NSFW in Thread Titles, PLEASE!!!

[32BT]

Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out?

Only if they're female, obv

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?

How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?

[Rob C]

The day that LuLa starts to show porn is the day to start worrying.

That anyone, anywhere, might find what's appeared in Lula offensive is firmly their problem. If anyone glancing over the shoulder of anyone watching the 'show' at his/her place of work feels a bit miffed, then I humbly suggest that person visit a medical centre and seek psychological help.

To attempt to censor LuLa in any way is madness: it simply doesn't need it.

The problem is what, exactly, that people look the way they do? God made a huge mistake? Some people have the good fortune to be born and grow up 'better-looking' than others? Wow, perverted socialism at root! I'm ugly and therefore everyone who isn't must remain hidden in case my looks are seen as lesser; that I may feel a twinge of inferiority? Shit, if that's your national outlook, thank God I don't live amongst you.

The world is infinitely varied; people are infinitely varied and to hope or pretend otherwise is so sad, such denial.

Long live LuLa, long live Lula Libre! to paraphrase the departed general.

Rob C

[Rob C]

And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?

How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?

Health warning: this is tongue-in-cheek (my own cheek, sweet prudes).




OOOOH YES!

Then I shall have almost total monopoly of a single type of input!!! Great thinking, do it now!

;-)

Rob C

[graeme]

Man, all the guy was asking for was a little note -- "May be NSFW." Even FARK, possibly one of the snarkiest forums on the net, does it. Nobody's suggesting censorship; just a little courtesy.

+1

[Bryan Conner]

Curtesy = holding the door for bank robbers on their way out?

Or is it "curtesy= holding the door for the "o" robbers on their way out? 

[32BT]

Man, all the guy was asking for was a little note -- "May be NSFW." Even FARK, possibly one of the snarkiest forums on the net, does it. Nobody's suggesting censorship; just a little courtesy.

+1

-1

NSFW has also become a meme for "juicy pictures inside" so its use on other forums is totally and utterly irrelevant for the purposes mentioned here and it would in fact create "unwanted confusion". (And yes, that was meant to be euphemistic!).

[RFPhotography]

And what to do with a thread like Recent Professional Works, with 20-30 pages with architecture, car, product shots and a few tasteful nudes? Brand the whole thread NSFW?

How about Michael Ezra? Shell we kick him out of the thread and send him in exile, to a separate, scarlet letter thread? As if he is doing something wrong? For the benefit of those who are actually doing something wrong (misusing their employer's resources)?

He's not necessarily doing anything wrong.  Most employers permit personal, limited internet usage as long as it doesn't interfere with company work.  That includes doing so during a lunch time. 

[Ben Rubinstein]

The hysteria of those objecting to what is the norm on almost every photography forum on the net is very telling.

[fike]

I'm quite shocked at how controversial this request seems to be with some people.  It was a bit disappointing until I read back through the thread and found that basically three people are sustaining the argument against the seven people who have spoken in support of the simple courtesy.  Most notably Michael R. seems to think the idea fine.  We are in Michael's house, so I think his reasonable point of view should prevail.  

As for some of the issues people have brought up:
* Don't surf at work.  Mind your own business.  You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.
* Long threads with a single possible NSFW image. sh!t happens.  Try to avoid it.  Maybe start an alternate thread with the racier images...like "cars with naked ladies on them" alongside the cars thread.
* NSFW is a meme for "juicy pictures inside." So what.  Maybe they are juicy.  I'll have a look when I get home tonight.
* This is just another form of censorship.  No, it is not.  This is labeling so that informed consumers of information can make choices.  It is no different than putting a adult rating on a movie. This sort of reasonable accommodation actually makes it easier to fight AGAINST censorship because those who object to the information are empowered to make informed choices.

I have no personal objection to nudity in art and pop culture, but I live in a 9-5 world where those things need to be temporarily put aside. It is the reality I live in and debating the trend is irrelevant to the reality.  

