A question About posting Pics? (to the Mods and Admin)

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 10:55pm

What is the Limit of pic content that can be posted anywhere on the MB? (When I mean content I mean sexual) Can we post any "R" rated material or is there a "PG-13" Limit? What are the Limits exactly??

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 11:05pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:What is the Limit of pic content that can be posted anywhere on the MB? (When I mean content I mean sexual) Can we post any "R" rated material or is there a "PG-13" Limit? What are the Limits exactly??

My webhost does not allow me to host explicit pornography as part of its terms of service. Therefore, you cannot post explicit pornography, or I'll be forced to delete it. Anything below that would be OK, I suppose, although I'll dump hate literature etc. into the Hall of Shame.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 11:15pm

So "R" rated Playboy type pics are okay?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 11:18pm

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:So "R" rated Playboy type pics are okay?

As long as they don't qualify as explicit pornography. I'm not sure if nude pictures count or not. Does anybody know how explicit porno is defined?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-20 11:22pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:So "R" rated Playboy type pics are okay?
As long as they don't qualify as explicit pornography. I'm not sure if nude pictures count or not. Does anybody know how explicit porno is defined?

I'm no expert on the legalize but I believe that would need genitals showing. Tits and ass are ok.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2002-10-20 11:23pm

I assume that includes Pussy shot where you see her Legs spread and you see Pink, or some Lesbian sex or, some Dude Giving it to a Girl (or Guy). That and anything Beyond I would think would be Explictic Porn.

But then Again ppl have a tendancy of putting in Playboy and the Like with Porno.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-20 11:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:So "R" rated Playboy type pics are okay?
As long as they don't qualify as explicit pornography. I'm not sure if nude pictures count or not. Does anybody know how explicit porno is defined?

If it has no literary or cultural value, and is clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest in sex, maybe? That's how the government defines pornography, I think.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-20 11:25pm

Durran Korr wrote:If it has no literary or cultural value, and is clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest in sex, maybe? That's how the government defines pornography, I think.

That's a pretty broad definition. By that token, many beer commercials are pornography.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-20 11:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:If it has no literary or cultural value, and is clearly intended to appeal to a prurient interest in sex, maybe? That's how the government defines pornography, I think.
That's a pretty broad definition. By that token, many beer commercials are pornography.

It's the definittion given in most dictionarys. But i gave the definition I've seen used most commonly for these sort of situations.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-20 11:31pm

I got a warning on Space Battles for posting "Birth of Venus", damn immoral muses and their araeles.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-20 11:32pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:I got a warning on Space Battles for posting "Birth of Venus", damn immoral muses and their araeles.

SB.com has a bunch of prudish, bible thumpers as mods so that's not really suprising.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-20 11:34pm

And one would figure that Classic art like that could squeek past most any censors....

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-20 11:35pm

One more criteria I forgot, in addition to the two I posted: the material must be presented in a way that is clearly offensive to the public.

This is the defintion the government currently uses for obscenity (which is not currently protected by the First Amendment, believe it or not).

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-20 11:38pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:And one would figure that Classic art like that could squeek past most any censors....

Not with the bible thumpers. After all they more than any other group desecrated works considered morally offensive. They destroyed a lot of beautiful and acient artwork for the sake of prudish morality.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-20 11:46pm

Yes, but Birth of Venus was released DURING the Inquisition & the Medaeci without having any trouble at all.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-10-20 11:54pm

Stormbringer wrote:SB.com has a bunch of prudish, bible thumpers as mods so that's not really suprising.

And which ones are the prudish bible thumpers? The only one I can think of which is anything like that is Dent.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-20 11:58pm

XaLEv wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:SB.com has a bunch of prudish, bible thumpers as mods so that's not really suprising.
And which ones are the prudish bible thumpers? The only one I can think of which is anything like that is Dent.

Dent is the prime example. Steletek and BigBryan just bitch so much a lot of the mods have done it just to shut them up.

Though Nicol has been a bit of prude on some of that stuff.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-21 12:01am

Yes, it was Dent who sent me the warning.

BS, and Bryant just did an LOL at Dent, and said that they had no problems with Botticelli

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-21 12:05am

No obvious Porno, No sex ect ect

And you better have a bloody good reason for posting Pics, I'm not much of a prude but I do surf this board at Work and I DONT need R Rated pics poping up as my boss walks by

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 12:06am

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Yes, it was Dent who sent me the warning.

BS, and Bryant just did an LOL at Dent, and said that they had no problems with Botticelli

I wasn't refering to that event specifically. It's happen a few times in pic posting threads with some of the more risque pics.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-10-21 01:07am

Yes, I know, I hang out at all three places, SB, SD.Net, and the ASVS newsgroup.

Funny how many people ask me for a addy link to the latter....

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2002-10-21 02:13am

Darth Wong wrote:
THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:So "R" rated Playboy type pics are okay?
As long as they don't qualify as explicit pornography. I'm not sure if nude pictures count or not. Does anybody know how explicit porno is defined?

Explicit pornography would be something that depicts intercourse, or lewd pictures in general. Just someone posing nude would not generally be considered porn.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-10-21 05:48am

Mr Bean wrote:No obvious Porno, No sex ect ect

And you better have a bloody good reason for posting Pics, I'm not much of a prude but I do surf this board at Work and I DONT need R Rated pics poping up as my boss walks by

So instead we should set up porno links as boobytraps for you and your boss to enjoy?

By the way, what does Mike's internet host say about links to porn?

Truthfully, we get hooked up with enough weird links/pics around here (Shep's Colon-cam photo etc...) that I can do without the R rated (or more graphic) stuff. Besides the gross-out factor I also look at this site from work on ocassion and there are a lot of Bible thumpers where I work, not to mention the company's policies.

XaLEv · Post by **XaLEv** » 2002-10-22 06:03pm

There any rules about posting camel toe pics?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-22 06:17pm

If this is just so you can get mastubation fuel to be posted, I say fuck no.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A question About posting Pics? (to the Mods and Admin)

A question About posting Pics? (to the Mods and Admin)

Re: A question About posting Pics? (to the Mods and Admin)