The Fight for the Padded Room (NSFW)

[Mazderati]

This is exactly the opposite of a navel-gazing.

[Danno]

I think I’ve given more concrete ideas to preserve NSFW content on this site than any of the proponents of it. If you don’t like them, give me another solution.



Yes. There are a number of photos in that thread that without proof of consent would be easy to think the photo was taken without the knowledge of the subject, let alone with the knowledge it would be posted on the internet.

Plus, putting the burden on the subject to come forward and “prove” no consent was given is the exact wrong way to do this.

I told myself I was not going to post in here again, but... First, the notion that pictures that are not taken by the person posting are somehow "safer" and more obviously consented to is simply ludicrous. Amateur porn is a thing. And for those porn pictures, the notion that people can just report pictures that they view as questionable and the mods can easily figure out whether the picture was consented to or contains someone underage is similarly ludicrous.

And no, you have no evidence that any of the pictures in the ullr thread were posted without consent. You have just decided that some are questionable. At least be honest and admit that in response to the question. I agree, we all agree, that pictures posted in there must have consent. Some feel that we need more evidence than the picture poster's declaration (implied or directly stated), others think that's enough. Heck, it's actually more direct "evidence" than we'll ever get with amateur porn, but I can understand why some don't think it's enough. But again, let's at least be honest about the debate.

And those of you who act like the person raising the issue has played no role in this debate, pull your heads out of your asses. She's been tilting at windmills here on variations of how men are terrible, and she just finally found the right windmill at the right time, with a year old picture and a thread that's been here forever.

[jono]

That is exactly what some posters are suggesting and is the impetus for this thread. And the rest of your proposal is.still as open-ended as it was from the start.

Couple of false equivalencies here lately: first, you must know that there's a difference between wishing people wouldn't post porn and wishing they weren't allowed to post it, right? Please point out who's saying the latter, because I only see the former. (Maybe I'm ignoring something; these threads do encourage that.) Second, the difficulty of doing anything is not an excuse to do nothing. Imperfect adjustments may still be an improvement.

[wyeaster]

edit: weird ass butt post

[SkiCougar]

can't believe this made it 6 pages in 24 hours.

I propose to ban any serious political posts from the padded room. a snarky comment sure; but any serious discussion needs to go to poly ass.

i'm a rotten evil conservative but all my rotten evil conservative posts are in poly ass, I don't muck this place up.

[Kenny Satch]

Are you from canaduh?
Read a Book

Nothing gets by you
maybe I will read a book

[Bunion 2020]

can't believe this made it 6 pages in 24 hours.

I propose to ban any serious political posts from the padded room. a snarky comment sure; but any serious discussion needs to go to poly ass.

i'm a rotten evil conservative but all my rotten evil conservative posts are in poly ass, I don't muck this place up.

One of your very few redeeming qualities.

[Mazderati]

Couple of false equivalencies here lately: first, you must know that there's a difference between wishing people wouldn't post porn and wishing they weren't allowed to post it, right? Please point out who's saying the latter, because I only see the former. (Maybe I'm ignoring something; these threads do encourage that.) Second, the difficulty of doing anything is not an excuse to do nothing. Imperfect adjustments may still be an improvement.

Get up to speed. And it sounds like you're volunteering to establish some sort of verification process since it's easy. Please report back when you have it figured out.

[GeezerSteve]

She's been tilting at windmills here on variations of how men are terrible, and she just finally found the right windmill at the right time.
. . .

[Supermoon]

I told myself I was going to post in here again, but... First, the notion that pictures that are not taken by the person posting are somehow "safer" and more obviously consented to is simply ludicrous. Amateur porn is a thing. And for those pictures, the notion that people can just report pictures that they view as questionable and the mods can easily figure out whether the picture was consented to or contains someone underage is similarly ludicrous.

And no, you have no evidence that any of the pictures in the ullr thread were posted without consent. You have just decided that some are questionable. At least be honest and admit that in response to the question. I agree, we all agree, that pictures posted in there must have consent. Some feel that we need more evidence than the picture poster's declaration (implied or directly stated), others think that's enough. Heck, it's actually more direct "evidence" than we'll ever get with amateur porn, but I can understand why some don't think it's enough. But again, let's at least be honest about the debate.

And those of you who act like the person raising the issue has played no role in this debate, pull your heads out of your asses. She's been tilting at windmills here on variations of how men are terrible, and she just finally found the right windmill at the right time, with a year old picture and a thread that's been here forever.

1) you’re right. Amateurish stuff is all questionable and should be treated as such. There are no perfect solutions but we can be much better with very little effort.

2) the impetus should be on the poster to prove consent. Not the other way around. That means a photo is assumed to not have consent unless shown otherwise. That’s the only way to approach it because of the potential consequences of getting it wrong.

3) just because you don’t like her doesn’t mean she isn’t right here

[jono]

Get up to speed. And it sounds like you're volunteering to establish some sort of verification process since it's easy. Please report back when you have it figured out.

Ah yes, spindrift. I guess I was ignoring him as easily as iceman was ignoring all the peoe Silversurfer quoted. Some things are easy. I make no claim that any rule here needs to be easy, I said that repeatedly stating that it's hard (or a that you can imagine a way that any rule could have a hiccup) is no excuse to do nothing.

[willywhit]

I asked an old ski buddy if he still frequented TGR forums, since I've recently dipped my toes back into this chilly water after no posts for years.
HE SAID, he lost interest due to all the political crap.
skiing and politics don't mix. period. plenty of stuff mixes well...I'll make a list later. Boobs and beer mix really well, IMHO. Let's wrap this crap up, cuz my timing was weird, coming back, and a shit show of PC posting...on TGR of all places. I blame Trump, oops, my bad.

