Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

All the porn you watch features swearing?

Did watch.

So thats you done on porn for life then is it?

DonDaddyD wrote:

Have you ever seen a porn where the woman says "make sweet passionate love to me?" or is she more likely to include the word f*ck?

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

DonDaddyD

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.

Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?

If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:

This is a forum,not film and audio certification.

Swearing is adult content? How out of touch with todays yoof ar you?

Yes, you're right it is a forum it still has a responsibility for the content it displays both text and visual. Swearing in the context of being used by a commercial entity such as bikeradar - which is part of a publicised magazine - would have to adhere to said commercial rules and regulations aroudn the use and publication of adult content of which, swearing is considered.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.

Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?

If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:

All the porn you watch features swearing?

Did watch.

Have you ever seen a porn where the woman says "make sweet passionate love to me?" or is she more likely to include the word f*ck?

And you chose to watch it,just like people choose to open "Girls in__" threads. I don't quite understand how you've went from lycra girls vs swearing to lycra and swearing vs porn.

You're just stabbing around in the dark now trying to find something to whine about really.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.

Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?

If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:

This is a forum,not film and audio certification.

Swearing is adult content? How out of touch with todays yoof ar you?

Yes, you're right it is a forum it still has a responsibility for the content it displays both text and visual. Swearing in the context of being used by a commercial entity such as bikeradar - which is part of a publicised magazine - would have to adhere to said commercial rules and regulations aroudn the use and publication of adult content of which, swearing is considered.

So you aren't actually sure if it does or not? You're just imagining how the internet is ran and manipulating it to suit.

If not,please provide a source.

What law states that shelf magazine publishers who own and operate internet forums have to "adhere to commercial rules regarding content"?

msmancunia

Greg66 wrote:

[one gets a strong feeling that the admin and mods are pretty sympathetic to the girls picture threads. Or perhaps are keen to retain the user base that comes with them - I don't know which.

It would be nice if the admin were sympathetic to the girls that also visit this site, rather than the threads. I get the impression that they think that we're kicking off a fuss about nothing.

Women do accept that there is some tiny part in a bloke's brain that will be forever set to schoolboy mode, and most of the time, it can be very funny and actually quite endearing. I'm probably not quite as feminist as Velo (and I don't mean that to be offensive to her) - I've worked in some very male dominated professions and take the view that for most men, they're pretty much all mouth and no trousers - it's all hot air. Try being the only girl in a kitchen brigade with 13 men. I've been locked in walk-in fridges and felt up, had my bum smacked whilst bending over a table, and been asked to judge a "biggest c**k* competition where they all dropped their pants (I picked up a meat cleaver for that one). But they also were very nice at times, very caring when I lost my mum when I was 23, and very very funny. When I fronted up to them, they usually went red, stammered, and crawled off.

But, as I've said, there is a fine line between what is acceptable, appreciative, mildly titilating, and degrading/offensive. And while most people have an internal filter that tells them deep down, what is going a bit far, I think the fact that this is an internet forum, where most people don't know each other, exacerbates this. It's almost like a pack mentality at times, where people seem to want to "better" the last post with shockability.

I don't like the "well if you don't like it, don't look" attitude though. That's not addressing the issue. The people who think that probably also cycle past when another cyclist's got a puncture and have a good snigger about it. Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean someone else doesn't either.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

All the porn you watch features swearing?

Did watch.

So thats you done on porn for life then is it?

Nothing is absolute, but at the moment I feel I've outgrown it. It feels creepy when you're older than most of the performers.

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

I think we are getting off point. The point is that sexual content, swearing and things depicting violence/hatred are usually grouped together and are considered content for mature users. Cool, if bikeradar/cycling plus wants to go down that route. I was just (originally) wondering why accept one and not the others.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

All the porn you watch features swearing?

Did watch.

So thats you done on porn for life then is it?

Nothing is absolute, but at the moment I feel I've outgrown it. It feels creepy when you're older than most of the performers.

