The Porn Policy

I know the staff has a strict no-porn policy, but I do find the banning of PeTerL90 a bit disturbing. So, I was chatting to him on mIRC and asked him why he got banned, and he said that he made a slip-up and posted an inappropriate picture by accident. And straight off the bat, he was banned without any warning.

I think this is wrong. He's a good person from what I've seen of him. He's not a real trouble maker, but this strict no-porn policy EoFF has is wrong. I think it's best to give people who accidently posted an inappropriate picture, like Peter did. He didn't noticed because the picture he intended to post had a similar file name to the picture he posted by accident.

Anyway, here's the transcript of the chat.

Proto> Peter, it says you're banned at the forums.
Peter> I am.
Proto> Any reason why?
Peter> Well, in a picture topic, I accidently posted a different picture than what I wanted to post, and didn't realize that I posted it until I got banned.
Peter> So I got banned for that one slip up.
Peter> No warning or anything.
Proto> hm, that bites.
Proto> The staff does have a strict no-porn policy.
Peter> And now that I've been hearing about this kirk person, and all the recent SPAMmage I've been hearing about, I feel like I've been singled out and stuff, you know, without a warning.
Proto> Yeah, totally.
Peter> Well, like I said, I never meant to post that picture. The picture I wanted to post was under it, but didn't realize it was the wrong one, since they were both files with all numbers for their names.

I think something needs to be in change. Like the no-porn policy. I don't like the strict-ness because you guys ban instantly. I think it's best to give them a warning once, and next time they get caught for something, instant ban, instead of ban right away, they posted a naughty picture. :/

I agree with this, Proto, as Peter is a good friend of mine, and just to add to it, the picture that he posted was not even porn. It was (SPOILER)a picture of an enormous snow penis. Inappropriate, yes, but I don't think banning him was the best way to go about it. I feel that the attachment should have been removed, and he should have been sent a warning PM. As he did do it by accident, I'm not quite sure banning him was the best solution.

There's my two cents. *nod*

I think our policy is fine. Posting pictures that are displayed right next to porn on some web site, or stored right next to porn, probably isn't all that great a thing to do either. Carelessness is a choice as much as deliberately doing something wrong. We're all responsible for our own actions.

Of course, but he shouldn't have been straight out banned for that mistake. What if I did the same thing? Let's say I posted a picture that could be seen as offensive, like let's say a guy carved a piece of wood to resemble a penis and I posted that picture by mistake, would you ban me for that picture, or have sent me a warning saying that the picture is inappropriate and remove the picture while at it?

What about that picture Bert posted with the guy *arf*ing a car by the exhaustion pipe, did you guys banned him for that? No, Leeza just warned him. I think it should be like that for pictures not exactly porn, but just as inappropriate.

I've long since disagreed with EoFF's "quick-ban" policy, which basically gives free reign for any staff member to ban anyone for anything if they think it should be done. Which inevitably leaves to people being treated differently. Which leads to hostility from members that were banned for lighter offences than other people had done and got off with a warning.

In this instance, I think it would be FAR better to just delete the picture, warn the member, and then have a quick discussion in staff(which can be something as simple and quick and easy as IMing other staffers) as to whether ban or not.

But yeah. I didn't get anywhere last year; I doubt I'll be listened to now.

Post porn, get banned. Proto, I think you know well enough that if you posted a picture like that, you would be banned. So would I. So would anyone.

If people don't know better than to post something like that, then too bad. Also, I don't buy into any "accidentally posted" bull.

Yes, RSL but:

Quote:

---

What about that picture Bert posted with the guy *arf*ing a car by the exhaustion pipe, did you guys banned him for that? No, Leeza just warned him.

---

Which proves that the so-called "porn policy" is not all black and white, and that EoFF staff does not communicate at all, so the right-hand doesn't know what the left-hand's doing.

But if the picture was actual porn, like naked boobies, or a couple doing it, then THAT should be an automatic ban. Pics that are about as bad, but not exactly porn, like Bert's or Peter's pics, they should be given a warning and have the picture removed, as was the case with Bert.

EDIT: Actually, I know I'd get banned for that picture, because it'll be pretty explicit. *nod*

Did you guys see PeTerL90's pic? It was a picture of a penis made in snow. A very large one. In high detail. With a female licking it. I know this because I just looked it up in the staff forum. There's no way anyone looking at that picture could have thought that it was something else.

