Who makes you Drool debate

Dr Galen

trout wrote: »

Right so .. suggested poll question "Do you want the "drool" thread in tGC?"

Suggested poll options

1. Yes - The Charter suppports such a thread.
2. Yes - SFW pictures only. No nudity. Allow comments.
3. Yes - SFW pictures only. No nudity. No comments.
4. No - The Charter does not suppport such a thread.
5. No - not where I want this forum to go.
6. No - there is a whole Internet for that
7. Don't care.

Is it time then that we put this to a vote? I've quoted Trouts post above as an guide for the options that could be.

deadhead13

The difficulty is determining and defining what is SFW and what isn't. If the result of the poll as it is currently written was YES, that problem would still remain.

Khannie

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Is it time then that we put this to a vote? I've quoted Trouts post above as an guide for the options that could be.

Not mad about voting for a variety of reasons. Not mad about those poll options. Also have a few questions I'd like clarification on. Out and about now but I'll be home in a bit.

Dr Galen

Khannie wrote: »

Not mad about voting for a variety of reasons. Not mad about those poll options. Also have a few questions I'd like clarification on. Out and about now but I'll be home in a bit.

yeah yeah whatever

anyone would think you had a baby or something.............


come back with the q's Khannie. We need questions and ideas on how to get this sorted. I don't like things dragging on any further than is necessary, its only by asking the questions and getting the answers we can reach that point imho.

Khannie

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

yeah yeah whatever

anyone would think you had a baby or something.............

Oh man....I'm up to 3 now and the jump in effort from 2 to 3 is shocking. SHOCKING!!!!!

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

come back with the q's Khannie. We need questions and ideas on how to get this sorted. I don't like things dragging on any further than is necessary, its only by asking the questions and getting the answers we can reach that point imho.

Ok...So I got a bit ranty about Old Goats post myself. I was annoyed by it for a variety of reasons. So I'm gonna get down to brass tacks now.

I think a poll would be nonsense. They're a poor tool for deciding anything semi-important on the internet because they can be easily swayed by people who really don't care in the slightest one way or the other. Passing trade, or friends or whatever. I don't think we need a poll. I think we can decide fairly handily here and now that the thread should be allowed whether people dislike it or not. Yes they have their place, but I don't think this discussion would be well served by one. There are plenty of things that I dislike that I will defend peoples right to do. Having a thread with pictures of raquel welsh in her underpants is something I would defend peoples right to do despite not really being too pushed about gawking at said lady in her underpants. Basically, I think it would be a bit of a shocker to say that we're so serious here that we can't allow anyone to post that kind of picture. I think Paul summed it up nicely with:

CowzerP wrote:

Down with this sort of thing mentality should have be left back in the dark ages

That was from the single most thanked post in this thread so far.

So...my question is this: (there may be more than one)
I think what I really felt was the crux of what I considered to be over-moderation was being told that there were not to be any more ladies in underclothing. Now all of the mods have said that they don't think there was any over-moderation and that implies that they believe that there should not be any ladies in underclothing in pictures in tGC. First off is that correct?

(while I appreciate that you're all individuals, I'd appreciate the "mod team" response on that one).

What irked me was that there's nothing saying or implying anywhere that this forum should not allow pictures of ladies in underclothing. Essentially it looked like a personal dislike was applied as a moderating decision. Now we've had a LOT of people come on this thread and tear that stance a new one so I wont go into it any more than that until I get an answer on whether it still stands as a moderating decision.


Now, another thing that I've found confusing about this whole affair is that we have one mod implying that there has been a lot of behind the scenes discussion about this thread and that it has been under heavy scrutiny. Specifically the thread was described as having "prudish modding" and "heavy handedness" by one mod and another mod says "I still disagree with you that the thread has been heavily moderated". Btw, MM, I wouldn't disagree with your point that there were few acts of moderation in the thread. I would say that banning underpants and calling it fapping material etc. was OTT and I suppose that's what I'm getting at as over-moderation. (Old Goat I'm not picking on you here, seriously. Please don't take it personally, it's just that your post is what has led to this discussion).


On the large images thing: I think we should just suck that up. I think the benefit of not having rules enforced outweighs the cost of viewing large images from time to time. Also, I think resizing and rehosting is not practical and potentially copyright infringing.

My own 2c on the drool thread: I don't think it quite fits, but it's here now and deleting it or having it over-moderated (i.e. no underpants) would be far far far far far worse than just leaving it be IMO.

What does it add? Who cares. What gives you the right to delete it when it's not doing anything wrong?

Sparky_Larks

On reading the "who makes you drool " thread I got the impression that the moderators were looking very closely at the thread and thinking of shutting it down.

I'm not sure why though, is it that the images that are bering poswted or the comments?

Though some have asked why is the thread necessary.

Some have said that if the Ladies can have a post like this then why can't we, both others say that different forums have different charters.

My tuppence worth is,
1) The posting on this site has been mainly perfectly acceptable, come small swim suits or lingerie but nothing dodgy, Well ther was one naked women with a snake. Though some of the clothed pictures are more provocative

2) The comments were a little lewd at times but nothing more than would be likely heard if men were discussing an attractive lady

3) No picture I have seen has shown nipples or genetalie so have not broken any quantative rules. the other rules are subjective, so harder to say if they have been broken or not.

4) It is important what is allowed inthe Ladies Lounge. Different forums have different rules because of their nature and purpose. However the Ladies Lounge is' Please note that this is a forum for the discussion of all topics and any issues pertaining to being a woman'
and the Gentlemans Club is 'This forum is for discussion on any issue relating to general men's health, mental health, sexual health, the role of men in modern society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man'.

