Calgarypuck Moderator Team

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Honest question, but where do people work that that gif would get them in trouble? If people are getting in trouble it's probably for spending half their work day on CP, not because of an attractive woman jumping through a doorway.

So the creators of all these forums on the internet decided to put the NSFW tag in the software for what reason?

Don't you think there's a legitimate reason?

[taco.vidal]

Burka gifs, a good solution sure to be satisfactory solution to the problem. Cant post female skin so burka gifs. Duly noted.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

My only beef with the moderating team was a few years ago when we made the playoffs and they shut down the Edmonton is no good thread out of respect for the Oilers or something until the playoffs began.

That was so wrong. The Oilers do not deserve respect here. Also, every day is a good day to discuss why Edmonton is no good. Limiting discussion on this topic is very wrong.

This.

While there may be some reasoning or understanding of a mod's actions from taking down a photo or banning a user, this mod's action was pure narcissistic.

Wanting to test his newly appointed mod powers, MRCboicgy in a GT felt he should lock the Edmonton is no good thread as a 'thank you' to the Oilers for eliminating a team competing with the Flames for a playoff spot

True to a Cartman's "Respect My Authoritah!!" fashion, he shut down any upstart E=NG threads and dismissed them as "that crappy thread"

What made it even more absurd was a couple of mods blindly jumping to his defense without even knowing the full reason why he closed it.

Nobody was getting attacked or insulted or causing any legal issues. This was a thread for all of us to laugh at our Shelbyville rivals. Closing it was just done out of one mod's ego.

With how popular that thread has become and with Bingo even enjoying posting in that thread, hopefully that thread never gets locked again

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

So the creators of all these forums on the internet decided to put the NSFW tag in the software for what reason?

Don't you think there's a legitimate reason?

Gore. Decapitation. Gangbang pornography with full genitals. Etc.

[mikephoen]

Won't have to worry about any gifs tonight, that's for sure.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Won't have to worry about any gifs tonight, that's for sure.

Pooping gifs?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

It’s the reasoning behind things though. And why does one require this but not another. It seems like if someone posts a pretty woman this must be tagged but any other woman is okay to post. I don’t understand the logic behind that. What qualifies being inappropriate? Or anything with a woman in it is now supposed to be nsfw? I’m not following the logic. Yeah she’s wearing a deep cut shirt but you see worse waking down the street. I’m failing to see where the “line” is.

As mentioned by Wild GM we have fielded several complaints about the original GIF StrykerSteve posted. But moreover, there have actually been a number of questionable GIFs featuring men that we have also insisted be set behind NSFW tags. StrykerSteve’s replacement GIF featuring himself was likewise flagged for not being marked NSFW. The policy is not based on something so superficial as “attractiveness.” We are trying to gauge these decisions on the basis of what will be the least uncomfortable for everyone.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As mentioned by Wild GM we have fielded several complaints about the original GIF StrykerSteve posted. But moreover, there have actually been a number of questionable GIFs featuring men that we have also insisted be set behind NSFW tags. StrykerSteve’s replacement GIF featuring himself was likewise flagged for not being marked NSFW. The policy is not based on something so superficial as “attractiveness.” We are trying to gauge these decisions on the basis of what will be the least uncomfortable for everyone.

Fair enough. I’m not going to lose sleep over it. Never been one to oogle over girls I’ll never meet on the internet so it’s no loss to me. Just seemed like a bit of over policing at the time when it was done. Sure seems like a nothing thing for people to of complained over. I’m sure the woman in the GIF feels much safer now knowing that heroes on the internet have help to “unobjectify” her.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

It’s the reasoning behind things though. And why does one require this but not another. It seems like if someone posts a pretty woman this must be tagged but any other woman is okay to post. I don’t understand the logic behind that. What qualifies being inappropriate? Or anything with a woman in it is now supposed to be nsfw? I’m not following the logic. Yeah she’s wearing a deep cut shirt but you see worse waking down the street. I’m failing to see where the “line” is.

If I say your avatar offends me because he’s a smug asshat who went on a racist tirade one time should my request be approved or should I just keep scrolling along and go about my day?

Who cares? Really? Are people so easily upset? We can all figure out what makes the gif borderline NSFW, let’s not pretend otherwise. I’m sure the poster who drunkenly begged Stryker to buy the “outfit” for his wife and put it to use knows exactly why the gif is slightly questionable for a work environment.

Put the image in tags. Simple, easy, one click and you’re safe.

I don’t know how many times they have to say the decision was because it was questionable at work, not because it was apparently offensive to some odd people, for people to figure out that this has nothing to do with being offended.

It’s just seems like the people who find putting this image in a tag offensive and and some moral outrage vastly outweigh anyone who is actually offended by the image. Like really, there’s maybe one poster who has actually expressed it as legitimately offensive? Seems like much ado about nothing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

...I’m sure the woman in the GIF feels much safer now knowing that heroes on the internet have help to “unobjectify” her.

