Are there extra site rules from AUP?

[blaaah]

I came close to getting banned today, I got a warning.
But could have easily got banned just by chance.
I posted an image of an injured protester.
I felt it was reasonable to post it, and I wanted to post it to show others, it was from a respected and national British Newspaper, not some unofficial find from a goggle search. So I got a warning for it for being graphic and against the rules, it's only by luck I didn't post a picture of someone dying or dead, but I may not have chosen to post an image like that, if i had done I would have been banned. I think this is unfair in my view, only because I am not aware of the rules apart from the ones I have read in the easy to find AUP. None of which I breached.
So my feedback is that ALL rules relating to the Forum should be in the AUP, how is it possible to get banned for something that is not covered in the AUP?

 

[Northstar]

I'm guessing it falls under this.

You will not post or link to content that is obscene or sexually oriented.

 

[Coxis]

And that ambiguity is probably why you got a warning instead of an infraction. Infractions do not count towards you getting banned, infractions do.

Also, please don't take this as a personal attack, but you honestly cannot expect the AUP to spell everything out for you, just like in real life, there is a fair amount of common sense to be applied to your every action, including your actions on this forum. I didn't see the pic, but had I come across it online I wouldn't have posted it if it was graphic/contained blood, etc.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Obscene is something else.
He is right that the AUP doesn't state "graphic content" (or however you want to call it) isn't allowed, although I would say that's common sense. Maybe the AUP should be updated a bit.

 

[blaaah]

A man with a bruise and some blood on his face is obscene?
I suppose it could, but maybe some extra descriptors could be given to explain what obscene levels of images actually are.
As I made the decisions using my own responsibility as an individual, and I decided the image was certainly not obscene, and neither did the paid professionals of the national newspaper, editors and all. The public at large would not want to see obscene images on their breakfast table in the morning. Also obscene images largely relate to illegal images.
Edit: "Showing of blood" could be an appropriate descriptor which could be useful in incorporating into a rule.

 

[Famine]

I decided the image was certainly not obscene, and neither did the paid professionals of the national newspaper, editors and all. The public at large would not want to see obscene images on their breakfast table in the morning. Also obscene images largely relate to illegal images.

I refer you to "Page 3" and the entire of the Daily/Sunday Sport. Post practically any image from either of these "national newspaper" sources, run by "paid professionals" and you'll have 10 points, courtesy of the staff.

Which is, incidentally, a lot closer to banned than a Warning is.

 

[blaaah]

Is that covered in the AUP, and what is your take on my original feedback issue?
Graphic is not in the AUP, and there is no general line set for what is graphic.
If it is left to us then it can be wrong, as I have already shown by posting an image which was not acceptable, but which I thought was.

 

[Famine]

Yes - both are. My take on your original feedback issue is that you made a judgement call that the image you were posting was okay and the staff made a judgement call that it wasn't - as did several other members who reported it. Any suggestion that you were "close to getting banned" is hyperbole.

I'll refresh your memory of the tagline of all Warnings:

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

You have been reminded of the forum's rules. Your understanding of them has been upgraded. You will be more efficient at following them in the future.

 

[blaaah]

Yes I am more efficient now. Thank-you 7 of 9.
Posting an image of a dying or dead person was a ban-able offence I was told.
But my issue still stands you say I have been reminded of the forum rules, but I havent I have just been told some rule, which I could say have been plucked out from the air randomly. I have read the AUP and there is no mention of Graphic images, and to what extent a graphic image is.
And I still don't know even now, my efficiency has only increased to know I should not post an image of an injured face. That maybe a good start, and I only know that because of a warning and not at all from the published rules/AUP.
I am sensible enough to use common sense to not post offensive or illegal images, so there is no need to worry about that. Maybe others have more common sense than me, if so, do excuse my faux pas.

 

[Famine]

Yes I am more efficient now. Thank-you 7 of 9.

So... what, you think it's going to help your cause to start describing site staff using pop culture references?

Posting an image of a dying or dead person was a ban-able offence I was told.

That should be relatively apparent, surely?

But my issue still stands you say I have been reminded of the forum rules, but I havent I have just been told some rule, which I could say have been plucked out from the air randomly. I have read the AUP and there is no mention of Graphic images, and to what extent a graphic image is.