So it is important for the entire Boards community that Men are allowed to discuss the same range of topics that women are allowd discuss and that ther is a place for that discussion

OldGoat

Khannie wrote: »

The mod who wrote the post in question doesn't even think that. Did you miss some stuff maybe?

My post was rantish, admitted in the post. However I still stand by my decision to issue a warning because the quality of some of the last images posted were moving in the wrong direction for the thread.

shapez wrote: »

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. But, have you seen the way some girls dress to go out in public these days???? I think some of the pictures are mild in comparision to what you see on the streets, in clubs or pubs on your average weekend night!!!

Doesn't matter what you see outside the forum, that is not the point here.

CDfm wrote: »

whoa there neddy.

can we get back to basics here - who is likely to be offended and why.

Most of the pics I saw could easily be found in an issue of Cosmo ( or rather an airbrushed variety might be). Its not even in the league of the pirelli calender but at worst along the lines of the RyanAir callender.

So i feel the cutoff point ought to be that the pics would be of a type that might appear in the mainstream press/media.Suggestive maybe, arty but no porno.

Anyway who comes on boards to see porn, though a few trolls might post a few when drunk.

So the who might be offended and the why they might be offended is very important because in interpreting that you may have to decide whether or not such an objection is valid.

To me it's about stopping the posting of offensive images in the forum BEFORE they get to the point of offending anyone.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Point of information.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_forbidden



The site rules and guidelines contains the two lines.
* Pictures or links to pictures of Porn
* Pictures or links to pictures showing nipples and/or genitalia

It differentiates between pron and pictures which have nipples and/or genitalia. Porn doesn't have to have those showing and softcore porn is still porn.

What is porn?

This is not about porn. It was never about porn. All the mods and all of the regular posters on the thread would agree to that I' sure. I feel positive that if anyone were posting porn they would have been reported and dealt with. The anger here comes from me barking even before we ever got to that level of posting.

citytillidie wrote: »

I mean there is someone complaining about the Lucy Lawless picture where you can see a little butt cheek but you can all clearly see that she is wearing underwear.

How many pictures are there of Lucy Lawless on the net? Of all the pictures of her online why did you select one of her showing her ass and not her face? Yeah I know, men like asses too. The thread is about WHO makes you drool. To me there was nothing of a 'Who' in this thread. It was a pic of someones stockinged legs and ass just for the sake of the legs and ass. I warned posters to rethink what they were posting. 'Reign in' was the term I used. - Then I ranted.
The rant may have been ill timed and ill considered but I like where it's taken us. It's going to strengthen the forum - in one direction or the other.

deadhead13 wrote: »

The difficulty is determining and defining what is SFW and what isn't. If the result of the poll as it is currently written was YES, that problem would still remain.

True. Ultimately it will still come down to a moderator decision. Some people will be ill at ease with the moderators decision. Some moderators may be more lenient then others. Some moderators may be more prudish then others. IMO, in this forum, leniency when judging what is SFW is a very big mistake.

Khannie wrote: »

Oh man....I'm up to 3 now and the jump in effort from 2 to 3 is shocking. SHOCKING!!!!!

Chin up Khannie, the first 2 years are the worst. Then the next two years are the worst too. After that it goes downhill.

Khannie wrote: »

So...my question is this: (there may be more than one)
I think what I really felt was the crux of what I considered to be over-moderation was being told that there were not to be any more ladies in underclothing. Now all of the mods have said that they don't think there was any over-moderation and that implies that they believe that there should not be any ladies in underclothing in pictures in tGC. First off is that correct?

(while I appreciate that you're all individuals, I'd appreciate the "mod team" response on that one).

I posted without consultation with other mods. In that post I said the 'I' would delete the thread and ban photographs.
Khannie (and anyone else) if I may pose a question here. If my post were to just have been: "Some of these photographs are pushing the boundaries of what I see as acceptable here in tGC. Reign yerself in Gentlemen." would we be having this debate?

Khannie wrote: »

What irked me was that there's nothing saying or implying anywhere that this forum should not allow pictures of ladies in underclothing. Essentially it looked like a personal dislike was applied as a moderating decision. Now we've had a LOT of people come on this thread and tear that stance a new one so I wont go into it any more than that until I get an answer on whether it still stands as a moderating decision.

I had hoped that this would not get into a discussion of my personal likes and dislikes and rather that we stayed with my moderator likes and dislikes. What I enjoy personally is vastly at odds with my moderator stance and I assume no one is going to require me to qualify that any further.
When I barked at that post I did so as a moderator and there were no personal biases involved. I dislike the thread because I feel it has no place in tGC.

Khannie wrote: »

Now, another thing that I've found confusing about this whole affair is that we have one mod implying that there has been a lot of behind the scenes discussion about this thread and that it has been under heavy scrutiny. Specifically the thread was described as having "prudish modding" and "heavy handedness" by one mod and another mod says "I still disagree with you that the thread has been heavily moderated". Btw, MM, I wouldn't disagree with your point that there were few acts of moderation in the thread. I would say that banning underpants and calling it fapping material etc. was OTT and I suppose that's what I'm getting at as over-moderation.

We were discussing the thread-rather we were discussing starting a new picture thread with a less droolish title and having clear guidelines laid out from the outset. Were were discussing the wording of those guideline.

