Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Sarah · 05-01-2002 11:46 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JD Heel:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rt1Rebel:
[qb]I agree with several others:

1) If I wanted to see nearly nekkid gals, I would just go see some nekkid ones

2) When I'm at work, they are all just red Xs anyway

3) I don't want this place becoming a Dude ranch

And don't even get me started on the 'Lets Play a Game' threads... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laughing.gif" />

**I didnt know the "let's play a game" thread was offending anyone......(frown)--but I guess the same rules would apply.

apocalypse dude · 05-01-2002 11:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Liquid Karma:

Claiming that you are worried that some kid who you have never met, who exists behind a keyboard x miles away will log on and see a picture of a girl in a bathing suit is a stretch. Anyone who is taking a stand against this should be doing so because they themselves are worried about the influence of the content on them, not about how the content will influence someone else.<hr /></blockquote>Let me voice my opinion a little more clearly(hope!). As in any argument, there are two sides and both sides have valid points. I think the admins of this site need to make a decision based on what they think is in the best interests of the community.

Should this be a totally free forum with no censorship whatsoever? If so, will certain content alienate certain users?

Certainly this decision has already been made. The site's content is already censored. For example, kiss my ass...haha bad example...****. If text content is censored, why are there no clear definitions for what sorts of visual content are objectionable?

I don't think women in bathing suits are the whole problem. I was told that you could see more than that in one or more BOTD's. I did not notice this personally, but I have not viewed all the BOTD threads. Clearly if this is true then a line has been crossed. For some this is a big deal. For others it possibly isn't. But if there are children coming to the site, this is clearly inappropriate.

As someone who is going to become a father in a few months, I'd hope that I can make the judgement of what is appropriate and what is not for my child. Do I really want to have to keep my child from visiting a college sports discussion site? Should others have to make the same decision based on BOTD(such a small element of ncaabbs)?

Censoring material based upon an element that finds it unsavory is really not a black and white decision imho. The decision to me becomes:
<ul type="square">[*] Is the content more important than alienating and possibly losing a certain segment of users? </li>[*]Will we lose some other users because this type of content is censored? </li>[*]Are we violating some sort of principle by censoring or not censoring this material?
</li>

These were the considerations when i first thought about this issue. I can go back and forth. I was swayed when someone brought the child issue for the reasons I've stated above. I hadn't thought about that before.
I was also swayed by the fact that there were people who were concerned enough to be vocal about it. I've been insulted by certain things on this board(not BOTD). However, never enough to mention it or complain.

[ May 01, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: apocalypse dude ]

TurtleProtector · 05-01-2002 11:57 AM

I say we open it up for a democratic vote, this is (for most of us) the USA afterall!!

Lets start a vote thread with the arguments for both sides laid out in an even handed way.. and in 2 weeks we'll look at the vote and see what we decide as a community. The outcome will result in the passage of a rule for or against the presence of BOTD at NCAAbbs.

My preference is to maintain a PG-13 site around here and I think the BOTD we have pretty much falls into that. When occasionally R and X rated pictures have appeared they have been quickly removed.

I dont think I like the idea of a red light district area.. I dont want to dedicate an actual area of the site to what society considers lude.

If PG-13 BOTD threads offend a few people... so be it.. the offended simply can avoid the clearly marked BOTD threads much as they avoid Howard Stern radio show, etc.

When/If bandwidth becomes an issue, we can revisit this issue, based on that problem.

Personally I think BOTD doesnt really have a place here ... then again, sex sells. The overwhelming popularity of the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit issue can certainly back up the success in the marriage of sports coverage and images of beautiful women.

-TP

[ May 01, 2002, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: TurtleProtector ]

Liquid Karma · 05-01-2002 12:32 PM

Just want to offer up the following:

If I wanted to post on a site where the content was sanitized I would go to ACCBoards.

To me this has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is the BOTD and everything to do with the fact that we are allowing ourselves to fall into what plagued ACCBoards. A small group of posters get's their panties in a wad whenever they deem something offensive and the other 90% of the posters there are prevented from enjoying the content or even deciding for themselves if they like it.

