Regarding moderation and censorship

[_RockSlider]

ludwigm,

I may be wrong, as most of this was private between you and shades.

It's my understanding that shades had restricted you, and later lifted those restrictions, possibly multiple times, with you just reoffending. He having lost trust decided that enough was enough.

I think that he was very generous to allow you to provide a easy way for others to view your images if they choose. It showed his dedication to NSFW popping up on peoples browsers

I for one was glad for this, as I found your images NSFW and I do browse from work, and yet I do check out your images when at home.

As has been well demonstrated of late trying to definitively define a set of rules is impossible. One would hope that anyone would be able to judge G/PG-13/R and NSFW based on "when one sees it one knows it". With a diverse set of moderation members, one would hope that the masses would be able to compromise by accepting that when they see it they know it and moderate accordingly.

Your problem is not a need for some set of definitive rules to post to, but a repeat history of not having the common sense to judge G/PG-13/R based on the "when you see it" concept.

Of course you are likely at a disadvantage, possibly having a much more liberal world view than Americans on this issue.

[_LDSToronto]

With a diverse set of moderation members, one would hope that the masses would be able to compromise by accepting that when they see it they know it and moderate accordingly.

You must be willing to be a "clone" of me, moderating exactly and precisely the same way I would.

H.

[_ludwigm]

ludwigm,
I may be wrong, as most of this was private between you and shades.

I think too...

It's my understanding that shades had restricted you, and later lifted those restrictions, possibly multiple times, with you just reoffending.

If restricted means one week banning, then yes. No multiple times.
And he doesn't lifted anything.
Unfortunately, the exact words are in PMs (=holy cow). If You want, I send to You ALL of our correspondence. You will not be the first one.

He having lost trust decided that enough was enough.

I don't read Shades' thoughts.

I think that he was very generous to allow you to provide a easy way for others to view your images if they choose.

Generous?
To write a link is a basic feature. The [URL] is another. These are defaults.
Should I thank he didn't take away these too?

As has been well demonstrated of late trying to definitively define a set of rules is impossible.

That is.
We should live by undefined rules.

Your problem is not a need for some set of definitive rules to post to, but a repeat history of not having the common sense to judge G/PG-13/R based on the "when you see it" concept.

Of course you are likely at a disadvantage, possibly having a much more liberal world view than Americans on this issue.

I have no problem.
I have only no pictures.

My pictures was banned after Michelangelo's David, then this caricature.
No more, no less.


This whole thing is about prestige.

[_RockSlider]

ludwigm,

Based on your response, I'm sorry I sad anything. I'm not aware of the whole history here, other than what I've read in public.

[_Yoda]

Hey, Rock, check your reports regarding this thread.

[_LDSToronto]

All I know is if those fighting for ludwigm's freedom have hindered zeezrom's super fine art posting past ... and that he will now be censored based on their need to set that law, that they might push it's boundaries, they have done MDB a disservice.

If you are speaking as a MOD here, please use the RED font, as per an earlier post:

I see no red here ldst ... I'm just your everyday poster unless you see the red. Maybe you have missed that "rule" of this board. As a poster, I'm as free to post my thoughts/views as you are.

[_zeezrom]

Shades and mods,

I appreciate having a place to express my thoughts anonymously. I know my posts are boreline on-topic. In fact, you have all been very patient/forgiving with me. I realize that many paintings I've posted would not pass the PG-13 rating criteria and you have let them slide. Why do I post the images I post? Why do I choose images that may not always belong in a pg-13 movie? Why do I talk about things that you won't find in a pg-13 movie?

I want to express ideas that resonate with me. I'm no longer conforming to the controls set by Richard G Scott. It is all part of my release from Mormonism.

[_Dr. Shades]

Please clarify. Can I post:

1. Male nipples?
2. One penis (you state penii, I assume you meant penises, and that multiple penises are not allowed)
3. One vulva?
4. The clitoris?
5. Labia minora, if the vulva is out of sight?
6. Bare buttocks?
7. Pictures of nipples, areolae, penises, vulvae, pubes if they pictures of primates other than humans? Non-primates?
8. A shaved mons pubis?
9. Testicles?
10. A woman wearing a micro bikini?
11. A woman in a chilly room?
12. The anus (male or female)?


Please, if we are following the letter of the law, these are important questions!

Just don't post any images at all and you'll be safe.

[_LDSToronto]

Just don't post any images at all and you'll be safe.

Wait, is that the new law? No more image posting? Seems a little harsh, doesn't it?

H.

[_RockSlider]

If you are speaking as a MOD here, please use the RED font, as per an earlier post:

rest assured ldst, that is exactly why I bought this up. Please review this thread and note I have not posted anything in red. This has not been an oversight.

you however have attacked me, as a normal poster on this board as if I have posted as a moderator.

Hopefully in the future you will be able separate these two, and attack moderation, if and when its actually moderation.