I scrutinized each post in the thread and when I eventually saw a post that I felt was wrong I posted a warning.
Using the term prudish was a reference to a previous post in the debate. However it was a term that I adopted and used for myself.

I understand exactly what you are saying about the difference between your idea of heavy-handedness and the number of intrusions made on the thread by moderators. Your issue is directly to do with my rant and my level of whats acceptable. (And the Mod notes in the title).

Khannie wrote: »

What does it add? Who cares. What gives you the right to delete it when it's not doing anything wrong?

I think the thread is wrong for the forum. It reflects poorly on a forum that is supposed to be somewhere men can talk about mens issues. It's suited to a forum for banter and laughs. There are a few other forums already in existence for that while tGC is the ONLY forum for men to discuss mens issues. That is why I should care, that why the thread IS doing something wrong.

Khannie wrote: »

(Old Goat I'm not picking on you here, seriously. Please don't take it personally, it's just that your post is what has led to this discussion).

I never took it as a personal attack. No worries - plenty of thick skin here. Thanks your your reassurances though, I appreciate that.

Sparky_Larks wrote: »

So it is important for the entire Boards community that Men are allowed to discuss the same range of topics that women are allowed discuss and that ther is a place for that discussion

Same response as I gave to Khannie just above. There is already a place for the discussion of 'droolish' threads. One of the differences of opinion is in whether we should also have that type of thread in tGC.

K-9

OldGoat wrote: »

I had hoped that this would not get into a discussion of my personal likes and dislikes and rather that we stayed with my moderator likes and dislikes. What I enjoy personally is vastly at odds with my moderator stance and I assume no one is going to require me to qualify that any further.
When I barked at that post I did so as a moderator and there were no personal biases involved. I dislike the thread because I feel it has no place in tGC.

We were discussing the thread-rather we were discussing starting a new picture thread with a less droolish title and having clear guidelines laid out from the outset. Were were discussing the wording of those guideline.

Ah, is this what the issue is? Mods and users alike?

The mods were discussing a thread with a less drollish title and clearer guidelines. Basically, the thread was being discussed in mod circles. Did any of the mods consider why the vast majority of the posts seemed ok by the users?

I'm getting the feeling that overall, the thread is ok by the users of tGLC, but reported posts are reinforcing certain preconceived notions of moderators.

I don't mean this in a bad way. Just moderators don't like this thread over all and see it as more bother than it is worth. Reported posts self affirm this belief and attract more importance, despite the thread going along relatively ok.

CDfm

old goat posted -
To me it's about stopping the posting of offensive images in the forum BEFORE they get to the point of offending anyone.

I expect that there will be clear rules and that porn is a no-no

There is always a debate well they do it in tLL and the Mods come back saying well we dont follow what they do and why we shouldnt compare = well we do and its human.

Not so long ago the discussion was going from a mens heath site to a mainstream guy site attractive to guys mainstream -so over moding and locking the thread puts you in the frsme of being out of the mainstream and alienating users.

So its a balencing act.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Were posts actually reported?

Why does this have to be any more complicated than no nipples or genitalia as per boards rules?

this bull**** about "oh noes thats borderline porn" is nannystate nonsense.....is there really nowhere you can escape catholic ireland?

r3nu4l

I'm gong to gvem ake this now.

This is not about 'prudishness'.* It's about what we want this forum to be and what we don't want it to be.

In my view, the 'drool' thread is more suited to the kind of discussion found in forums like Nein 11, Slydice Specials (There's a whole forum for these pictures!) and maybe BGRH. I don't see tGC as being the place for this. I have no problem with discussing relationships here, men's take on lads mags or TV shows etc but the forum was really meant to be a place where we discuss men's issues...not who we drool over.

This forum is not the 'antidote' tLL or even the equivalent of tLL, it's more than that. As men we don't talk enough, consult enough or look to one another often enough for our thoughts and opinions on the things that matter. We mostly muddle through things ourselves, especially when it comes to our physical health, mental health, sexual health and emotions. That's what this forum is for and as such, in my view, the 'drool' thread doesn't fit here.

So, it's obvious that a lot of people like the thread, fair enough but I would ask that you consider whether the thread really fits in with the forum ethos. You may decide that we need more than just 'health' issues and discussion of men's lifestyle but even if we do, do we really need that thread? I'm not going to argue with anyone here I'm just asking people to take time to consider what they want from the forum and whether that matches up with the forum intent.




*Trust me, some of the stuff I enjoy viewing would make the Marquis de Sade blush!

Nevyn

and maybe BGRH.

Nope, it's been done, tried, re tried, tried again and failed time and again due to pics and comments where indecent enough to put people off posting in the forum. It wasn't what the forum was about and some people couldn't see the difference between a woman dressed in Barvian barmaid costum and woman in a dental floss bikini.

Khannie

r3nu4l wrote: »

In my view, the 'drool' thread is more suited to the kind of discussion found in forums like Nein 11, Slydice Specials (There's a whole forum for these pictures!) and maybe BGRH.

Haha. 90% of the pictures in the drool thread are what I would call very tame. They are nothing, and I mean *nothing* like the content in slydice.

Here's the breakdown of the first 3 pages (please note that I have a reverse ordering preference turned on, so this may be slightly different to what you see):

Page 1: 7 pictures. 1 lady in a bra. All other ladies fully dressed or just head shots.
Page 2: 14 pictures. 1 lady in a bra. 1 man! All other ladies fully dressed or just head shots.
page 3: 22 pictures. Zero underwear. A few men. All ladies fully dressed or just head shots.

