post the golfer 10 times and see if only 5 get deleted

My cousin is one of the circus people forming the bike in this.

haha, the resistance has begun!

....wait scratch that...resistance is futile.

She must date black guys...

:eek:

:devil:

sadly i've also thought of doing this. then i think - what the hell is wrong with me to care so much?

Mom, Doug's doing it wrong!!!!!

Nah dude, god's doing it wrong.

I think she has spray-on nipple stuff; otherwise, she would have popped out.

Now go to DeleteLand.

Banned!!!! Can't show that much pussy in one picture.

Get to the next page and you've got a chance

hehe, if the individual mods don't take ownership for the deletion of posts and images, is that showing too much pussy, and therefore bannable?

I thought some people here might appreciate this:


Raptor Dinosaur Metal Art Key Rack by KnobCreekMetalArts on Etsy

I think I see the raptor.

Seriously?

Personally I think the mods are just trolling now. It's actually pretty damn sexist deleting pics of a woman golfer taking a shot in a tournament. How is that in any way nsfw?

Whoever is reporting the images has been trolling for some time now. Again, any attractive woman can be deleted regardless of pose or amount of clothing at the whim of the one who is trolling or mod. The standard is equivalent to rolling dice. Any mod trying to say otherwise merely needs to look at the last four or so pages.

I doubt anyones reporting them.

The caption just kinda made this photo "You never know who you'll run into at a Def Leppard show in Vegas!"

That's exactly who I'd expect to run into

It was originally on page 352

I'm guessing this one would be removed if this lady was about 60 years younger. Still awfully impressive.

Johanna Quaas, 86-Year-Old Gymnast - PositiveMed

Here's the link I used: The thread for images so cool that they belong in this thread - Page 338 - Front Office Football Central

Subby, since you're already "banned", I kind of expect more hot chick pic postage from you in here. Post #18828 is a great start, but keep going.

I love this so much. I'm sure I said something to the same effect back on 338.

I have this strange sudden urge to rush out & buy Fabrege shampoo.

And then tell two friends.

Seconded

She could spank my money. - most obvious reply ever.

Phew.

Am I the only one who kind of feels bad for that monkey? Am I the only one here with a heart?

Omg

What a poor mattress

Dutch, just to be safe, permalink?

I am semi-back.

Any picture that I perceive to be an attempt to push the limits I have written in the sticky will be deleted, likely without further explanation. I have deleted several. It has already been explained and I, for one, am not willing to waste words saying the same thing over again. If you want action taken for pictures in this or another thread, just report the post and an evaluation will be made.

Bottom line: don't try to push the limit on "hawt chix" posts, and you won't get suspended. Push it, and you might. It's really that simple. And it's not up for discussion. In the time I have been away, some people have gotten away with some things that shouldn't have happened. So be it. But know that further complaining, sarcasm, whining, attempting to push the limits, or other jerk-ish behavior around this policy, either in this thread or elsewhere, will result in punitive measures.

Well, I think that went well. I'm just glad my 'hawt' granny pic stayed up. It's a keeper.

"Push it, and you might."

What a chicken-shit, cowardly, lack of ownership response.

Punitive measures, indeed, because mod's decisions carry no logic, consistency, or accountability - much less that they are hidden and need give no explanation or reasoning.

Fuck you and fuck this bullshit.

Would love to know if there is a story attached to this.

I have no idea why I have to explain this VERY simple concept over and over again.

You "might" because I "might" not see it. IF I see it, you WILL.

I wonder how an Olympic sprinter warming up is considered "pushing the limits," but whatever...

If I perceive that the primary reason for posting the pic is "ZOMFG LOOK HOW HAWT SHE LOOKS," then it's gone. As I said pages and pages ago in this thread:

"Just don't post anything remotely prurient, and you won't have any problems."

I love how the cops have to throw it into reverse on a one way street potentialy causing an accident instead of just pulling over and walking/running back to the fake camera.

This was hilarious. Thanks for sharing that bad boy

Dumb question but hey ... what purpose is the "What Are You YouTubing Of Late" thread if this one gets video?