The key word is "obscene". What people determine to be obscene varies (and no, obscenity isn't limited to willies and boobies). You determined that what you posted wasn't obscene. We determined that it was and you were warned that this was the case.

And I still don't know even now, my efficiency has only increased to know I should not post an image of an injured face.

You can post the link and provide a warning if you feel that posting a photo of a man who has been shot in the face is helpful. But don't wrap it in image tags. I've seen the Warning you received and you were told this.

You're making a very big deal out of something which is barely even a deal. You did something you didn't know was wrong and you were warned that it is, in fact, wrong. You know better for next time.

 

[blaaah]

So... what, you think it's going to help your cause to start describing site staff using pop culture references?

I find it neutral and an inoffensive use of the English language neither to help or harm my cause. If you find it offensive then I retract my observation, I'm guessing you already disapprove of it and took offence, so I apologise. It was a comment in regard to your personal words not of the sites so i was not aiming at staff but you personally, and in a friendly way not nastily. It was humour which evidently was wrong of me to express.

The key word is "obscene". What people determine to be obscene varies (and no, obscenity isn't limited to willies and boobies). You determined that what you posted wasn't obscene. We determined that it was and you were warned that this was the case.

I can see what you mean. But some guidelines maybe needed, as otherwise well meaning people might get too many warnings/infractions, For example in the film industry they are given guidelines as to what content they produce and what category it will be put into, or if it's even legal.

You can post the link and provide a warning if you feel that posting a photo of a man who has been shot in the face is helpful. But don't wrap it in image tags. I've seen the Warning you received and you were told this.[/colour]

So I can link to obscene content and give a warning, even though obscene content is not allowed in the AUP?

It may seem like I'm making a big deal, maybe I am I don't know but all I want is to know the rules properly, I hate not knowing what is ok and what is wrong. I am certainly not anti-regulation.
Sorry for being a bit too dim for not understanding.

 

[Famine]

I find it neutral and an inoffensive use of the English language neither to help or harm my cause.

I find referring to people by character names based on your perceptions of them to be rarely inoffensive.

I can see what you mean. But some guidelines maybe needed, as otherwise well meaning people might get too many warnings/infractions, For example in the film industry they are given guidelines as to what content they produce and what category it will be put into, or if it's even legal.

A good AUP is a simple AUP. If we have to second-guess every type of content every user might post, the AUP would be larger than the forums.

Lots of things are legal but may not be posted on GTPlanet. A quick and dirty example is pornography - you can go and buy all the porn you want, legally, in newspaper stores the length and breadth of this country. Scan and post a page from one onto GTP... the future's not bright for you.


The whole purpose of Warnings is to remind people of the AUP and update their understanding of it if we think they are interpreting it differently. In your case it was wholly apt. You haven't been given an infraction, you are no closer to being banned from the site today than you were yesterday and your understanding of the site's rules is better now that it was before. I'm simply not seeing the problem.

So I can link to obscene content and give a warning, even though obscene content is not allowed in the AUP?

Depends on the content. In this instance the purpose of the content - to illustrate the impact of the Bahrain anti-government protests which are being discussed in two threads currently - would give validity and relevance to it. Link to the picture with a warning that you're linking to a picture of a guy who has been shot in the face by his own army. If, on the other hand, the content is a naked guy playing quoits, there's not much of an argument you can make for validity and there's no relevance to GTP in that content.


GTPlanet really likes mature members who can decide what's fine and what isn't fine for themselves before they post it here. We even really like them when they get it wrong sometimes.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It's pretty much the fact of the unwritten rule- there shouldn't be many instances when you want to break it.

 

[blaaah]

Well I think there is nothing further I can add on this. So that's the end of my feedback on this topic for now. Unless there are additional contributions/amendments.

.......
BTW, the character reference was because of the words used not on perception of the person. And also 7 of 9 was my favourite character in Voyager.

 

[Legendary]

I do agree with blaah, being a victim of the unwritten rule before and also trying to get something done about it.