Honestly lads....this "sets a bad example" or "not what we want from the forum" is rubbish. It couldn't possibly be any more tame. I grant you that there are examples of shots which are a bit risque or whatever, but for anyone to say that a picture where you can see a ladys bottom (covered in underpants) and not her face is pushing the limits of what's acceptable is the kind of place that's just taking itself WAY too seriously.

Part of a bottom on show! Surely not! We're gentlemen here. :pac:

r3nu4l

Khannie wrote: »

Honestly lads....this "sets a bad example" or "not what we want from the forum" is rubbish. It couldn't possibly be any more tame.

You're not getting me Khannie, I'm not objecting to any bad examples or any particular photos...I'm objecting to the thread itself and how it fits in the forum, regardless of if it's ONLY headshots or if there's harcore pornography posted. I just don't think it fits with what tGC was meant to be.

r3nu4l

Another question. What is the argument FOR this thread? What purpose does it serve?

Bottle_of_Smoke

r3nu4l wrote: »

I'm gong to gvem ake this now.

This is not about 'prudishness'.* It's about what we want this forum to be and what we don't want it to be.

In my view, the 'drool' thread is more suited to the kind of discussion found in forums like Nein 11, Slydice Specials (There's a whole forum for these pictures!) and maybe BGRH. I don't see tGC as being the place for this. I have no problem with discussing relationships here, men's take on lads mags or TV shows etc but the forum was really meant to be a place where we discuss men's issues...not who we drool over.

This forum is not the 'antidote' tLL or even the equivalent of tLL, it's more than that. As men we don't talk enough, consult enough or look to one another often enough for our thoughts and opinions on the things that matter. We mostly muddle through things ourselves, especially when it comes to our physical health, mental health, sexual health and emotions. That's what this forum is for and as such, in my view, the 'drool' thread doesn't fit here.

So, it's obvious that a lot of people like the thread, fair enough but I would ask that you consider whether the thread really fits in with the forum ethos. You may decide that we need more than just 'health' issues and discussion of men's lifestyle but even if we do, do we really need that thread? I'm not going to argue with anyone here I'm just asking people to take time to consider what they want from the forum and whether that matches up with the forum intent.




*Trust me, some of the stuff I enjoy viewing would make the Marquis de Sade blush!

Ok I completely agree this forum has nothing to do with TLL and arguments based on what they post should be completely irrelevent.

Anyway, this talk of what we want the forum to be - when was it decided hot pictures wouldn't be a part of it? I don't see the thread as being out of bounds of the ideas put forth for the charter, so banning bikini pics seems to me as nothing but prudish.

Its just one thread, I just don't see how it defines "what we're all about" - can we not just let the posters decide by what they post once they stick to boards.ie rules?

Yes I would feel a bit put off if there were daily threads on cheryl cole's ass or so and so's tits but that's not the case here. It is one thread. Making a big fuss about a skimpy bikini is cracking a nut with a nuclear warhead.

Why not just amend the thread title to "who makes you drool? NSFW". Then if anyone posts nipples or genitalia they get banned?

Herbal Deity

r3nu4l wrote: »

As men we don't talk enough, consult enough or look to one another often enough for our thoughts and opinions on the things that matter.

And in order to foster an atmosphere where men feel comfortable, it's essential for the forum to be relaxed, not sanitized.

I know OldGoat had the opposite view, but I guess I just disagree.

I think this debate is about more than just the drool thread. Comments like "this is not the message we want to send" or "this is not what we want on this forum" to me is the antithesis of what this forum should be about. If it breaks no site rules and the men posting here want it, then why not?

cowzerp

r3nu4l wrote: »

Another question. What is the argument FOR this thread? What purpose does it serve?

What purpose does any of the threads serve, its just mild entertainment-any paper would have more scantily dressed ladies in them

Khannie

r3nu4l wrote: »

Another question. What is the argument FOR this thread? What purpose does it serve?

I don't see why it (or any other thread that is not in breach of the charter) should have to be justified, have an argument for it, or serve a purpose in the slightest. I find myself wondering why the mods keep asking this question.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

And in order to foster an atmosphere where men feel comfortable, it's essential for the forum to be relaxed, not sanitized.

This sums it up nicely for me. I want to feel like this place is relaxed and that I can post what I like once it's within reason and related to being male. Looking at women (or men if you're gay) that make you drool is something that is unquestionably related to being male.

How can you possibly hope to nurture a forum where men are talking about their ball sack on one hand but refuse to allow them to post a picture of a lady in underpants on the other?

Jemmy

Honestly I haven't bothered reading the 8pages up to this, well no started got to page 2 and gave up it's going around in circles. The way I see it is...

In tLL they don't post pictures showing penis, so if hte thread is going to stay going in tGC don't post pictures showing nipples or vagina! Very simple!

It's all getting a bit too serious IMO. Fair enough if you want to stick up a lady in underware, but a lady in underware in some pornish pose is a bit much, NSFW don't post it, just my 2c as female! It's not wrong to appreciate the female form just as it's not wrong for the ladies to do the same.

Also I really think you need to lighten up on the mods guys, they are mods they have to make rules or we wouldn't have tGC. If mistakes are made...well come on we are all human!

pikachucheeks wrote: »

I cringe when I see most of the photographs in TLL thread, to be honest.
Most of the guys are semi-naked and it comes across as shallow.

I know it's supposed to be a bit of fun, but there's more to a person than having a abs like a washboard. Likewise, in here, there's more to a woman than having a great set of boobs.