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

I think we are getting off point. The point is that sexual content, swearing and things depicting violence/hatred are usually grouped together and are considered content for mature users. Cool, if bikeradar/cycling plus wants to go down that route. I was just (originally) wondering why accept one and not the others.

MonkeyMonster

Have to ask randomly - what swear words are not allowed anymore btw because I haven't noticed any changes or edits to any of the commonly used f, c or s words...?
The point was(potentially) initially raised in reference to a concept we can all uinderstand (swear words) to help guide those who didn't realise there was a more important issue at stake - the line being drawn against what is acceptable on a forum that says it is monitored for content...

clarkey cat

swear words can be moderated quite easily I imagine - some bit of kit can identify a c, a u, an n and a t next to each other and identify it as a swear-word and block it.

But there probably isnt a computer that identifies a picture as a 'titillating' or 'degrading' and so you'd have to have manual intervention - as supersonic has said, each mod will have his own subjective baromoter of the above. so, its left up to the users themselves to click the 'report' button.

makes sense to me.

DonDaddyD

Sigh... T.M.H.N.E.T,

http://www.futureplc.com/futurenet/term ... onditions/

3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).

t.m.h.n.e.t

clarkey cat wrote:

swear words can be moderated quite easily I imagine - some bit of kit can identify a c, a u, an n and a t next to each other and identify it as a swear-word and block it.

But there probably isnt a computer that identifies a picture as a 'titillating' or 'degrading' and so you'd have to have manual intervention - as supersonic has said, each mod will have his own subjective baromoter of the above. so, its left up to the users themselves to click the 'report' button.

makes sense to me.

This forum has built in filters,no clue as to whether they are actually setup or used.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

I think we are getting off point. The point is that sexual content, swearing and things depicting violence/hatred are usually grouped together and are considered content for mature users. Cool, if bikeradar/cycling plus wants to go down that route. I was just (originally) wondering why accept one and not the others.

I don't agree with that at all. I personally don't group violence, sex and hatred together like that. Theres a big difference between objectionable posts in "Girls In", flirting, casual swearing, and hateful arguments. I think its rational to be OK with swearing but not ok with girls on toilets.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sigh... T.M.H.N.E.T,

http://www.futureplc.com/futurenet/term ... onditions/

3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).

Has anything been posted on this forum that hasn't complied with UK law?

clarkey cat

you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online)

I think you're losing the plot a bit here DDD. This isnt a legal issue.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sigh... T.M.H.N.E.T,

http://www.futureplc.com/futurenet/term ... onditions/

3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).

Yet,you haven't actually managed to answer the question.Rather posted a very vague line from t+cs that look like they were written by a 5yr old.

That funnily enough,says nothing that pics of Jess Ennis in short shorts can't be posted.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

I think we are getting off point. The point is that sexual content, swearing and things depicting violence/hatred are usually grouped together and are considered content for mature users. Cool, if bikeradar/cycling plus wants to go down that route. I was just (originally) wondering why accept one and not the others.

I don't agree with that at all. I personally don't group violence, sex and hatred together like that. Theres a big difference between objectionable posts in "Girls In", flirting, casual swearing, and hateful arguments. I think its rational to be OK with swearing but not ok with girls on toilets.

OK that's fair enough, fair point.

I asked the question in the OP because normally swearing is associated with adult/mature content and not something for under 18/16s. Swearing seems frowned upon by bike radar.

Nudity and images of a sexual content are also associated as being and adult/mature yet these were widly accepted on bikeradar.

I simply wanted to know why one and not the over. People here would argue that swearing is more offensive than sexual images 'a bit of titty'. On the strength of the posts in this thread clearly not.

notsoblue

clarkey cat wrote:

you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online)

I think you're losing the plot a bit here DDD. This isnt a legal issue.

Might be if you're in Iran?