If you are going to complain that some kid may find something unsavory on this site what do you propose we do about the verbal assaul forum? I have seen things posted there which would make a sailor blush.

What if this same impressionable youngster stumbles across one of our debates about abortion or homosexuality and is offended that a poster supports either side of either argument? What do we do then? Ban discussion of controversial topics because some impressionable 14 year old may not be able to stomach the fact that some believe homosexuality is acceptable behavior?

admin · 05-01-2002 12:36 PM

the difference being that those are discussions which IS the point of this place, while the BOTD is simply gratuitous.

Tasha · 05-01-2002 12:38 PM

Whoa, I guess I should've stayed in chat last night. I would've made the discussion even more interesting. Here is my opinion. I really don't care about the BOTD. Most of them are just chicks in a swimsuit. But can't a girl in a nice little dress or a nice pair of jeans and a tank top be sexy? I know us girls get looked at around here, and guess what??!!! We are fully clothed!!! What's the deal with posting nothing but bathing suit pictures? I remember one poster making fun of me because I posted a fully clad man on the LBOTD. If you didn't notice guys, our BOTD's don't have to be almost nekkid to catch our attention. I really don't have a problem with the bikinis, but obviously some do. So I would just say that ONE person is in charge of the BOTD (perhaps Swagger). But that being said, he should be asked to tone them down a bit.

Tasha

Lucy · 05-01-2002 12:43 PM

LK, like TP said, there are other sites in which to find pictures of lovely ladies. Sports discussion is supposed to be the strength & purpose of NCAAbbs; the BOTD is merely a sideline. If you feel the need to view pictures for whatever reason, friends of mine seem to think Maxim is a nice place to visit. And according to some of the annoying spam I get, there seem to be plenty of porn sites out there too.

Tasha · 05-01-2002 12:44 PM

Gee...thanks for the constructive criticism there Rammer. Is this the only place you can go to to look at those "Sear catalog" pictures though? Ask yourself that.

Tasha

TurtleProtector · 05-01-2002 12:53 PM

No need for personal attacks or hostility, this is just a debate/discussion.

-TP

Sarah · 05-01-2002 12:55 PM

Tasha-- looks like we've woken and angered the monsters again!!! lol-- forget it Tasha, I have reasoned since last night with some of the personas on this board-- and I have realized that if my opinion is any different from certain ones on this board--I might as well just take them elsewhere...AND rammer....the cellulite comment???? geez, get over yourself-- you wish you could see us in bikiniz!!!

Lucy · 05-01-2002 01:03 PM

"Enriching experience"? Well, that is a creative way to describe what many guys do when viewing pictures like that. <img border="0" alt="[laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laughing.gif" />

Liquid Karma · 05-01-2002 01:07 PM

If the BOTD is merely a sideline then why are you so concerned about it?

I repeat again, the issue to me is not whether or not this is content that can be found elsewhere. it boils down to a minority group dictating what is allowed on this site. The BOTD is as much of a daily institution on ACCbbs as NCTraffic Man's "Good Morning" threads. I hardly see the need for its removal and consider the true problem to be people who are too concerned with regulating what other people are allowed to look at.

Liquid Karma · 05-01-2002 01:13 PM

And Stacie, you are always more than welcome to post your opinion here, no matter how much others may disagree with it.

And when a vocal minority disagree with something you post, you can be assured that there will not be a 2 page discussion of whether or not you should be allowed to post anymore.

lawrenceterp · 05-01-2002 01:20 PM

No one answered my question as to whether toned down BOTD's would be a good compromise.

I do have to agree that this discussion/argument is getting blown WAY out of proportion. There is only one BOTD thread on the first page of the Sports Bar. It is such a small part of what happens around here. I hope that people on both sides of this can speak to each other rationally and we can figure out something good for everyone.

I do not like to moderate or edit people. I'd like people to be able to post whatever they want. But....I do agree that there are some subjects that just cross the line. The question is where do we draw the line. Also, I'm hoping that the people who post BOTD's will see this thread and realize that there are some people who don't like them.

One very cool thing about our board is the high ratio of female posters. I do not want to lose them. In fact, I thought it was great when they started doing the Male BOTD's.... Hopefully this issue will not cause them to stop posting here.