I think the problem outside of not having the rule written is the fact that it is an Official Warning, that makes it stand out nice and big and make you feel as though you have done something really wrong. For something like this where the user and many other users would not have a clue that it was wrong (I for one had no idea at all and I have been here over 3 years) I believe it should just be verbal.

I would feel and I am sure many others would feel the same, better if it was just a little verbal warning to not do it again. Basically, any not so terrible offense such as this one that is not written in the rules shouldn't be such a big issue. You guys may hand out official warnings to us and use the argument that you are no closer to 30 points than yesterday and may mean nothing to you but it really impacts us. It is a really bad feeling...

What gets me the most is your inconsistency, I am not going to go digging for an example but (moderators only can see this) my latest warning is for you know what which is not expressed under the AUP yet I see people do it all the time and more often then not they are just given the little verbal warning. It makes me really annoyed to see people get away with something that I found I should not have gotten in trouble from in the first place. Even more annoying is when you guys say that we knowingly did it, it doesn't get said all the time but when it does I can't help but wonder why it has been said.

Why would people such as blaah and myself knowingly break the rules?

Just my two cents but I really think something should be done to avoid stuff like this and people getting upset over your decisions.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sense and Sensibility are the only rule to be followed when you are not dealing with extreme situations, only borderline ones.

So it's not a case of un-wriitten rules, because "Sense and Sensibility" differ from person to person. So the outcome in a borderline situation will greatly depend on what the mod(s) think.

So, I may find offensive something mods don't. There'll be no problem, it's always my choice to leave the thread for good. It has happened before as you can see here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=111312&page=29

And I may find acceptable and may post a image that one or several mods find unacceptable. In this case, the least that'll happen is the picture being taken out and I get a warning.

Whatever you may think of this, a site with this size can't be run in any other way. That's why careful selection of mods is necessary to "balance" the decisions being taken daily. Because they determine how well people feel here. Overall, and even considering all this I'm sure you must agree gtplanet is a nice place to be at.

My 2 cents

 

[Northstar]

What gets me the most is your inconsistency, I am not going to go digging for an example but (moderators only can see this) my latest warning is for you know what which is not expressed under the AUP yet I see people do it all the time and more often then not they are just given the little verbal warning. It makes me really annoyed to see people get away with something that I found I should not have gotten in trouble from in the first place. Even more annoying is when you guys say that we knowingly did it, it doesn't get said all the time but when it does I can't help but wonder why it has been said.

Problem is that all the mods are different people. It's kind of like the police, some cops may ticket you for going 10 over, some will just give you a warning and some won't do anything.

 

[Duke]

Problem is that all the mods are different people. It's kind of like the police, some cops may ticket you for going 10 over, some will just give you a warning and some won't do anything.

To some extent, this is true. However, a HUGE amount of private discussion goes on behind the scenes in order to ensure we operate fairly and consistently. Sometimes we discuss specific cases and sometimes general guidelines. Just like any security force, it depends on the individual staff member. But plenty of effort is made to minimize that effect.

On the subject of an all-knowing AUP: it will never work. If we covered every contingency, even fewer people would read than do now. Also, inevitably, someone will STILL get caught out around the edges. Plus, we'll all have to put up with a bunch of earnest whining about how the AUP is too restrictive then.

Don't make too much of a warning, official or otherwise. Take it at face value - a notice that certain behavior was a little out of bounds. Heed it and move on - it will not fester and cause gangrene in your account or anything.

 

[blaaah]

I realise it looks like I'm turning a drama into a crisis but I still wanted to continue a viewpoint on this.
There is the view that obscenity, which is against the rules, can mean anything which is morally repugnant or offensive against moral principles. Whilst this is true and fine, the nature of obscenity is entirely subjective of the poster and the viewer. Unless it is against already provided guidelines, there are no guidelines, any ruling in relation to subjective obscenity must be under guidance notification and can not be punishable, only ever warned against. The Law of obscenity is the only legal reference you can use with which to award an infraction or a ban as the rules of obscenity are already covered by national and international laws. Those are easy to understand, not some subjective view of obscenity. The rules are not clear, and undue punishment can be given for unknowingly breaking them. Posting a picture of a person with blood on their face and injured is not obscene in law and therefore can not be automatically presumed to be obscene for the purposes of this forum, so it is upto us the members of the site to decide not staff whether images can be posted. As I have said staff can then decide that it is wrong for the site and remove the image, which is fine I don't have a problem with that at all, but no punishment can be given as it was not against the rules at the time the member posted the image, even if the image was ruled to be horribly obscene, the poster is innocent if they believed the image was not obscene (because there are no guidelines).