You know, there are some other places on the web that have created a different tag. It is NSFL--Not Safe for Life.  This tag is used for gory, bloody, or scatological content. I am personally upset by some of these things, so I appreciate the tag because I can avoid being assaulted by photos and videos of decapitated heads and stuff.  It isn't that big a leap of logic to consider that some people might feel the same way about the human form.  While I disagree with them, it is courteous for me to not trick them (with thread titles that don't contain sufficiently descriptive information) into accidentally seeing things they don't want to.

[AFairley]

I am sorry, but i strongly disagree. It is not our job to worry about his (potential) work issues. It is his. As mentioned, just do not waste company time or resources on private matters. Period. I actually can not believe people's nerve to request such a thing.

The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you.  All he is asking for is a little common courtesy.  And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified.  Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them.  Frankly, I am appalled at your response.

[telyt]

The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you.  All he is asking for is a little common courtesy.  And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified.  Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them.  Frankly, I am appalled at your response.

+1

A little courtesy goes a long way.

[32BT]

Mind your own business.  You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.

Exactly!

Members consider this a liberal environment with a reasoned, intelligent, and adult audience. A civil place where they do not have to worry about labelling. They don't want to "presume to be a judge" on whether their work is suitable for your viewing. They wouldn't create the work in the first place if they didn't think it was appropriate for viewing.

If the majority here (and the owner) want labelling to ensue, so be it. Things change. We all move happily along and continue to post images according to the new rules, and some will look elsewhere and this will just become another one of those forums.

For as long as discussion about this issue is still reasonable, intelligent, and civil, I will happily defend my position, even though I am not an Artist.

[32BT]

The OP's request is eminently reasonable, and your dismissive responses Slobodan do not speak well of you.  All he is asking for is a little common courtesy.  And as anyone who works in a typical US work environment can tell you, his concern is not unjustified.  Whether or not workplace policies are rational is irrelevant, the point is that he is require to follow them.  Frankly, I am appalled at your response.

Well, a lot of us don't work in a typical US work environment. There are more countries with internet these days you know? Just for discussion's sake: do we now label all threads with a link to music with "music inside" just because there may be a fundamentalist roaming the site?

[32BT]

The hysteria of those objecting to what is the norm on almost every photography forum on the net is very telling.

The fact that the true Artists aren't posting on those forums is equally telling.

(probably stretching the truth there as much as you did with the word "hysteria".  )

[PeterAit]

I understand what you are saying, but your proposed solution seems a bit odd. You are asking many people who post here to do something for the sole purpose of allowing you to read the forums wherever and whenever you want. It seems a lot more reasonable for you to not read the forums at those times and places. In other words, it's your problem so you should solve it, not ask everyone else to solve it for you.

[Rob C]

I understand what you are saying, but your proposed solution seems a bit odd. You are asking many people who post here to do something for the sole purpose of allowing you to read the forums wherever and whenever you want. It seems a lot more reasonable for you to not read the forums at those times and places. In other words, it's your problem so you should solve it, not ask everyone else to solve it for you.

Absolutely right.

Rob C

[graeme]

1. I'm off to a life drawing class in a couple of hours.

2. I've spent quite a bit of time in life drawing classes over the last 20 years.

3. My partner was a lifemodel for a while.

4. I don't seem to have any problem with nudity.

5. IMHO Fike's request was entirely reasonable.

Graeme

[Rob C]

1. I'm off to a life drawing class in a couple of hours.

2. I've spent quite a bit of time in life drawing classes over the last 20 years.

3. My partner was a lifemodel for a while.

4. I don't seem to have any problem with nudity.

5. IMHO Fike's request was entirely reasonable.

Graeme

Aha! Split personality! Join the club.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... * Don't surf at work.  Mind your own business.  You don't know me, my work environment, or my company's policies, so don't presume to be a judge.
* Long threads with a single possible NSFW image. sh!t happens.  Try to avoid it.  Maybe start an alternate thread with the racier images...like "cars with naked ladies on them" alongside the cars thread...

Seriously!? Mind my own business!? After YOU asking me (us) to mind YOUR business!? You are asking us to do something for you, something that goes against what many of us strongly believe!?

You now want us to change threads that have being going on for YEARS successfully and to create red light-district threads to pander to your preferred way of spending your lunch time!?

Mind your own business, Sir, indeed!