Everyone just try to use common sense and we can all coexist.

Liquid Karma · 05-01-2002 01:23 PM

Define toned-down.

Lucy · 05-01-2002 01:24 PM

56 posts and you still miss our point, LK. *sigh*

Consider me off my soapbox. Some ideas are wasted on the young.

lawrenceterp · 05-01-2002 01:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stacie:
AND rammer....the cellulite comment???? geez, get over yourself-- you wish you could see us in bikiniz!!!<hr /></blockquote>Stacie, you might be the next BOTD! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/cheers.gif" />

NOLEY · 05-01-2002 02:10 PM

ok... i was not in the chat last night... BOTD i dont understand the problem... the 1st day i looked and i was like great... but now i dont look... i mean it was something i disliked so i moved on i ignore it... i mean yes the pic i saw was a tad revealing but we all look at cosmo, us, ym, and people it is all in there... i mean i went to ny city and saw a 20 ft billboard of a calvin klien model... we all have a right to our opinion... but if i dislike or disagree with something i try to move on... we have a great site here i am glad i was asked to check it out i like the fact it is very open...

apocalypse dude · 05-01-2002 02:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Liquid Karma:
Just want to offer up the following:

If I wanted to post on a site where the content was sanitized I would go to ACCBoards.

To me this has NOTHING to do with the fact that it is the BOTD and everything to do with the fact that we are allowing ourselves to fall into what plagued ACCBoards. A small group of posters get's their panties in a wad whenever they deem something offensive and the other 90% of the posters there are prevented from enjoying the content or even deciding for themselves if they like it.

If you are going to complain that some kid may find something unsavory on this site what do you propose we do about the verbal assaul forum? I have seen things posted there which would make a sailor blush.

What if this same impressionable youngster stumbles across one of our debates about abortion or homosexuality and is offended that a poster supports either side of either argument? What do we do then? Ban discussion of controversial topics because some impressionable 14 year old may not be able to stomach the fact that some believe homosexuality is acceptable behavior?<hr /></blockquote>LK,

If you read my post(and i'm assuming that you are responding to me here), I don't condone banning or censoring. What I am suggesting is standards for what constitutes appropriate content on the site.

Look, the users don't get to decide this. Nor should they. We all have our own opinion on the subject. You're never going to make everyone happy. The people who should make the decisions on what content is appropriate are the folks that took the time to create the site. The site should be what was envisioned by its creators. The members are voicing concern, and the administrators of the site can do what they want with this information.

I guess what I'm saying is if the creators of this site have a vision of what the site is supposed to be, share it with the users. If there is a vision of what is appropriate and what is not, publish it. There are 2 major benefits to this approach. 1)Once you have standards, if poeple are insulted, you can point to the standards and the argument is over.
2)Users can get an idea of what kind of content they can expect before having to view material they may find objectionable.

If you don't take this tact, you run the risk of having this debate over and over again.

I would also like to say that if the site's owners think that there should be no governing of content(I think there already is some governing going on) thats fine too. Just let people know ahead of time.

By all means, if there is a vision to this site, be true to it. However, I would hope its more than "Not ACCBoards".

be well,
AD

PS I didn't want to get into all of the scenarios with children viewing certain material. No system is perfect. There is no logical end to that argument that I can see.

Sarah · 05-01-2002 02:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lucy:
56 posts and you still miss our point, LK. *sigh*

Consider me off my soapbox. Some ideas are wasted on the young.<hr /></blockquote>**Lucy: yep! I came to this very same "sigh" earlier this morning...lol**
**LK: ok, while I agree that minority dictating can be bad-- I think that this entire issue stemmed from the fact that about six of us were trying to rationalize with a fifteen year old last night in the chatroom--and our opinions and thoughts were falling on deaf ears and even called "endless b*tching"-- so on one end I hear that opinions are welcomed but then on another end I feel like I am hearing this: "As long as your opinion is in agreement with me, then it will be heard and respected!"
**LT-- look at the way that Tasha was treated when she posted earlier this afternoon----I think being worried about losing female posters SHOULD be on your mind...

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Clean up BOTDs?
Author	Message