Presumably the answer is "none", but I thought there might be some distinction I missed somewhere. Hell, I never was sure what qualified for that other thread anyway.

And no, I'm not bitching about -- nor have I reported -- the videos here ;)
I was jus' asking a random question (while waiting on emails needed in order to get back to work).

Subby asked the question on the story behind the animated gif I posted, only thing I could find quickly was the video of the story...hence I posted it. If It was something I found while perusing Youtube, I would have posted in that thread :):p

and look at Subby getting me in trouble ;)

I was really confused by your answer ... until I realized that the original appearance was actually an animated gif instead of a video.

Too easy. :D

My guess is Jon has me on ignore, so he probably didn't see my original request.

Hey, I've bitched when people have posted cartoons in here, so I'm with ya.

An American hero.

It is ironic that for quite a while, QS was enforcing the rule that the top of the page must contain a prurient photo, which i didn't go along with. I wonder if operation sports started clamping down?

Eh, your question was irrelevant to my question. I was off base from the get-go because (with it on a different page than the video reply) I was thinking that the original post of it was a video itself.

Well, I feel better at least.

*sigh* Ben, time and time again people have told you the real problem. Clarity. Your the admin/main mod/gurugod/whatever the fuck, fine run with it, but with that title comes a responsibility to the group/community as a WHOLE (not just to your insider friends and/or mods) to specify WHY you do things and WHY you take actions.

You jump the shark on photos in THIS thread, but the HOt or Not threads have far more risque images and they were being run for years.

If you want a forum where the only people around to post are Christian thinking overly prudish and agree with you regularly then this board is dead.

I came here over a decade ago and found a haven of ALL types of people. We had something in common, unfortunately for us that common ground is dead and buried as well. (or might as well be)

If this community is going to live on with more than a baker's dozen of active posters you can't stomp everything flat that falls outside your personal views of what is right good and proper. This board is not YOU, it has never been YOU and to survive must never be YOU. it must be everyone, sharing and acting alike and trusting in the people in charge to be fair evenhanded AND Explanatory.

If you can't or refuse to do that then you need to rethink your own role here. For the good of the community.


Damnit man stop making me sound like an adult. Fucking hell.

:popcorn:

I think Ben is causing himself WAY more trouble than he needs to in this case. I've been a mod before on three other boards with far more members than this one. Anytime a mod deleted a post, an automated message was generated giving the specific rule being broken that triggered removal. The poster knew immediately why it was removed (didn't have to like it necessarily), but it was clear what had occurred.

Perhaps OS doesn't have this tool. If they don't, they really should create it in a hurry.

I think the difference is in the point of the threads. The HoN threads are suppose to be about hot women as where this is about images we find to be cool.

I had a post of a hot girl removed. She was fully clothed and other than having curves, she was wearing a shirt and jeans and it was removed. Too hot?

and I would agree with that, however many people find images with hot women in them to BE cool. Then there is the point that images of naked men and or appendages are left here. Are they cool?

The point being one single person cannot dictate that to the community. One opinion doesn't make a standard.

What Ben considers "pushing the limits" is a very broad spectrum and is stated that way so he can simply say "its been explained" and walk away from his responsibility as the Moderator.

If its not worth his "time" as he says to do his job properly, then he needs to step back and take on a different role here. He's not doing anyone any good doing a half assed job.

Page 375 pretty much sinks Ben's standard as well. Again, it is inconsistent as hell even when we understand the standard.

I think someone enjoys power a little too much.

Render, he doesn't like you or me or many other people since we do not create content he is interested in, esp. for those he needs to babysit because they insist on turning this site into a soft porn one (which is likely against the hosting rules).

Y'know the one deleted pic that stands out as making no sense to me whatsoever?

The one with the fairly hot chick (fully clothed) standing next to the wacky looking dude that's apparently some sort of high-roller or something. That seemed a lot more "hey, look what money will get ya" than prurient afaic.

(somebody will know the one I'm talking about and describe it better, I think it was shot at an NBA game or something like that)

If ya squint, that last pic kinda looks like boobs (or at least one boob).

See now THIS is what I see as the problem at its roots.

