TN picture reform/preservation groups ? Come on, people ! Yeah, I've joined BOTH groups, largely to keep an eye on the OVER reactions on both sides, not because I either favor or oppose either one. It seems to me that what we have here, is a *slightly* right of center objection to *some* of the obvious porn pictures apearing on this site, and a *slightly* left objection to what is pervceived as a witch hunt when it really isn't. There are valid arguments on both "sides" of this non-issue. BOTH sides use as evidence of their religiously fundamentalist stance, the guidlines posted by the site owner nearly two years ago, when the site first started. BOTH sides make the argument, not it so many words, that some are new, and need guidance. Rather than offer guidance, we have a war of words. Much ado about nothing, in most cases. There ARE photos in very, very clear violation of the guidlines originally posted, and remaining, by TT1. These scream for some kind of reform. On the other hand, some of these photos TT1 has allowed to remain for quite some time. A year or more in some cases. This also screams for a clarification. Do the "stated" rules mean anything at all ? By some examples, they don't mean anything. By others that have been removed, they do mean something. Questionable and obvious porn photos WILL cause the casual visitor to conclude that a certain type of behaviour is welcome here. Maybe it is. *I* am not the site owner, administrator, or moderator. Whether these are desired is not for me to say, though I'd think not. What the site must inevitably become if they remain is clear. Perhaps, just perhaps, these "appearance of evil" photos should be removed. The ONLY options WE have, is to flag them and let the owner decide, or to message that individual with a recomendation, which is usually met with confrontation and justification rather than a seeking of understanding. Flagging is not the hammer of Thor. It is not the lightning of Zeus called down from the heavens to devastate the landscape, yet one of these groups would have one believe that it is, by some self-appointed dictator. What flagging is, is merely a "hey boss, maybe you should check this out." Maybe he does, and maybe he doesn't. He's unresponsive enough that we'll never really know. Some say that these "groups" are shoving down the throats of others, some perceived site policy, when they are not. These groups are merely a response to a lack of clarification when it is asked, and required. YES, newbies will make mistakes, and should be offered gentle clarification of what it means to be a nudist, and where the line might fall. They should not be shot at dawn for a misunderstanding. Likewise, obvious porn photos ( IMHO ) in a nudist, not a porn, environment, probably should be shot at dawn. Unfortunately, over the last two years there has developed on this site a definite grey area, with no clear line. It seems to me that BOTH of these groups are mostly folks massing for war, and ALL of them within the grey area, neither "side" having a definite, clearly understood knowledge of where a line might be, *if* there is one ! It seems to me, that NEITHER of these groups should exist, but that ALL of the members should really belong to a neutral group that seeks an understanding, not a religious fundamentalist jihad. But, what do I know ? Why is it these days that people rush to war, rather than reach understanding, and ultimately find that they are on the same page ? Yes, this post appears in four places, because IMHO there is no clear "side" that I can take, yet I do believe my opinion ( just like anyone else ) is valid, and that my take just may have something to offer.
So very perceptive Curt!
Very well said Curt, you said a lot of things I was thinking about just haven't posted on this subject yet. I can see valid points on each side.
One thing some people forget or don't know is that there was a change in the rules for pictures when this site was new. The pics that were within old rules but not the new rules were grandfathered in and allowed to stay. That would probably happen even if the proposed changes were made. Can you imagine the work involved if everyone in the reform goup started flagging pics that did not follow new guidelines when they had been posted before a change was made?
A well thought out and presented post Curt. I do not think though that either side is basing their points on a "religiously fundamentalist stance". The issues are serious and open to interpretation which unfortunately leads to acrimonious statements by both sides. I do believe that the grey area to which you refer is the problem we face as both sides recognizeblatant deviationfrom the rules and seem to deplore them but the limits on the grey area are narrower for some, wider for others.Clarification of the picture rules is definitely needed.
IMHO, education is better than "reform". "Reform" tends to limit freedom and stifle creativity. "Reform" also has unintended consequences. Education, on the other hand, though it does have some drawbacks, is far superior to "reform" without the unintended consequences. Ultimately, it is up to TT1 how he wants to run this site, but I guar-an-tee if too many "reforms" are made, this site will go the way of skinbook.
Furthermore, be wary of attaching too many restrictions to what it means to be a "true nudist". If you add things that have nothing to do with the state of dress, then you will alienate *someone* who *is* a true nudist. The definition should be simply "one who enjoys nudity", and not have philosophical, political, environmental, or other baggage associated with it. Sure there are groups that attach an adjective before the term "nudist" and some are quite popular, but they don't claim that one MUST belong to THEIR group to be a "true" nudist. Is it possible to be, for example, a swinger AND a nudist. Yes. Am I a swinger? Hell, no! Is it possible to be a nudist but NOT be a swinger? Absolutely! The two are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive, though I would ask that swingers be discreet as well as NOT ass-u-me that I am a swinger just because I am a nudist, and you better not be doing anything lewd where my kids can see.
If you see someone who posts a picture that you think might be sexually motivated, even though it isn't overtly sexual (which already gets banned), then kindly extol the virtues of non-sexual social nudity. People who post such things on the internet are more likely to be open to trying nudism in a social nudist environment and would quickly learn that nudity is possible apart from sex and is quite enjoyable. This isn't 100% and isn't easy to do, but the yield is much higer than "reform" and well worth the extra effort.
For the record, I do agree that everyone (who agrees, and does so voluntarily) should be as squeaky-clean as can be, especially when outsiders are trying to peer in. However, this is most effective if voluntary, and "reform" will have serious unintended consequences that no one would want.
The Let's-Keep-Things-As-They-Are Society has a bit of discussion concerning spam. One person believes bumping is spam if nothing new is contributed through the message and the sole reason for bumping is to maintain prominence of a post or thread. In this case, there was the added element of possible attempts at "one-upmanship."
I checked the definition of Forum Spam at Wikipedia. The definition reads, in part, "Forum spam is the creating of messages that are advertisements, abusive, or otherwise unwanted on Internet forums."
The other group clearly wants to promote their group. That is their right. Do they have the right to use Forum to do that? Yes they do. Do they have the right to use incessant bumping to do that? Here is where things are less clear.
What is the difference between an adverstisement and an announcement? An advertisement is usually used for promoting the sale of a product or service, or for political gain in the case of elections. An announcement does not usually have these elements.
Is the use of bumping abusive? It depends on the beholder and on the circumstances. If there truly is an element of "one-upmanship," an argument for abusive use could be made. Would it be successful? I don't know.
Are these bumps unwanted? I am sure some people wish the bump function didn't exist at all. But while some bumps could be abusive, many others have served a valuable purpose.
As far as spam goes, this would be a grey zone. One group wants reform, the other wants the status quo. Aside from those who have chosen sides, who's to say which party is being abusive?
Anyway, here's my contribution to keeping this thread prominent.
The origin of the term "Spamming" comes from the Monty Python "Spam" bit from Monty Python's flying circus. It originated to discourage multiple postings of the same message. The principle is that a message ought to be posted only once, in the correct category. Phillfreeuk's messages quoting himself or copy/pasting from his first post technically are, spam.
In addition, good netizen practices and internet forum conventions dictate that repeatedly bumping an otherwise inactive thread is bad manners. If a thread is important and worth retaining its position despite a lack of new posts, the appropriate thing is to make it a 'sticky.'
When you use rude tactics to promote your cause, which , paradoxically is trying to discourage rude practices in others, you lose your own credibility.
Now excuse me while I go copy/paste this same message into the picture preservation society thread.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!