'Most of' the photos in tLL, eh no that's a bit of an exaggeration. Yes there are a few ladies that push boundries just as some guys try to, there's always one/two/ten but to say most of the photos is a bit much.

I don't think we need to get into the debate of 'oh there's more to a person than looks', I think we are all old and wise enough to know that this is purely yes she is hot/yes he is hot...so maybe change the name to female form appreciation thread! I can appreciate a good looking man in the public eye without it making me shallow. :rolleyes: Also I think you'll find if you look back in both threads not all the men have had washboard abs or the women a great set of boobs.

trout

r3nu4l wrote: »

Another question. What is the argument FOR this thread? What purpose does it serve?

cowzerp wrote: »

What purpose does any of the threads serve, its just mild entertainment-any paper would have more scantily dressed ladies in them

Fair enough ... for some people it's no biggie, for other people ... rightly or wrongly ... it is something.

Khannie wrote: »

I don't see why it (or any other thread that is not in breach of the charter) should have to be justified, have an argument for it, or serve a purpose in the slightest. I find myself wondering why the mods keep asking this question.

Well ... I asked that question a few times ... when I was banging on about it, (on Saturday) the reason I kept asking is simple ...I didn't know the answer ... I still don't.

Having said that, no thread HAS to be justified, and no thread HAS to have a purpose. My views on this type of thread are well known (by now). I took a few minutes to qualify my position, and explain myself ... I was hoping someone with the opposing view would explain their viewpoint ... you know, like a debate.

The questions I asked (and they were questions, not statements) about the direction the forum is taking ... and the message (if any) this type of thread sends ... they are valid questions, and IMHO worthy of a more considered response than "that's just rubbish".

On the point about over-moderation, up until OldGoat's post, I didn't believe the thread had been heavily moderated ... since then, I can see both sides of it ... and here we are.

So ... what next? How do we move this on?

I still like the idea of a poll ... let people stick their colours to the mast ... some people think polls are also rubbish ... so ... what next?

Herbal Deity

If we're going to have a poll, the options need to be more well defined:

Suggested poll options
Yes - The Charter suppports such a thread.
Yes - SFW pictures only. No nudity. Allow comments.
Yes - SFW pictures only. No nudity. No comments.
No - The Charter does not suppport such a thread.
No - not where I want this forum to go.
No - there is a whole Internet for that
Don't care.

I don't see the point of the "The Charter [does not] support such a thread" options.
No nudity is a given, it's in Boards.ie rules, so there's no point in having that in the options.
SFW is obviously ill defined given what people find acceptable is so different, so having it there means nothing.
There's no point in 3 No options.

Make it simpler:
Yes - tag as potentially NSFW, anything within site rules allowed.
Yes - no underwear or poses which might be interpreted as suggestive.
No.
Don't care.

trout

Herbal Deity wrote: »

If we're going to have a poll, the options need to be more well defined:



I don't see the point of the "The Charter [does not] support such a thread" options.
No nudity is a given, it's in Boards.ie rules, so there's no point in having that in the options.
SFW is obviously ill defined given what people find acceptable is so different, so having it there means nothing.
There's no point in 3 No options.

Make it simpler:
Yes - tag as potentially NSFW, anything within site rules allowed.
Yes - no underwear or poses which might be interpreted as suggestive.
No.
Don't care.

I threw out the original suggestions, as just that ... suggestions, based on what I thought were the arguments for and against from the people who had responded up to that point.

Your suggestions are constructive, and make more sense. Thanks for that. Anyone else?

Khannie

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Make it simpler:
Yes - tag as potentially NSFW, anything within site rules allowed.
Yes - no underwear or poses which might be interpreted as suggestive.
No.
Don't care.

I don't like the first two. There's too much of a gap between them. The first one allows slydice and the 2nd one is too prudish. As I said, the no underwear rule is madness IMO. It would make this ok but not this while there is clearly next to nothing dividing those two pictures.

I still don't think you can reasonably infer anything this important from a poll. All I'm saying is if there *has* to be one then I don't like those two options.

Khannie

I had written this earlier, but was in two minds about posting it, this is why it may seem a bit disjointed after my last post.....

trout wrote: »

Having said that, no thread HAS to be justified, and no thread HAS to have a purpose. My views on this type of thread are well known (by now). I took a few minutes to qualify my position, and explain myself ... I was hoping someone with the opposing view would explain their viewpoint ... you know, like a debate.

That's the thing; Personally speaking I deliberately wanted to avoid a debate on its existence based on merit (of course anyone else was free to have that debate with you). I don't really care about the drool thread. I care about feeling relaxed in here. Relaxed enough to post a picture of a woman in her underwear if necessary. Relaxed enough to discuss the lump on my testicle if necessary. Those two things (for me) go hand in hand (no joke intended). So while I agree that the thread is a bit tabloid and I agree that the general aim in here is broadsheet or whatever I think the greater good is served by having a relaxed environment in here. An environment that is as free of moderation and / or oppression as possible and I would consider being told that I am not allowed to post a very tame picture to be fairly negative moderation / oppression.

I'm not sure where to go from here. By all means post a poll if you like, but I don't think you can infer anything from the results of it.

CDfm

I started a thread about clothed women and the posters arguing for it to be closed moved were all women

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64809722#post64809722

So how can you have a guy forum if everytime you discuss anything about women you get ambushed.