[willywhit]

Then just nuke that thread and be done with it.

pretty much . and put mtngrl on ignore. problem solved.
you were warned

[Adolf Allerbush]

pretty much . and put mtngrl on ignore. problem solved.
you were warned

What will Ullr do then?

[The AD]

2) the impetus should be on the poster to prove consent. Not the other way around. That means a photo is assumed to not have consent unless shown otherwise. That’s the only way to approach it because of the potential consequences of getting it wrong.

No, it's not the only approach. How about simply telling people not to post nekked photos of others without their consent? I don't really understand why that's not enough. Just add it to the Padded Room disclaimer.

[Supermoon]

No, it's not the only approach. How about simply telling people not to post nekked photos of others without their consent? I don't really understand why that's not enough. Just add it to the Padded Room disclaimer.

But how do you enforce it? We all agree on the concept, but are disagreeing on what level of proof we should require.

It’s all a risk mitigation exercise. Your suggestion is more like “let’s ski this slope and if it slides we won’t ski it the rest of the day” and I think we should be digging pits and reading terrain.

[willywhit]

You should learn to embed videos. Like this..



It isn't hard.

Oh, and sit down bro.

stfu, beeeeotch

https://www.facebook.com/Geoffgulevi...5232445517590/

[mtngirl79]

stfu, beeeeotch <iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGe offgulevich%2Fvideos%2F1845232445517590%2F&show_te xt=0&width=560" width="560" height="420" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

Nice job! I bet your mama is proud.

Oh, and sit down, little bro.

[iceman]

Ah yes, spindrift. I guess I was ignoring him as easily as iceman was ignoring all the peoe Silversurfer quoted.

Oh fuck off. I was gonna let it go since it never pays to argue with that moron, and I see the same goes for you, but he quoted four people, 3 of whom didn't say what he claims except obliquely in the quoted posts and the 4th of whom I don't agree with and hadn't seen the post. Hardly a consensus that this is supposed to be some kind of boys' club. Eat a dick jono.

[digitaldeaths mom]

I told myself I was going to post in here again, but... First, the notion that pictures that are not taken by the person posting are somehow "safer" and more obviously consented to is simply ludicrous. Amateur porn is a thing. And for those pictures, the notion that people can just report pictures that they view as questionable and the mods can easily figure out whether the picture was consented to or contains someone underage is similarly ludicrous.

And no, you have no evidence that any of the pictures in the ullr thread were posted without consent. You have just decided that some are questionable. At least be honest and admit that in response to the question. I agree, we all agree, that pictures posted in there must have consent. Some feel that we need more evidence than the picture poster's declaration (implied or directly stated), others think that's enough. Heck, it's actually more direct "evidence" than we'll ever get with amateur porn, but I can understand why some don't think it's enough. But again, let's at least be honest about the debate.

And those of you who act like the person raising the issue has played no role in this debate, pull your heads out of your asses. She's been tilting at windmills here on variations of how men are terrible, and she just finally found the right windmill at the right time, with a year old picture and a thread that's been here forever.

As one of the women on this thread, I would like to say "bravo" to Danno.
I also like to add that if women don't want pictures of their hoo-hoo posted on social media they shouldn't sit in front of the bathroom mirror with their legs spread open snapping pictures of it. Back in the old days when we had Polaroid cameras, Nubs took a picture of me in a voyeuristic moment. He used it as bookmark until one day while vacationing in FL it fell out in the Holiday Inn. He looked all over for that picture and never found it, and I learned an important lesson: "It's ok to be a prude and not pose in the nude."

[MagnificentUnicorn]

What will Ullr do then?

Skadi will sit on his face and he'll suffocate.

[The AD]

But how do you enforce it? We all agree on the concept, but are disagreeing on what level of proof we should require.

It’s all a risk mitigation exercise. Your suggestion is more like “let’s ski this slope and if it slides we won’t ski it the rest of the day” and I think we should be digging pits and reading terrain.

I'd say a more appropriate analogy would be "we need to vet every person who wishes to sell an item in Gear Swap. How can we know they're legit and really have an item to sell?" Well, we don't, but we trust that most people are not thieves. Occasionally there may be one who slips in and they need to be dealt with. Same principle applies here.

[GeezerSteve]

But how do you enforce it? We all agree on the concept, but are disagreeing on what level of proof we should require.

I'm with AD on this. As I said on page 1, requiring a claim of consent is meaningless. If a guy is creepy enough to post a pic of his GF or ex-GF without consent, he is necessarily creepy enough to falsely claim that he has consent.

The logical starting place is to ban all nudity unless the poster has consent from the subject in the pic.

But there's no effective way to enforce either rule. The only effective way to stop the theoretical nonconsensual nude pic is to ban all nude pics and to enforce that rule.

[jono]

Oh fuck off. I was gonna let it go since it never pays to argue with that moron, and I see the same goes for you, but he quoted four people, 3 of whom didn't say what he claims except obliquely in the quoted posts and the 4th of whom I don't agree with and hadn't seen the post. Eat a dick jono.

Geez dude, settle down. I literally just said I had done the exact same thing you did. I didn't accuse you of killing the tags. There are a lot of ignorable posts in this shit storm and I'm saying it's perfectly reasonable to ignore them. You disagree?

[iceman]

What?