And as for Bert, I'm not familiar with that one, so I'll have to leave that to someone else.

Yeah, but I think it's wrong to just ban someone for a mistake like that, and have someone do something similar and get away with it. I don't agree wth the auto-ban for inappropriate pics, unless it was actual porn.

And Bert's picture was much, much worse than Peter's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Pornography - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

---

Peter's picture comes nothing close to this definition. Obviously, we're using a different definition, in which case this means nothing. I understand the no-porn policy, and whole-heartedly agree with it, but this picture was not for the purpose of sexual arousal, I don't think. I certainly wouldn't consider the picture to be porn, but y'all must feel differently.

To me a picture of a female licking a penis is porn. I don't care if the penis is made out of snow. Like I said, the snow sculpture was well detailed. I'm sorry that you don't agree, but to me it was pretty much a no-brainer.

EDIT: It doesn't matter if the intent of the picture wasn't sexual arousal. Really. If we had that kind of rule, than anyone could post anything and when questioned they could just answer "no, I meant it like this. Really I did!".

So no.

Well, I can't stand that Bert can get away with just a warning and no ban. >=(

RSL: the chief argument is not that Pete's picture wasn't bad. It's that someone who posted a worse pick got let off with a warning, by Leeza, who I would bet would be the most anti-porn member of EoFF staff.

Post a picture of any penis, real or otherwise, you will get banned. Why you're debating this is beyond me, Proto. You've been a Mod here long enought to know that rule.

Bert just got lucky that he posted at a bad time for me to be able to deal with it right at that immediate time.

So you're saying that he got away with what should have been a bannable offence? And you did nothing?

*shakes head in awe*

What Bert got away with is actually none of your business, but you're free to speculate all you like.

I understand that PeTeRL90 is not probably going to get unbanned, but we're just trying to rid ourselves of this supposed double standard. I recall that HOOTERS had pictures that were meant to be "boobies". Yet he was only warned. Bert posts a picture of a guy arfing a car, and gets warned. Peter posts a picture that is, if anything, humorous, and gets banned. This somehow doesn't seem logical. And by asking Arche, I learn that HOOTERS did put them in order to show boobies.

Well, I know the rules, but I think the policy should be changed so that people will get a tougher warning instead of getting banned off the bat for posting an inappropriate picture by mistake. I never liked the rule when I was staff. I only agreed to it when the picture was posted intentially, as with Bert. But posting the pictures by mistake, like Peter, they should be given a warning, instead of a straight ban. Peter's not a horrible sick person because he posted an inappropriate picture, and he's going to hack EoFF and post naughty pictures everywhere. I doubt he will do such a thing. He should have just been warned for that picture. You should also look into the poster's history before you ban anyone too for posting an inappropriate picture. If the pic was purposely posted, yeah you could ban them, but if it was a mistake, a warn should be handed, and the next time they get caught, a ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

What Bert got away with is actually none of your business, but you're free to speculate all you like.

---

You admitted he "got lucky." That tells a lot. And I don't see how you can sit there with a straight face and argue for the exact opposite of what you did in Bert's case. It's hypocritical.

Ugh. Anyone could do something stupid and then say that it was a mistake.

Also, we'll make mistakes sometimes. This isn't the supreme court or a jury. It's a message board about Final Fantasy.

Yeah that was pretty harsh, just like how my signature was considered questionable material. Especially if he posted it by accident, anybody could do that. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

You admitted he "got lucky." That tells a lot. And I don't see how you can sit there with a straight face and argue for the exact opposite of what you did in Bert's case. It's hypocritical.

---

Bert got lucky in the fact that he's still here, yes, but the circumstances behind why he's still here are really none of your concern and I can sit here and say that with a straight face.

So, what if a Cid's Knight, or Administrator posted a similar picture that Peter posted, would the staff demote them and ban them for that?

Yes.

The only person exempt from the rules would be Sean. He could turn this place into a porn site if he wanted.

There's no way you would ban a staff member for posting a snow penis. :smash:

Ah, so if an Admin posted that, he'd be banned. Which is what Bert did a while ago, and wasn't banned?

No sense.