Most men have an interest in women -Dah

I spend most of this weekend out clothes shopping with my g/f so much so that if I ever join a Native American Tribe I could be named "Shops with Girls"

I can imagine if us lot went in to tLL everytime men were mentioned we would be politely (or maybe not so politely) told to sling our hooks and to get out of dodge and stay out.

trout

CDfm ... please try to stay on the topic of this thread.

If you feel ambushed ... you were given an option to follow.

trout

Khannie wrote: »

That's the thing; Personally speaking I deliberately wanted to avoid a debate on its existence based on merit (of course anyone else was free to have that debate with you).

So you wanted to have your say ... that's all?

Khannie wrote: »

I don't really care about the drool thread. I care about feeling relaxed in here. Relaxed enough to post a picture of a woman in her underwear if necessary. Relaxed enough to discuss the lump on my testicle if necessary. Those two things (for me) go hand in hand (no joke intended). So while I agree that the thread is a bit tabloid and I agree that the general aim in here is broadsheet or whatever I think the greater good is served by having a relaxed environment in here. An environment that is as free of moderation and / or oppression as possible and I would consider being told that I am not allowed to post a very tame picture to be fairly negative moderation / oppression.

I'm not sure where to go from here. By all means post a poll if you like, but I don't think you can infer anything from the results of it.

Fair enough. Dismissing other peoples views as rubbish, that's not very relaxing to me.

I believe the moderation "tone", for want of a better word, in this forum is light-touch and hands-off. If we really had a negative/oppressive approach, that thread would be locked, and there would be no debate for people to contribute to, or ignore, as they saw fit.

In the absence of a poll ... what would you have us do next?

CDfm

trout wrote: »

CDfm ... please try to stay on the topic of this thread.

If you feel ambushed ... you were given an option to follow.

MM and I exchanged pm's on this.

I just thought it was an interesting topic and maybe its a missed opportunity. It really doesnt bother me.

When you try to get guys to discuss things that are important to them and their relationships where do you start.

Thats why i think contributing to threads like this is important as i think everyone wants to see TGC grow in a balanced way.

Pic threads are great but it would be nice to see nice ordinary stuff being discussed too. Like how many lads know how to behave on a shopping trip with a woman.

Khannie

trout wrote: »

So you wanted to have your say ... that's all?

I'm not quite sure what you mean there but I feel like you're taking a swipe at me somehow. I find a lot of your posts cryptic though so maybe I'm wrong.

I think you think this thread was started to debate the existance of the drool thread but that's not the case. It was started to discuss the post that was quoted in the first post. That's what I was talking about when I was talking about being OT.

Edit: please bear in mind that I'm knackered when reading this.

Dr Galen

@CDfm
lets not go OT here, but what your suggesting isn't a bad thread idea. I think its all about the wording. Don't forget many blokes get turned off posting in some threads by how the OP is worded.

OT

I posted the following in a discussion thread we have been having between the Mods as a suggestion for some guidelines we could use for a possible thread (if thats how we roll) Anyone care to comment, expand, delete etc

Guidelines I'd like to see are things like:

* Nothing you wouldn't show your mother/boss/been seen looking at on the library computer
* If you think a pic is a little OTT or going to push the boundaries, then it probably is
* No mingers. This is a thread for the beautiful people only
* Don't argue a Mods decision in the thread. Its against the charter and the general rules of the site. Take it to a PM conversation first of you have an issue.
* Don't ruin this thread for the majority of people who will respect it for what it is. A little bit of lightheartedness in amongst the serious conversations

trout

CDfm wrote: »

MM and I exchanged pm's on this.

I just thought it was an interesting topic and maybe its a missed opportunity. It really doesnt bother me.

When you try to get guys to discuss things that are important to them and their relationships where do you start.

Thats why i think contributing to threads like this is important as i think everyone wants to see TGC grow in a balanced way.

Pic threads are great but it would be nice to see nice ordinary stuff being discussed too. Like how many lads know how to behave on a shopping trip with a woman.

Interesting stuff, by all means start a thread and see how it flies ... ... but it won't help us move on this particular discussion in this here thread.

Reading over the thread, I'm getting the sense people are saying ... "We want a thread for hosting pictures of attractive women, the only limit on the pictures should be the boards wide nudity/porn tolerance ... anything else goes, and chat should be allowed". Is that the consensus?

If that is the case ... what about reported posts? If someone has a lower tolerance for racy pictures than someone else, are the mods to tell them "stay out of the thread"?

If someone posts a picture that crosses the line ... whatever the line might be defined as ... what sanctions are acceptable?

Khannie

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Guidelines I'd like to see are things like:

* Nothing you wouldn't show your mother/boss/been seen looking at on the library computer
* If you think a pic is a little OTT or going to push the boundaries, then it probably is
* No mingers. This is a thread for the beautiful people only
* Don't argue a Mods decision in the thread. Its against the charter and the general rules of the site. Take it to a PM conversation first of you have an issue.
* Don't ruin this thread for the majority of people who will respect it for what it is. A little bit of lightheartedness in amongst the serious conversations

Beautiful.

trout wrote: »

Reading over the thread, I'm getting the sense people are saying ... "We want a thread for hosting pictures of attractive women, the only limit on the pictures should be the boards wide nudity/porn tolerance ... anything else goes, and chat should be allowed". Is that the consensus?

Not quite from me. I honestly don't believe it should be slydice part 2. I think MM's library computer / mother thing fits the bill. Just my 2c.

I'm leggin' it out the door here....

edit: Maybe "suitable for a billboard"?


further editing:

trout wrote: »

If someone posts a picture that crosses the line ... whatever the line might be defined as ... what sanctions are acceptable?