Again, this decision has nothing to do with her or her feelings. This is about the users of CP and what they would prefer to choose to see or ignore while posting on this forum.

[SportsJunky]

Stryker Steve sure is a lightning rod for this kind of stuff. No more wife stuff Steve! That’s two sideshows we’ve had to watch now. ��

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Again, this decision has nothing to do with her or her feelings. This is about the users of CP and what they would prefer to choose to see or ignore while posting on this forum.

Do you think if we type it one more time it will sink in?

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

So you think if we type it one more time it will sink in?

No

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Again, this decision has nothing to do with her or her feelings. This is about the users of CP and what they would prefer to choose to see or ignore while posting on this forum.

That wasn’t aimed towards you (the moderation team). I meant that towards the people reporting it. Who in the thread it occurred in said it was due to it objectifying the woman.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

IF I waste time at work it just means I have to work longer. My employers don’t care much about how I manage my time just that I deliver.
A girl doesn’t have to be naked for someone to be uncomfortable with seeing that image in the workplace

if a fully clothed female doing a non sexual joyful fist pump makes someone uncomfortable, that’s on you, not the rest of us

[FanIn80]

I've never really had an issue with the moderating here. I wouldn't come here if I did. I value my time a little too much to waste it on poorly-run sites.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

That's at least a post that is a point instead of a one line snipe.
So I'll respond.
Someone posts a photo of their attractive SO.
As expected comments come complimenting that poster on how attractive she is.
At one point does it cross a line? It is really hard to tell...

I agree with this point, because...what do you say? It was posted to get a reaction, and for the most part, that reaction was as expected. "That's awesome!" "Way to go!" "Great GIF!" "Your wife rocks!"

The issue comes in when one starts to comment on appearance. On another site I go to, the rule is basically "comment respectfully". Which, of course, leaves a wide bit of discretion still. Since SS posted it, and it's of his wife, and she's likely looking at the reactions, positive comments would still work.

Where the other site I go to draws the line is twofold. Negative comments or ones suggesting that the poster wants something done or to do something to the subject of the picture. I don't think a single person, other than the one who posted it, read that drunken post about buying SS's wife 'the outfit' and saw it as anything other than creepy. Which makes it an easy candidate for moderation. It's creepy, and you don't need to 'group slap' everyone by removing the gif...you just need to deal with the creepy creep, who will hopefully learn the lesson.

There were a lot of posts in that thread were people were commenting about her - and at some point those comments started to get creepy. But no one got particularly vulgar, explicit or threatening in the comments (unless I didn't see it). But it got a little pervy and weird. But it is really hard to determine which comments were so creepy that you should suspend or ban the poster.

Is it that hard to do, though? The mod team has a pretty wide base. Even looking at that thread as it was happening, it was pretty evident to just about everyone in that thread when the comments went from complimentary to creepy.

One of the reasons we took the photos down was so that it wouldn't be grabbed by someone else and used on this site, or another site, at a different time.

Once something is on the internet, it's there to stay. I don't think this reason holds much water. Ms Compton, SS and SS's wife must know this by now, and by putting it up they must realize that it could come back to haunt their run for Prime Minister(ess) in 30 years or so. And there is nothing, in either of those three gifs, to be upset or ashamed about (however, I do agree with the NSFW tagging of them, though personally, I don't care...I can see why the request is made)

And let's remember this has happened before with this very poster and their SO that led to other creepy comments. I would hazard to say that if we allowed those posts it would happen again.

It likely would. There are creeps out there. I feel it's better to let folks post what they are comfortable with (since I assume that SS and his wife agree to what they do/don't post) and deal with the problem, instead of slapping the group of the actions of a couple members who won't get the lesson in a group slap anyhow.

So the safest course of action is to just not allow them particularly since it isn't core to the enjoyment of the site.

I hate going all slippery slope...but then where does it stop? I can only post quasi-sexy pictures of people I don't know? I can only post pics of people I don't know (like hockey stars, etc?) We can't post pictures of real people at all? 'Cause someone may take that pic and use it again or elsewhere?

So again, you can say you would have dealt with it differently. That's fine. These are not black and white decisions. But they are decisions we consider carefully, discuss as a group and weigh pros and cons on. They aren't arrived at willy nilly. We take care with those decisions.

Doesn't mean everyone will like what we do.

I long ago made my peace with the moderating on this site, with the general thought of "not my playground, not my rules"...but it really does seem like the moderation team is volunteer working overtime to try to protect us from ourselves, which I'm not sure is needed.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by stone hands

if a fully clothed female doing a non sexual joyful fist pump makes someone uncomfortable, that’s on you, not the rest of us

I never said it makes me uncomfortable. Did I?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

I never said it makes me uncomfortable. Did I?

My bad

If it offends the people you work with then don’t browse cp at work?

I mean if they are that taken back by a completely innocent image, how can they handle you looking at a violent physical game like hockey

[thymebalm]

EDIT: Respectfully taken to PM and resolved.