Well, we've never had to test your theory there, Hooters, because so far no staff member has ever done something like that.

We wouldn't have to because a staff member would know better than to do that.

It doesn't have to make sense, Raistlin. This is a message board and not an exact science where everything has to.

Yeah, it probably doesn't snow where ShlupQuack lives. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

Yes.

---

And you wouldn't care even if they were a good staffer?.

For the staff; What if YOU were in Peter's situation? You were trying to post a picture and you accidently posted an inappropriate picture and you weren't aware of it until it was too late. I know that's unlikely, but it could happen.

Yes, but a message board has "rules" and "policies." For example: the porn policy.

It seems to me that that porn policy has NOT been upheld, so it needs some revamping and further discussion due to recent circumstances. A lack of that causes such incidents as this one.


EDIT: typo which completely changed the meaning of what I said

If I was in his position then I would probably say "oh crap, that was dumb of me" and go to one of the other 3 million message boards on the internet to get my net fix.

Say a staff member posted a snow penis by accident. What would happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSL

If I was in his position then I would probably say "oh crap, that was dumb of me" and go to one of the other 3 million message boards on the internet to get my net fix.

---

I know, but would you like to have a warning instead of a ban for that one mistake?

You've never been warned, and yet you get banned for a simple mistake. You wouldn't like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Yes, but a message board has "rules" and "policies." For example: the porn policy.

It seems to me that that porn policy has been upheld, so it needs some revamping and further discussion due to recent circumstances. A lack of that causes such incidents as this one.

---

There's also the rule that says that what's in staff, stays in staff and that rule being broken seems to me is what's causing this particular incident.

If it really was an accident, I'd advise him to organize the files on his computer a little better. Maybe I'm coldhearted, but I really don't care if it was accidental or not.

We should be affliliated with those 3 million other message boards while we're encouraging people to visit them. :moomba:

Whether it was a mistake or not is irrelevant. The picture itself is all-but irrelevent. He's not going to be unbanned, Proto, so you might as well just stop arguing that point.
The issue is that someone was banned for something that someone else beforehand was not.

This staff seems gun-ho to uphold this recent banning, but just offers a "he got lucky" excuse to explain the last non-banning.

Something doesn't add up.

I know that if I had porn stored on my computer that it sure wouldn't be right in the same file as my cute cat pictures. It would have it's own special file so that these accidents wouldn't happen. :)

*points to recent post*

THE ACCIDENT THEORY IS IRRELEVENT. That's not the point.

Post porn, get banned. Seems pretty simple to me. So what, everyone can post one porn picture and get away with a warning? No thanks.

Uh, no Yams, not everyone. Only some people, apparently. And to me this picture was not porn. But that's besides the point. Other people feel differently, and it's not up for me to decide. But there's something not right that some people can get away with a warning when they post one porn picture.

It was a mistake on our part, I guess. We're pretty consistent though.

Yams: *whew*, finally, someone willing to face up with it.

But it's not consistent. You guys don't communicate. The person who banned Pete probably didn't even KNOW someone had recently been let off a similar offence with a warning. That lack of communication isn't consistency; it's blindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yamaneko

It was a mistake on our part, I guess. We're pretty consistent though.

---

How can staff be consistent if most of the mods do their own thing and rarely communicate? I'm sure it may have been brought up, but the staff is rarely divided over anything nowadays. I never really liked the auto-ban for pics not exactly porn, but in some cases, yes, it may be necessary. But you shouldn't be banning a good member just for posting an inappropriate picture, while some can get away with more destructive things, like flaming someone, or saying the f-word by avoiding the censor.

Sure, if the picture was really intended, the ban can be justified. However most people banned for posting an picture on the line of inappropriateness, I find that a little wrong. Why not warn them if someone who can get away with saying the f-word avoiding the censor gets a warning?

Maybe we should all step down and let you guys run the place. I guess we're a pretty crappy staff. This is one of the biggest holes on the internet, I guess. I'm ashamed be be a part of it. I also deeply ask for your fogivness, and from this point on, I promise to consult you guys on every decision I make.

In my eyes everyone here has the same chance to get banned. There are no "good members".

The F-word is not as profain as a porn picture. The majority can agree on this.

We communicate.