Ben WANTS to see something wrong with pretty much any photo he gets told about or sees for himself. Which leads to eliminating perfectly innocent photos which are safe on pretty much EVERY website (golfers for frakks sake??) I believe he goes into every interaction here in recent years with a predisposition to the negative instead of taking a rational appraisal for himself because "its not worth his time" to actually think a situation through.

See now I find this pic more offensive than tons of others because I find the entire wrestling "thing" to be offensive to anyone with a brain.

Around page 350 I had a pick of a beef Wellington and face-only shot of Megan Fox removed. Beef tenderloin wrapped in pastry and a face of a beautiful girl???

But see, that statement is in & of itself offensive to a fair number of people.

EXACTLY! See no one person can declare what is "acceptable" because we all have differing views!


Those people you talk about here are wrong of course, but hey its all good ;)

There's probably only one solution, ban us all.

I think Ben has already thought the situation through. Frequent posters in this thread keep trying to find the line of the hottest picture they can find that won't be deleted. Once that line is determined, they will push just a little bit farther and then demand an explanation of why one was OK but the other wasn't. Ben looks to be deleting pictures that attempt to define that line so people will eventually stop the definition and escalation cycle.

It is rather impressive how much stubbornness is on display in this thread.

Is it a reading comprehension issue?

1. Risqué pictures can lead to some members being banned from visiting here by their employer.
2. Non-risqué pictures hosted on certain sites can lead to some members being banned from visiting here by their employer.
3. Ben (and/or other mods) WILL remove anything that even approaches either of these two rules that he sees, in an effort to preserve every person's privilege to post/view here.
4. The mods don't have nearly enough time to check every post ever made on this forum, therefore not every picture gets immediately deleted.

This seems neither draconian nor hard to understand. I think I must be missing something regarding the massive outrage here.

Yes it is puzzling how juvenile the "resistance" becomes on this issue. Every picture of women on the last two pages were obviously posted to test where the line is. The only reason that the issue seems to get popular support from the "anti Ben" crowd is because most of the board doesn't give a shit or post in this thread.

The moderations and bannings are very inconsistant but I remember my dad talking to me after I got in trouble with a substitute when I was in junior high. I said that I really didn't do anything and other kids were doing more. He said that a sub isn't going to go out of their way if you are doing nothing so just don't do anything and you won't get in trouble. Seems pretty sensible doesn't it?

Or you can post a half naked chick that is available all over the internet, get banned or leave FOFC, and then in 6 months realize life goes on at FOFC and nobody really cares about your Ghandi-like stand that you took.

And this is almost certainly one of the most significant annoyances about the whole tempest in a teapot.

That seems like it ought to fall under the category of "your problem" (the royal "you" in this case) rather than "everyone's problem". And having other people's problems rain on someone's fun is often less than popular.

Are there seriously that many people whose boss would be fine with them bullshitting on a video game forum on company time but would consider a stray bikini a major offense? Srsly?

If so, no wonder this country is so f'ed up.

(and I don't even particularly give a flying rat's ass about the pics themselves but this is all getting rather absurd)

Yes, both you and Brian are missing the part where its neither well thought through or even given a seconds consideration.

The real issue isn't the posts themselves, as MANY peole have stated OVER and OVER again.

The issue is the person or persons who are deleting things and boxing people aren't giving to seconds of honest thought to the situation because "its not worth their time".

That statement on its own merits should disqualify ANYONE from being a moderator. If you want to moderate a board (which I do, in several places) then you have to give the TIME that the job requires. I've given up modding position several times including one with the HFL here because I simply didn't have the time to do the job properly and fairly.

You have to stop falling back on an argument no one is making. The community needs, and DESERVES moderators who have the time and the obvious interest to do the job properly. And no matter how many times Ben repeats "Its been explain" that doesn't mean you simply delte and box and whatever else to the active users without SOME SORT of explanation as to why. Even if it is cutting and pasting "rule number 235000 was broken".

Its that LACK clarity that causes 99.99% of the drama.

+10000 to Jon's post.

Too much jibber jabber

I'd like to jibber her jabber.