The same could be said for above examples of page 3, (nude girls in papers), this is not legally obscene, but it might be obscene to some viewers. If that is the case it can be removed if posted. But it is not against the rules to post the image of a nude girl, there is no mention of this in the rules, so by giving infraction points for doing so is inappropriate, the image should just be removed and a warning given saying we believe some viewers could find this offensive/obscene. If it was not obscene in the eyes of the poster, they must never, ever, be punished for it.
Until the rules of the AUP are changed.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I realise there are different laws in different countries, but as this is (I believe) an American site it will be administered under American laws, so it is whatever their law declares illegal obscenity is relevant, not other countries which may regard an nude image of a person illegally obscene.
An image of a nude is not considered pornographic either. But don't want to go too far down that path as this is about obscenity not pornography.

 

[Jordan]

The interpretation of GTPlanet's rules and the determination of what content is acceptable here is solely for me to decide - not the users, the "staff", nor the laws of any country (we're kind of on our own "planet" here... ). This is a private website, and any content I deem unacceptable can be removed at any time for any reason. When a moderator takes action, they are doing so on my behalf and are only accountable to me, not the community.

I understand that you'd like a more specific AUP - I really do wish that I could provide you with one. However, that's not a practical or realistic goal, nor would it benefit any of us. As others have already mentioned, this is what the warning and infraction system is for - helping users find the boundaries and nuance of these ambiguous situations which are impossible to accurately enumerate. In the future, please feel free to contact myself or any other members of the staff regarding the acceptability of any type of content before you post it. We'll be happy to let you know our opinion.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is not about the rules. This is about your attitude. You said it yourself: "I decided I wanted people to see this image". It is not down to you to decide what people can and cannot see on the forums. I received some private messages asking me if the image was appropriate at all. You clearly did not think about people who would decide they did not want to see the image. You should have been well aware of the fact that it may have been distressing to some people - common sense dictates as much - and you should have taken those people into consideration when you posted it. Now you're trying to manipulate the rules to talk your way out of an infraction, and it is sorely testing my patience. The AUP makes it quite clear that you may not post content that is considered obscene. As has been explained to you, the simplest defininition of "obscene", as given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is something that is "repulsive, or disgusting to the senses". A picture of a man whose face is a mass of bloody bruises may be considered obscene because it disturbs or causes distress to someone. Therefore, you were in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy, and the warning was justified. Especially since someone complained about it.

I'd like to see you post some hardcore pornography and try your "I don't find it obscene, so I didn't break the rules" routine. See how long you last.

 

[blaaah]

This is not about the rules. This is about your attitude. You said it yourself: "I decided I wanted people to see this image". It is not down to you to decide what people can and cannot see on the forums. I received some private messages asking me if the image was appropriate at all. You clearly did not think about people who would decide they did not want to see the image. You should have been well aware of the fact that it may have been distressing to some people - common sense dictates as much - and you should have taken those people into consideration when you posted it. Now you're trying to manipulate the rules to talk your way out of an infraction, and it is sorely testing my patience. The AUP makes it quite clear that you may not post content that is considered obscene. As has been explained to you, the simplest defininition of "obscene", as given by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is something that is "repulsive, or disgusting to the senses". A picture of a man whose face is a mass of bloody bruises may be considered obscene because it disturbs or causes distress to someone. Therefore, you were in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy, and the warning was justified. Especially since someone complained about it.

I'd like to see you post some hardcore pornography and try your "I don't find it obscene, so I didn't break the rules" routine. See how long you last.

My attitude is my business. I do decide how to speak and make decisions of what I post or not post, that is called free will. That is entirely my choice, nobody else's, if anyone tries to interfere with that free will it would be personal abuse and something I would chase up with the law or whatever relevant authorities (I'm talking about my thinking and decision making and personal assessments, not a right for anything I post to remain on the site without being deleted or "unapproved"). This is personal talk you have brought in and I am forced to respond in a personal way to it.