I think it should just be deleted. Repeated offence: The usual.

trout

Khannie wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean there but I feel like you're taking a swipe at me somehow. I find a lot of your posts cryptic though so maybe I'm wrong.

I think you think this thread was started to debate the existance of the drool thread but that's not the case. It was started to discuss the post that was quoted in the first post. That's what I was talking about when I was talking about being OT.

Edit: please bear in mind that I'm knackered when reading this.

I came into this thread cold. It was titled "Who makes you drool debate" ... I tried to do just that. I didn't read OldGoat's post in the other thread until later that day ... by which time several other posters had come into this thread to discuss the debate ... the moderatioon stance of OldGoat's post may have been your focus ... but this thead has moved beyond that for several reasons and by several people.

I am far from cryptic. I'm not having a swipe at you ... but I would like you to answer my questions ... especially the one about what you would have us do next.

Khannie

trout wrote: »

especially the one about what you would have us do next.

I already answered with a "I dunno". I like MM's suggested guidelines though.

I really am running......

Dr Galen

one thing I didn't mention in that listing, that I personally, as a poster and not a Mod would like to see is

None of this "I'd roide her" and other such cheap comments. In fact maybe, keep the chat levels down and just appreciate the beauty.
If you approve of something someone else has posted, use the Thanks button.

deadhead13

I would be perfectly happy with the thread continuing/or being replaced with a new one under the guidelines outlined by MM. But I suspect there are still people who would prefer it to just go away.

Herbal Deity

trout wrote: »

If that is the case ... what about reported posts? If someone has a lower tolerance for racy pictures than someone else, are the mods to tell them "stay out of the thread"?

Yes.

I've reported posts before that nothing was done about. In this forum I was very disappointed to see the competition thread to win a night in a hotel here, which I see as nothing more than spam. I made my point and PM'd mods, but the majority opinion seems to have been against me, and in future I will just have to ignore such threads.

Someone having a lower tolerance for racy pictures than others is the same as me having a lower tolerance for spam/competition threads than others. You can't please everybody, and for some things, the only option is to tell people not to open certain threads, you have to cater for what the majority of a forum's userbase wants.

K-9

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

@CDfm
lets not go OT here, but what your suggesting isn't a bad thread idea. I think its all about the wording. Don't forget many blokes get turned off posting in some threads by how the OP is worded.

OT

I posted the following in a discussion thread we have been having between the Mods as a suggestion for some guidelines we could use for a possible thread (if thats how we roll) Anyone care to comment, expand, delete etc

No problem with that at all.

trout wrote: »

Interesting stuff, by all means start a thread and see how it flies ... ... but it won't help us move on this particular discussion in this here thread.

Reading over the thread, I'm getting the sense people are saying ... "We want a thread for hosting pictures of attractive women, the only limit on the pictures should be the boards wide nudity/porn tolerance ... anything else goes, and chat should be allowed". Is that the consensus?

If that is the case ... what about reported posts? If someone has a lower tolerance for racy pictures than someone else, are the mods to tell them "stay out of the thread"?

If someone posts a picture that crosses the line ... whatever the line might be defined as ... what sanctions are acceptable?

My reading of this thread is that most posters thought 1 or 2 pictures were a bit much for this forum. The poll options suggested probably reflect that as an option to vote.

CDfm

trout wrote: »

Interesting stuff, by all means start a thread and see how it flies ... ... but it won't help us move on this particular discussion in this here thread.

Reading over the thread, I'm getting the sense people are saying ... "We want a thread for hosting pictures of attractive women, the only limit on the pictures should be the boards wide nudity/porn tolerance ... anything else goes, and chat should be allowed". Is that the consensus?

If that is the case ... what about reported posts? If someone has a lower tolerance for racy pictures than someone else, are the mods to tell them "stay out of the thread"?

If someone posts a picture that crosses the line ... whatever the line might be defined as ... what sanctions are acceptable?

Sorry Trout and others - I posted without editing.It came across like a rant. Mea Culpa.

I dont really have an issue with the drool thread and I think its a thing that there is no answer too really. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't but it should be tasteful. the suggestions by MM are fairly sound.

The positive thing about it is that when you have a thread like that people look at it then come in to see the other topics.

tGC is great.I like it and try to be non contentious nowdays.

I probably erred on the side of flippancy with the thread but maybe tGC needs to be lighter at times.

Again, sorry if I offended anyone. Unintentional really but when I put my foot in it , i do so to Olympic Standard.

Dr Galen

just another point to make.

I posted those guidelines as a thought.We need to get started on putting this to bed. Much like Trout posted his ideas for a poll.

I didn't and don't intend them to be a static list, there may have to be additions or subtractions to them over time. If this new "improved" drool thread goes ahead, we have to be careful we don't tie ourselves as a forum down to much. Likewise I didn't intend for them to classed as stick to beat posters with either. Posters need some leeway just as Mods do.

In summary everyone is going to need to show some flexibility here. No waiting in the long grass for a fcuk up etc

Sparky_Larks

Mystik Monkey wrote:

Guidelines I'd like to see are things like:

1)Nothing you wouldn't show your mother/boss/been seen looking at on the library computer
2)If you think a pic is a little OTT or going to push the boundaries, then it probably is
3)No mingers. This is a thread for the beautiful people only
4)Don't argue a Mods decision in the thread. Its against the charter and the general rules of the site. Take it to a PM conversation first of you have an issue.
5)Don't ruin this thread for the majority of people who will respect it for what it is. A little bit of lightheartedness in amongst the serious conversations

My view on these are
1) a good rule of thumb.
2) Again a good rule but there are cases where someone doesn;t see anything offensive about something that others would, i.e. both of these links show nude images which would not be allowed to be posted on boatds but I don;t see anything offensive about them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venus_de_Milo_Louvre_Ma399_n4.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelos_David.jpg

The makers of Batman forever though that the second one was offensive.