I don't think it's unfair to ask "why"? And by that I mean "why do you believe they 'deserve' those?"

As long as those users are content to come under the current conditions (for the sake of discussion let's just stipulate that management is largely disinterested) then, well, we get the form of government we "deserve".

I suspect that - for both mods & users - there's no small percentage of people who would actually consider the eventual demise of FOFC as much a relief as anything.

The problem is, what is risqué? Is a photo from the superbowl halftime show or a olympic hurdler warming up that were both shown on network tv risqué? Sure there are a few people here that like toeing the line, but I think most of us are confused as to what state the line is even in. How about a pic of fighter plane? Is that machine designed to kill people risqué? How about roadkill? Is a picture of Michael Phelps in a swimsuit risqué? How about Kate Upton in a swimsuit?

The community just seems to be asking for consistency and some communication when things need to be removed. If the moderators do not have the time or ability to provide that, then I think the choices are either to get new moderators or slowly watch the community die.

Obviously people enjoy coming here, otherwise the exodus from this board would be quick and silent.

The why is pretty simple really. its what the job of a moderator entails. The difference between thriving communities and failing ones is directly the management.

As for the eventual demise I have to agree, its probably going to die a low death anyway. I still take umbrage with the management either directly or through disinterest causing that demise any sooner that absolutely necessary.

The other issue being that the community on the whole has no say what so ever in the management "government" so we cannot "deserve" what we get as we had so say in creating or affecting it.

ANyway, someone post some cool pictures. I'm tired of typing today.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/
http://www.reddit.com/r/funny
http://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn

that should about cover this thread

++++++++

Merriam - Webster defines prurient as ": marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire "

By that definition & the admonition we got earlier, I'm guessing that bikini pics of Dr. Ruth, Kathy Griffin and Hillary Clinton are okay. And maybe Kathy Bates.

Beyond that, I guess it's poster beware.

I only get that way looking at pics of Pumpy, so I can basically get an exception to post anything but Pumpy pics I assume?

Perhaps the main failing is attempting to remove prurience entirely because everyone desires different things. Just because Ben doesn't lust after kathy bates doesn't mean others don't.

You can't legislate morality. If the Right wing in our government would learn that maybe it would "trickle down"

I endorse this thought.

I work at home and have my personal rig next to my work rig, I only come here on break time from home and never on my work computer, whether home or in the office.

I never understood the justification of getting paid to fuck around on the net while I am on the clock.

I actually DON'T think this is the problem, and I think that's the disconnect between the two sides. There is no 'line.' If someone has a problem with something and it's reported, it's gone. No questions asked.

Whether or not an employer wants someone to be browsing an Internet forum or not on their own time is irrelevant. As Ben mentioned, the majority of the traffic on the site (by a huge margin) is driven during work hours. Things that eliminate users' abilities to post during that time are no bueno. Ergo, no line.

I get all of the arguments about inconsistency and the definition of risque, but at the same time, I have not been surprised by one picture deletion or boxing that has resulted from them. If we are all honest with ourselves, I'd bet that the people posting the pictured that get deleted know then will get deleted. I wouldn't argue against having a reason posted, but I am quite sure that won't give me any information I didn't already have.

"No questions asked?"

Nice...so if I report post #18895 it'll be removed no matter what?

So, if a gay dude posts the bikini pics, we're okay.

Subby, continue posting your golfer pics.

MG, if you report the dog humping pic and say you are turned on by it, then they will remove it.

The picture I posted of Rock and Cena has less clothing in it then any of the others. Hopefully I didn't cross a line.

Risque = something I scramble to scroll past and hope my wife/son/daughter didn't notice as to ask "uh, what is that you're looking at?"

like post #3

It doesn't matter to me if the rule is to ban all pictures, animated gifs and videos. We can live without them here.

My issue is that the moderators are not part of this community and are lazy/detached in their duties and responsibilities. You earn trust not by your title but by your leadership. If the moderators would rather not spend any time here or feel the only have to come here to deservedly discipline a child, then that's not the definition of a forum moderator as others with experience have stated.

Sorry. I went through revrew's gay therapy program and am now cured of gay.