What I also do is try my very best to abide by the rules of this site.

I might not last long in that scenario of posting naked pictures of someone, but I would would not be the one in the wrong, I would have been illegitimately banned. The person banning me would have been morally wrong. I base this on the rules of the AUP. That of course is my view, and other views would differ, will just have to accept that, and I do accept it. So I will move on and let it be.
But anyway you said hardcore pornography, I don't know why you are talking about that as it clearly states in the AUP, you may read them at linked at the bottom of this page (yes that was sarcasm), that sexually orientated (pornography) may not be posted. As I say this is about rules and conforming to them. Yet you suddenly think this is about my attitude? I take offence at that, you are making something personal, I am here to provide feedback in the correct forum about the AUP. My temper is certainly rattled.
...
(breathes to regain composure).
...

But i'm angry again, you say I am testing your patience, this worries me that you are not level headed and logical. Either I am breaking rules or I am not, I do not believe there is a case where your patience is at it's wits end therefore you will act when it breaks. Maybe I wind you up, like wise you are winding me up too. Whether you are impatient is irrelevant to the AUP. And is not relevant to being a staff member. The only reason why you would want to mention it is to influence me psychologically. I do not want that to happen, influence me as much as you like with the rules.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

My attitude is my business. I do decide how to speak and make decisions of what I post or not post, that is called free will. That is entirely my choice, nobody else's, if anyone tries to interfere with that free will it would be personal abuse and something I would chase up with the law or whatever relevant authorities (I'm talking about my thinking and decision making and personal assessments, not a right for anything I post to remain on the site without being deleted or "unapproved"). This is personal talk you have brought in and I am forced to respond in a personal way to it.

But this is a private website, this isn't a Facebook or anything. It's run by just 1 person, and the people who Moderate are the ones who hold up his beliefs. Because of this, a person is allowed to choose what's visible to its users. The Internet is not like real life- there isn't as much room to talk about obscene things, especially because you don't know who's behind that computer being horrified by a bloody, beaten man. A majority don't want to see that.

GTPlanet just holds up a belief of friendly attitudes and an all-around place to have a good discussion. There are plenty of other places where your pictures may have been deemed acceptable, but Jordan has chosen that here is not.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Why so nervous, blaaah? You chose a particularly cool avatar, act accordingly ... dude

Especially because Interludes clearly went himself borderline (my opinion, of course) in at least two segments of his own post:

1 - "This is not about the rules. This is about your attitude."


2 - "I'd like to see you .... (insert a violation of the AUP here)"


I have seen in the past people go overboard with this kind of interaction in discussions with n antagonist that also acts as a teaser, "defying" the counterpart to break a rule. Sadly, most times stupid pride or immaturity from the person being "challenged to perform such rule breaking" make it happen, with usually sad (and totally avoidable) consequences.

I find it all very childish. In the end, my guess is that if a moderator acts as a predator, he will have no trouble to make at least one successful hunt(read: ban) every day. Even with people that can write, as you can, posts that make sense. Because you people get nervous. So, just chill.

Back to the core issue of this topic: Must say that I don't agree with you on the "nude pictures" issue and/or the "graphic pictures issue. Yes, I understand nudity can be presented as art, and it IS art sometimes (anyone disagreeing would be saying the Aphrodite (or Venus) of Milos is an obscene statue). Yes, I understand graphic images portraying acts or consequences of violence can be - although my personal limits are very strict here - a legitimate way of making people aware of the extent and seriousness of events going on. However, I have kids, even one son that is also a member here. He is 14 now and sadly TV broadcasting already mede him see - in 14 years of life - more violence than I saw in maybe 30 of the 46 years I have now.

But, back to my kids, and I have them younger than 14, I like to know that gtplanet is within the sites they can safely browse through while using my home laptop (bar the Infield , but I'm not premo atm).

