Definition of Porn

[OldMan]

Porn is, at least for me, something that is difficult to define. I
know when I see or hear something that I think is out of line. And I
know that the line I would draw for that is different than what
someone else would draw. This makes it very difficult, at least in
many cases, to be able to confidently label something as porn. Yet,
if we are going to have a policy that identifies porn as spam, leading
to deletion and banishment, it is necessary that we have a somewhat
defined definition of the term and that everyone is familiar with just
what it is. Wikipedia provides the following definition:

"Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject
matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

Use of this definition is certain to not please everyone, but it is
not likely that any definition will. But for the time being this is
what we will be using to make the call on what is and is not porn.
Please note that 'explicit depiction' refers not just to pictures, but
also to words. Also, IMO, 'sole intention' will likely be relaxed to
mean 'intention', meaning that, at least in our judgement, if the
intent is perceived to be at least partly for sexual excitement, it
will be considered as porn. I don't want someone to be able to claim
that their intent in posting what we all clearly see as porn was not
intended as a sexual stimulation.

If you view something on AvC that you believe to be porn, but no
action is taken on it, you do have the liberty to report the post to
GoogleGroups and allow them to handle it.

This thread will stay open for a few days for your comments.

[rappoccio]

I concur with this definition and it has been routinely applied for as
long as I can remember.

On Dec 16, 8:17 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Porn is, at least for me, something that is difficult to define.  I
> know when I see or hear something that I think is out of line.  And I
> know that the line I would draw for that is different than what
> someone else would draw.  This makes it very difficult, at least in
> many cases, to be able to confidently label something as porn.  Yet,
> if we are going to have a policy that identifies porn as spam, leading
> to deletion and banishment, it is necessary that we have a somewhat
> defined definition of the term and that everyone is familiar with just
> what it is.  Wikipedia provides the following definition:
>
> "Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject

> matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

[dead kennedy]

i am a little uncomfortable with the "intent" to sexually stimulate.

this link for example

http://www.bettersex4christianstoday.com/?gclid=CMCXo7e7x5cCFQmKMAodyD5qTA

Im sure that in reading, there will be a certain stimulation as it
cant be helped...eyes, brians, neurons, dick! Even though the reason i
might post it is the humour i derive from "christian sex advice
sites" (childish as it is).

How about we use the google TOS porn as spam?

i understand the mods have been sucessfully filtering out porn ever
since ive been here for which i am grateful, the system has worked
extremely well so far.

Also, this is an adults group so if regular posters, or even newbies
want to post something that is absolutely porn but is a genuine
attempt to stimulate discussion then its fine by me. I have a pretty
strong stomach but for when that fails i have an off switch.

On 17 Dec, 01:17, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Porn is, at least for me, something that is difficult to define.  I
> know when I see or hear something that I think is out of line.  And I
> know that the line I would draw for that is different than what
> someone else would draw.  This makes it very difficult, at least in
> many cases, to be able to confidently label something as porn.  Yet,
> if we are going to have a policy that identifies porn as spam, leading
> to deletion and banishment, it is necessary that we have a somewhat
> defined definition of the term and that everyone is familiar with just
> what it is.  Wikipedia provides the following definition:
>
> "Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject

> matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography

[rappoccio]

I agree with the spirit of this, however Google itself requests that
we ban porn. We're not making this rule. You have no idea how many
times I've clicked off the "TRIPLE XXX MAKE YOUR PENIS LARGER BIG FAT
BUTT LADIES" in the "Moderators" section. This is the porn we're
deleting.

Joe is making a federal case because he wants Dev to be banned. He has
a delusion that there is an atheist bias here, somehow. No matter how
many times I explain that I (and others) have banned atheists for
similar infractions, it falls on deaf ears.

We do this to make the forum go more smoothly, not out of some
megalomaniacal desire to control things! (I know you're not suggesting
this, but many, many, many others are). No good deed goes unpunished.

On Dec 17, 5:51 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i am a little uncomfortable with the "intent" to sexually stimulate.
>
> this link for example
>

> http://www.bettersex4christianstoday.com/?gclid=CMCXo7e7x5cCFQmKMAody...

