda and is hyppcritical if the comnpany itself is promoting the very thing they are modding. I doubt you can put together an argument that convinces anyone otherwise. It isn't DT that is setting the standard. It is IGN.

---

You're arguing from an idealistic standpoint, I'm arguing from a pragmatic one. Until IGN specifically revokes that portion of the clause ("where Moderators agree to allow them"), it is what it is. You could always complain to IGN about the wording of their TOS and campaign for it to be changed, but until then, it's pretty much... well, where moderators agree to allow it.

---

I am simply saying it would be hypocritical for moderators to be leaning heavily on the "where Moderators agree to allow them" clause when IGN itself is allowing it. What would the moderator be accomplishing by moderating bikini skin when the company itself is using bikini skin on the same forum to make money? No one is arguing a mod can't hide behind the clause and be a petty tyrant. But they would certainly be a hypocrtical petty tyrant nonetheless. It is what it is.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.

Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.

Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.

---

Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.

I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.

To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

The two pictures involved are for entirely different purposes. One is an advertisement, i.e. something that generates revenue for IGN. The other... well frankly, it's primarily for men to gawk at, and has no purpose or point beyond that. I'm sure that if you could get Hormel or Oscar Meyer or someone to make an ad of your bacongirls, IGN would happily take their money, run it in the top righthand corner of the boards, and there'd not be a damn thing the mods could do about it.

Honestly though, if they ever did that I hope to god they'd use different girls. Have you looked into the eyes of the top "bacon girl?" Look closely. All you get is a sense of fear and pain, carefully guarded. It bothers me.

---

Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.

I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.

To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.

---

Is it so hypocritical? Frankly, we have yet to have a VN member post a picture on this forum of well-built men wearing a few scraps of food and nothing else. Do you want to post one of men and see if it gets modded too? Do you want me to post one? I can go looking around on the internet and find one, maybe? I'm quite open to testing this.

As for the rest of it, by your logic a good isht joke is the same as an ad, because it generates revenue via increased site traffic. If you truly believe this, then do your part for IGN and tell us plenty. Thanks.

Beefy men wearing food and tons of isht jokes... ah, I love the smell of rules lawyering in the morning.

---

BigBor posted:

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

BigBor posted:

---

Wow, just wow. You keep missing the point, over and over. The only question left, is it intentional or do you just not get it. I guess when you can't argue the point, change the subject.

I will simplify the question one last time to see if you can stay on point. Do you find it hypocritical for a company to take a position where they use bikini skin to make money advertising, but they would disallow bikini skin in their forum content? That is the equivalent of Penthouse Magazine not accepting condom ads because the sexual inference might offend a delicate reader.

To argue one generates ad revenue and the other has no purpose is naive. The only reason internet ads generate revenue is due to site traffic. If the users of your site want to post a picture of comedic bikini skin and other users want to comment and laugh about it, then that is generating site traffic. You can certainly take a stance that bikini skin is not appropriate for your website. But once you decide to post ads using bikini skin, you have lost that moral high ground.

---

Is it so hypocritical? Frankly, we have yet to have a VN member post a picture on this forum of well-built men wearing a few scraps of food and nothing else. Do you want to post one of men and see if it gets modded too? Do you want me to post one? I can go looking around on the internet and find one, maybe? I'm quite open to testing this.

As for the rest of it, by your logic a good isht joke is the same as an ad, because it generates revenue via increased site traffic. If you truly believe this, then do your part for IGN and tell us plenty. Thanks.

Beefy men wearing food and tons of isht jokes... ah, I love the smell of rules lawyering in the morning.

---

Yes, yes it is hypocritical. And I could care less what you post. I am not easily offended. Post whatever you want. Again not the point. And no, an isht joke is not relevant, beacuse IGN is not yet using them for advertising. Again not the point. Keep it apples to apples.

You just can't stay on point. You are so all over the board it is never possible to discuss a simple point. The bacon bikini is no more revealing than the calvin klein ad you are so fond of (less so since you can't see the outline of genetalia like the man bulge in the add). Yes it is hypocritical to censor pictures in the forum when you are using similar pictures for advertising. Done.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

Hey, I'm just asking for the charge of hypocrisy to be properly tested. You can't really do that by comparing how moderators respond to a clothing ad vs how they respond to a forum post of people wearing food. THAT is apples and oranges Bor, and saying as much is quite on point. (You might not like the point, but it's on point.) So, let us post images of men wearing food as well, and see if the moderators remove those. That would properly test the hypothesis, would it not? And if you want to say that all things are equivalent because they generate traffic and increase revenue thereby... well, I know I'm hardly the only one here that enjoys well-executed toilet humor. If we are to go that argumentative route, fine... I propose that each and every one of us support IGN by posting as much toilet humor as possible.

Asking Lawful Evil to not rules lawyer, refrain from skewering people on the horns of a dilemma, or to not set up situations where they win either way... that's like asking a baby not to wet itself, Bor. This is what we do, and there's no sense in getting so worked up over it. It doesn't mean I don't like you. I do, and I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Smile, Bor... life's too short.

---

BigBor posted:

---

You are so all over the board it is never possible to discuss a simple point.

---

tika_waylen posted:

---

Next week its not even gonna matter.

---

Hazel-wudi posted:

---

What some men call "a discussion" usually means "Let me hammer one minor (often irrelevant) point absolutely into the effing ground, not bother to address any of your points, and keep at it until you finally pretend to agree with me to shut me up." And if you don't believe me, ask your mothers, your wives, and your female friends. Be prepared for the laughter and the "Ain't that it!" because you're going to get those sorts of responses in spades.

I prefer to have something called a conversation. A conversation flows along naturally from point to point, rather than jackhammering one spot to death. I hate to say this, but unless you are quite literally autistic, there's absolutely no excuse for any adult (male or female), to not know how to have a simple conversation. My husband can do it, and so can my brother and father. I have some male coworkers who can, and I know many men in game who can, also.

---