So, it's all a question of "Acceptable Use" for all, and "Acceptable Use Policy" for Jordan to define. I'm generally OK with the way it is interpreted here (only once had a problem with that interpretation, but I won't go on about it again, it's in the link I placed in my previous post), and I feel quite "safe" browsing here, even with a child sitting on my lap and babbling away things about F1 or Le Mans car pictures that keep showing up on screen.

 

[blaaah]

My point was, that it is totally up to me to decide what to post, I decide whether it is suitable for others to see, and that is why I made the feedback in the first place just to check there were not other guidelines that would influence my decision, as it turns out there are not, it's just judged case by case by various staff.
The fact still remains that it was my decision to choose what and if to post nobody else's, whether it stays or gets deleted is separate from that.
Interludes was saying my attitude is the problem because I am making my own decisions. He is completely wrong. It is up to us members to decide what is right to post within the obscenity framework, then moderation can proceed once that decision has been taken by the members, moderation can not take place before the member has made their decision!
There is also the optional alternative of asking before posting, if you are unsure...

So I don't feel my attitude is relevant here.

.......
Hun200kmh that's fine that you do not agree about the hypothetical nude pictures, as that is your opinion, we all have our opinions on what is morally repugnant. You would find it offensive I would not, neither of us are wrong or right. It is our own decisions. So me posting an image that you would find obscene doesn't mean I have done something wrong or deserving of an infraction it just means the image will get removed if you complain, or if a mod sees it and decides it is obscene. A nude image is not simply a sexually orientated image so it is not covered by that rule.
That is why I also raise issue with Famine for suggesting posting a picture of a nude girl from a newspaper would get an infraction/ban. It would have to focus on the genitals to be sexually orientated, but that's another debate. And if there is a fine line between plain nudity/provocative poses and sexual images then benefit must be given to the poster for their discretion on judging it ok, when others judge it wrong, so only a warning should be given.


...
Oh and Hun200kmh, I aspire to be as relaxed as the dude is, but it's not easy. The dude does cuss/swear a lot though which I refrain from doing.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I decide whether it is suitable for others to see

No, you don't. That's Jordan's call. After all, he just said this:

The interpretation of GTPlanet's rules and the determination of what content is acceptable here is solely for me to decide - not the users, the "staff", nor the laws of any country (we're kind of on our own "planet" here... ). This is a private website, and any content I deem unacceptable can be removed at any time for any reason. When a moderator takes action, they are doing so on my behalf and are only accountable to me, not the community.

 

[blaaah]

No, the initial decision to post and whether to post is the members decision. It's actually scientifically impossible for the staff to mind read over a distance and telepathically overrule the brain function of a member who is about to post something. I agree once any post is made any staff can decide it is not suitable.
...
But the decisions whether is was suitable in the first place is only, and can only ever be by the member who posts it. And whether they have a bad attitude about it is not really an issue. Once it is posted it will either be acceptable or not acceptable, but it WILL be posted, because that is the power and free will of the member operating within the AUP.

The fact remains, it is I who decides what is suitable for others to see in this forum, it's just that I can easily be overruled by staff or any single other member who objects.

 

[Famine]

And now you have new information to help you arrive at that decision.

On the assumption that we've now come right back to what I originally said and Jordan restated, are we done?

 

[blaaah]

Yes you may close if you wish to end.
I have articulated what I felt necessary.

 

[nomis3613]

It's Jordan's site, he can do what he wants. If the AUP said "everyone's avatar must be a pic of themselves wearing a lime green monkey suit", then people have the choice to a) follow this rule or b) leave GTPlanet. Same goes for if you have a problem with the vague "offensive content" bit of the AUP.

Also, I DO have a problem with you deciding "what is suitable for others to see". I don't want to see a photo of someone shot in the face. And there are many (legal) things that I don't want appearing on my screen while I am at work. So if something is questionable, you should provide a warning and a link instead of ramming it down some unsuspecting reader's throat.

Thankyou to the GTPlanet mods for your work on all of this, it makes the site a much nicer place to hang out. Much appreciated.


Relating to the subject of your thread, there is another unwritten rule:

GT Planet has a strict no bump policy, as such I can't turn a blind eye to it, in exactly the same way that no AUP issue is ignored.

If I may get on my own soapbox now, I have no problem with the rule itself, but I think it would be much better if this rule was in the AUP.