[checkers]

On Dec 17, 7:16 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the spirit of this, however Google itself requests that
> we ban porn. We're not making this rule. You have no idea how many
> times I've clicked off the "TRIPLE XXX MAKE YOUR PENIS LARGER BIG FAT
> BUTT LADIES" in the "Moderators" section. This is the porn we're
> deleting.
>
> Joe is making a federal case because he wants Dev to be banned. He has
> a delusion that there is an atheist bias here, somehow. No matter how
> many times I explain that I (and others) have banned atheists for
> similar infractions, it falls on deaf ears.
>
> We do this to make the forum go more smoothly, not out of some
> megalomaniacal desire to control things! (I know you're not suggesting
> this, but many, many, many others are). No good deed goes unpunished.

so only bad deeds go unpunished then? that explains it :(

Rap, it must be my english but i an sure you wrote this wrong;
"no good deed goes unpunished"
should it not read
"no bad deed goes unpunished"

???

> > > This thread will stay open for a few days for your comments.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM, rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with the spirit of this, however Google itself requests that
we ban porn. We're not making this rule. You have no idea how many
times I've clicked off the "TRIPLE XXX MAKE YOUR PENIS LARGER BIG FAT
BUTT LADIES" in the "Moderators" section. This is the porn we're
deleting.

Joe is making a federal case because he wants Dev to be banned. He has
a delusion that there is an atheist bias here, somehow. No matter how
many times I explain that I (and others) have banned atheists for
similar infractions, it falls on deaf ears.

So true. 

Nobody noticed or cared when I banned the atheist, Jeremy, in September, for posting porn (sex/torture scenario).

In fact, it conveniently hasn't been mentioned at all in this entire fiasco regarding banning by those who are slandering me personally and as a Mod by charging me with bias.

I had actually forgotten about it until recently.

An announcement was made in exactly the same way that the Wanderer announcement was made.

 

Now they're all over us regarding Dev and implying bias, etc.

Just goes to prove the bias is in their shameless and self-serving minds only.

--
Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion. Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini, Andromeda

[trog69]

Dev may have come close to the line, but nothing any more outrageous, and in my opinion not nearly as filthy, as some of the frustrated IAATC remarks about/to women.

I admit that I'm not moved all that much by the written word, but I understand that some sensibilities must be deferred to since some may not be as "worldly" as myself. Since the same theists crying about Dev's remarks said nothing when IAATC went off the deep end, fuck them.

--
"I spent a lot of money on booze and women. The rest I just wasted." -George Best

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dev may have come close to the line, but nothing any more outrageous, and in my opinion not nearly as filthy, as some of the frustrated IAATC remarks about/to women.

I admit that I'm not moved all that much by the written word, but I understand that some sensibilities must be deferred to since some may not be as "worldly" as myself. Since the same theists crying about Dev's remarks said nothing when IAATC went off the deep end, fuck them.

They accuse us of bias and not one of them has objected to IAATCs remarks.

I've proven my lack of bias by banning Jeremy, an atheist who posted sex/torture porn.

They continue to prove their bias by refusing to object to IAATC.

And then they want us to trust them to be Mods.

My irony meter is melting on this one.

[trog69]

Are you ready? Here comes a "yeahbut".

What Jeremy did was overtly outrageous, and I doubt even a porno website would allow that kind of contemptible garbage to stand.

I'm sorry, but I think you and the other mods should not respond to these cretins, nor should you allow Brock to be a ignition point. The mods have an ethical duty to be evenhanded in bans and such, but otherwise, I'd think twice about any democratic solutions, or even explanations for what you do, as you wont ever make us all happy, so fuck it. Just do what you've been doing.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you ready? Here comes a "yeahbut".

What Jeremy did was overtly outrageous, and I doubt even a porno website would allow that kind of contemptible garbage to stand.

I'm sorry, but I think you and the other mods should not respond to these cretins, nor should you allow Brock to be a ignition point. The mods have an ethical duty to be evenhanded in bans and such, but otherwise, I'd think twice about any democratic solutions, or even explanations for what you do, as you wont ever make us all happy, so fuck it. Just do what you've been doing.

Yeah but ;-)...

I agree to a point.

The problem here is perception not reality. The only way we can deal with the pathological liars on this site who are  fabricating a perception of bias, unfortunately, is by dealing with them head on.

By making the moderation process open I think we are accomplishing that and frankly its taking the wind out their sails.

The facts are presented here and presented in an objective, honest, straightforward manner.