In fact is that not the central problem, one persons inoffensive is another man's offensive.

3) Terrible rule. Beauty isin the eye of the beholder, I have friends who love Sigourney Weaver, Me I think she is a minger.
4) Fair Enough
5) Yes it is a light thread, and it is about who makes you drool, so a certain amount of provacative imagery is to be expected is it not. We men are visual creatures, we react to visual stimulus and the images created by Lad mags, and repoduced often in this thread, are designed to appeal to the male

OldGoat

Herbal Deity wrote: »

If we're going to have a poll, the options need to be more well defined:



I don't see the point of the "The Charter [does not] support such a thread" options.
No nudity is a given, it's in Boards.ie rules, so there's no point in having that in the options.
SFW is obviously ill defined given what people find acceptable is so different, so having it there means nothing.
There's no point in 3 No options.

Make it simpler:
Yes - tag as potentially NSFW, anything within site rules allowed.
Yes - no underwear or poses which might be interpreted as suggestive.
No.
Don't care.

This is a watershed moment in the forum. It's the point were we might change from being tGC to being tLL with a nutsack. I really don't think the 'I don't care' option has any place here, nor two differing levels of whats acceptable.

"Is tGC forum to host 'Drool' type threads"
Y
N

To me is a simple yes or no with no room for fudgeing.
This is not saying that Drool pictures cannot be posted. If a thread warrents a picture then the Drool picture can be posted (within the Board.ie directives and any further forum directives that get laid down in the charter - along the lines MM has suggested).
This simplified poll just ask if we want a thread here just for the sake of posting Drool pictures. It cuts to the chase.

humberklog

OldGoat wrote: »

"Is tGC forum to host 'Drool' type threads"
Y
N

QUOTE]

That's the shot. Simple and clear.


I'd love to see a simple rule popped into the charter too. " Any post making comparisons with tLL will be snipped."

CDfm

I think the way its going is fine - the danger with a poll like this is it sort of makes you commited to the result.

The current threadis fine with me.

Ya dont want it tobe drool thread central but have a drool thread by all means.

Khannie

OldGoat wrote: »

"Is tGC forum to host 'Drool' type threads"
Y
N

To me is a simple yes or no with no room for fudgeing.

It's more nuanced than that. I really don't want a slydice type thread in here. It's like having a running thread. Why would you do it when there's a running forum? I would vote no given the two options above, but I have no problem with the current thread (as I consider it mostly tasteful, but I'd rather have no thread than a slydice one).

I'd prefer:

Yes - Anything goes within reason
Yes - Pictures suitable for a Gentlemen's club (as defined by Mystic Monkey)
No

or, if there are to be only two options, I think there should be potentially be two votes: If a yes wins the first, then there's a 2nd poll to determine how far it can go.

OldGoat

CDfm wrote: »

I think the way its going is fine - the danger with a poll like this is it sort of makes you commited to the result.

The current threadis fine with me.

Ya dont want it tobe drool thread central but have a drool thread by all means.

I have to disagree with that. If there is a thread that makes the forum look like a lads magazine then thats all the forum is going to be good for. It's not somewhere I'd be comfortable discussing some mens issues or some health issues. It will no longer be a mens health forum with a bit of banter.

Khannie wrote: »

Yes - Anything goes within reason
Yes - Pictures suitable for a Gentlemen's club (as defined by Mystic Monkey)

I don't see the difference between the two options. The Drool pictures either exist in a thread governed by the charter* or there is no thread.

*To be clarified by MM. Sorry to keep heaping the role of Judge on your lap.

CDfm

OldGoat wrote: »

I have to disagree with that. If there is a thread that makes the forum look like a lads magazine then thats all the forum is going to be good for. It's not somewhere I'd be comfortable discussing some mens issues or some health issues. It will no longer be a mens health forum with a bit of banter.

I see what you mean. I wouldn't feel that my right of free speech had been taken away from me, or that church and state, and the womens movement led by Nell McCafferty were conspiring against me if the thread disappeared.

I cant see whats the difference in having a link posted to a pic -but thats me.

Keano

CDfm wrote: »

I see what you mean. I wouldn't feel that my right of free speech had been taken away from me, or that church and state, and the womens movement led by Nell McCafferty were conspiring against me if the thread disappeared.

I cant see whats the difference in having a link posted to a pic -but thats me.

oldgoat wrote:

I have to disagree with that. If there is a thread that makes the forum look like a lads magazine then thats all the forum is going to be good for. It's not somewhere I'd be comfortable discussing some mens issues or some health issues. It will no longer be a mens health forum with a bit of banter.

One thread is not going to make the forum look like a lads mag.

Mods obviously don't want it so its got to be put to bed one way or the other as this thread will just run and run...

BTW not all "lads" mags are the same. GQ - can be classed as a "lads" mag and that mag covers a whole range of issues.

OldGoat

Keano A Legend wrote: »

BTW not all "lads" mags are the same. GQ - can be classed as a "lads" mag and that mag covers a whole range of issues.

Even GQ shows photographs that woud breach Boards.ie conditions.