I'm not asking for you all to resign, just to reconsider the porn policy and maybe tweak it a bit so that you ban those who actually intended to post the picture in the first place and warn those who didn't mean to.

Like that one time someone registered and posted a picture, "Hey look, it's my wienie" and a picture is posted, or when someone registered to spam with a picture of that goatse image, those bans are justified. The others, sure they may be justified, but give the poster a chance to make it up, instead of just banning them straight out. Give them a tougher warn then you would usually give to those who do other offenses, something similar along the line of if the person got through the censor.

RSL: it's easy to say that to criticism.

I'm not remotely suggesting that EoFF staff is troutty. I think EoFF staff is made up of some of the finest individual staffers I can remember. However, I think in that individual strength EoFF has lost sight of one key thing:

A STAFF IS A GROUP AND A GROUP COMMUNICATES.

If you guys had communicated in the first place, and gotten your policies straight, this never would have happened. Period.

And I don't see why that's so unreasonable.

EDIT:

ere1055: I think it's ridiculous that they've banned him. Power trips, if you ask me.
ere1055: If anything, the other guy should've been banned. He meant to post the "porn". The first guy didn't even mean to. And it was a snowpenis for christ's sake! boo freaking hoo.

Again, we made a mistake. We'll try hard not to let it happen again, if you can stop riding on one instance where the policy failed.

If you don't like the pics, remove them and warn the poster. Unless the picture was really intended, then the ban can be fully justified.

Who is ere1055 and why should I care what he/she thinks?

Also, who is to say that Bert didn't accidentally post his picture? You see what I'm getting at? This accidental argument is ridiculous. There's no way to prove that you did it on accident. It's too likely of an excuse.

As for not banning Bert, I honestly don't remember this incident. (UH OH! The staff didn't contact me on my pager, where is the communication!). However, from the sounds of it, a mistake was made. Yamaneko said it best. We'll try our best not to let it happen again.

That's all we can do, really.

There's more than that "one instance," though. Anybody remember Ferenan? Unne banned him, and then when someone asked about it later, half the staff thought it was for having a second account!

No communication doesn't work. How is that so hard to understand?

EDIT: RSL, I'm not arguing Bert should be banned. I'm just saying that you guys should TALK so that these kind of things are treated FAIRLY in the future, instead of the right-hand doing one thing, and the left-hand doing the other.

RSL: ere1055 is Emerald Aeris.

[qq=raistlin]"EDIT: RSL, I'm not arguing Bert should be banned. I'm just saying that you guys should TALK so that these kind of things are treated FAIRLY in the future, instead of the right-hand doing one thing, and the left-hand doing the other."[/qq]

Noted.

AND it's obvious a mistake was made here, and it should just be spelled-out(thank you, Yams), instead of staff members trying to tap-dance around that fact.

In summary I think everybody will agree with me that in the future this can all be avoided if the banned member just gets a second account. :smash:

AND I love Hooters. :love:

Once a decision is made, we stick with it. That's consistency.

This thread is turning into "flame the staff", for no good reason I can see. For future reference, when you become aggressive, most people usually become defensive, so being aggressive generally isn't a good way of convincing anyone of anything.. (Raist, you've added nothing to this thread other than hostility.) This thread is closed and we'll talk about it in the staff forum, before I become more annoyed. I will be sure to objectively consider unbanning him, for what it's worth.

It's very difficult to say whether any given act was accidental or deliberate. Anyone can "accidentally" post something they shouldn't, and say they didn't intend to do it.

However, if policy changes and people are allowed a "second chance" for accidental posting of pornography/inappropriate imagery, then we're sending a message that it's quite all right to post it, provided it's only done once. Anyone with a chip on his or her shoulder could "inadvertently" post something objectionable and expect to get away with it. If PeTerL90 is unbanned, then anyone else banned for pronography could simply say, "I never posted that on purpose, you've got to unban me or else that proves you're biased and hypocritical because PeTerL90 got unbanned."

This would simply be unacceptable.

The fact that Bert avoided a ban is unfortunate; however, only one Staffer was present at the time, and she dealt with the matter as best she could under difficult circumstances. We can't all be everywhere at once. One inadvertent oversight by one of our best and most-respected Staffers in no way justifies a sweeping policy change on a problematic topic like pornography, in my opinion.