They can spew all the shit they want but they can't say they haven't been heard and they can't say there's bias without being exposed as blatant and obvious liars because we are proving by presenting the facts that the opposite is the case.

We can also state that no other news groups do this. Every other news group that I'm aware of gives the Moderators and Owners full and unquestionable powers to ban for whatever reason they feel like.

We are far exceeding our mandate by doing this so the whiners haven't got a leg to stand on when they whine about all the things they whine about.

ACRD does not do this either. They ban arbitrarily on whatever they feel like.

So, if they want to stop being the blatant hypocrites and pathological liars that they've been clearly exposed as being, then I suggest that they make all of the changes they want us to make on ACRD first including setting up an open and public Moderation Group for their members.

Put their money where their mouth is so to speak.

Essentially because we've taken this approach all their griping and complaining has fizzled down to nothing.

 

Now that said, this Moderation Group was not set up for them. It was set up for the Mods to discuss these issues. It's something that some of us wanted before this ugly fiasco which was created by the ACRD members.

I don't believe in catering to pathological liars and drama queens and rewarding them for engaging in this type of immoral and unethical behavior.

The Moderation Group works for us, has proven to be a huge benefit for us and has had the added benefit of completely destroying their ability to disrupt AvC anymore in the way that they have for two months and are continuing to try to do.

Just my two cents worth. 

[trog69]

Sounds good. Case closed I hope.

On Dec 23, 9:49 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Dev may have come close to the line, but nothing any more outrageous, and
> >>> in my opinion not nearly as filthy, as some of the frustrated IAATC remarks
> >>> about/to women.
>
> >>> I admit that I'm not moved all that much by the written word, but I
> >>> understand that some sensibilities must be deferred to since some may not be
> >>> as "worldly" as myself. Since the same theists crying about Dev's remarks
> >>> said nothing when IAATC went off the deep end, fuck them.
>
> >> They accuse us of bias and not one of them has objected to IAATCs remarks.
>
> >> I've proven my lack of bias by banning Jeremy, an atheist who posted
> >> sex/torture porn.
>
> >> They continue to prove their bias by refusing to object to IAATC.
>
> >> And then they want us to trust them to be Mods.
>
> >> My irony meter is melting on this one.
>

> >>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

[OldMan]

On Dec 23, 8:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dev may have come close to the line, but nothing any more outrageous, and
> > in my opinion not nearly as filthy, as some of the frustrated IAATC remarks
> > about/to women.
>
> > I admit that I'm not moved all that much by the written word, but I
> > understand that some sensibilities must be deferred to since some may not be
> > as "worldly" as myself. Since the same theists crying about Dev's remarks
> > said nothing when IAATC went off the deep end, fuck them.
>
> They accuse us of bias and not one of them has objected to IAATCs remarks.

I realize I am not one who is accusing you of bias, but I am a theist
who objected to his remarks and reported him to Google.

>
> I've proven my lack of bias by banning Jeremy, an atheist who posted
> sex/torture porn.
>
> They continue to prove their bias by refusing to object to IAATC.
>
> And then they want us to trust them to be Mods.
>
> My irony meter is melting on this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:22 PM, OldMan <edja...@msn.com> wrote:

On Dec 23, 8:13 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, trog69 <tom.tro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dev may have come close to the line, but nothing any more outrageous, and
> > in my opinion not nearly as filthy, as some of the frustrated IAATC remarks
> > about/to women.
>
> > I admit that I'm not moved all that much by the written word, but I
> > understand that some sensibilities must be deferred to since some may not be
> > as "worldly" as myself. Since the same theists crying about Dev's remarks
> > said nothing when IAATC went off the deep end, fuck them.
>
> They accuse us of bias and not one of them has objected to IAATCs remarks.

I realize I am not one who is accusing you of bias, but I am a theist
who objected to his remarks and reported him to Google.

Apologies OM. Now that you and Simon are back I do have to watch that generalization. Simon objected too IAATC too.

I was referring to those who have been whining only.

[trog69]

Apologies OM. Now that you and Simon are back I do have to watch that generalization. Simon objected too IAATC too.

>I was referring to those who have been whining only.

Yeah, I really don't want to get into finger pointing here, as it's pointless. Ahahahaa hehe aaaaaahhhhh. As I've said, I don't give a rip what's said, as long as it doesn't get to personal info territory, or blatant spoofs. Everything else; Reader beware.