MonkeyMonster

skipping to the end...
if the forum moderators are to do their job and respond to unjustifiable content then we the viewers need to flag for attention. What counts as objectionable content? When 2 users both flag as innapropriate, 4, 6, 10% of viewers of that thread? At what point do you want them to make the judgement call based on your opinion of what is allowable? One or more of you has no doubt flagged some posts/threads as wrong. I suspect some or all of these requests to have removed have not been acted upon in the manner you wished. Are you wanting more people to join you in your cause and thus force the issue based on numbers - bearing in mind it then isn't democratic as you are changing things based on a minority view or for the moderators to be more aligned with your view?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clearly way more likely in the stuff you used to watch... Theres as much variation in porn as there is in people's private sex lives. You're just assuming everyone has the same proclivities that you have...er...had.

I think we are getting off point. The point is that sexual content, swearing and things depicting violence/hatred are usually grouped together and are considered content for mature users. Cool, if bikeradar/cycling plus wants to go down that route. I was just (originally) wondering why accept one and not the others.

I don't agree with that at all. I personally don't group violence, sex and hatred together like that. Theres a big difference between objectionable posts in "Girls In", flirting, casual swearing, and hateful arguments. I think its rational to be OK with swearing but not ok with girls on toilets.

OK that's fair enough, fair point.

I asked the question in the OP because normally swearing is associated with adult/mature content and not something for under 18/16s. Swearing seems frowned upon by bike radar.

Nudity and images of a sexual content are also associated as being and adult/mature yet these were widly accepted on bikeradar.

I simply wanted to know why one and not the over. People here would argue that swearing is more offensive than sexual images 'a bit of titty'. On the strength of the posts in this thread clearly not.

Hmmm, I think the discourse on this forum is pretty adult/mature without swearwords and dirty pictures. We have threads with pagecounts in the double figures about tax, politics, mortgages and having babies with random references to swinging and places like TG dotted around. Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless by or oblivious to most of the adult/mature content on here :P

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sigh... T.M.H.N.E.T,

http://www.futureplc.com/futurenet/term ... onditions/

3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).

Has anything been posted on this forum that hasn't complied with UK law?

Probably not but then I wouldn't look at that.

I would look at laws around showing sexual content to minors. The site has images of a sexual nature and nudity and does nothing to prevent access to minors. In fact you only need to be 16 or over to join this website. I believe UK Law states you have to be over 18 (a number of 'adult sites' have a age registration page or disclaimer stating that some content is intended for over 18s and the user has to agree that they are before they can enter ). That's what I'd be looking at. I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

clarkey cat

Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless

I'd imagine there's quite a few over 18 who find it pretty tedious too.

t.m.h.n.e.t

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sigh... T.M.H.N.E.T,

http://www.futureplc.com/futurenet/term ... onditions/

3. GENERAL RULES RELATING TO CONDUCT: The Website Service is made available for your own, personal use. The Website Service must not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever or for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. When you use the Website Service you must comply with all applicable UK laws relating to online conduct (including, without limitation, content which can be posted online) and with any applicable international laws, including the local laws in your country of residence (together referred to as “Applicable Laws“).

Has anything been posted on this forum that hasn't complied with UK law?

Probably not but then I wouldn't look at that.

I would look at laws around showing sexual content to minors. The site has images of a sexual nature and nudity and does nothing to prevent access to minors. In fact you only need to be 16 or over to join this website. I believe UK Law states you have to be over 18 (a number of 'adult sites' have a age registration page or disclaimer stating that some content is intended for over 18s and the user has to agree that they are before they can enter ). That's what I'd be looking at. I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

Last I checked, 18+ is relative to nudity. The pics on this forum are close but quite often enough is covered.

Paul E

MonkeyMonster wrote:

skipping to the end...
if the forum moderators are to do their job and respond to unjustifiable content then we the viewers need to flag for attention. What counts as objectionable content? When 2 users both flag as innapropriate, 4, 6, 10% of viewers of that thread? At what point do you want them to make the judgement call based on your opinion of what is allowable? One or more of you has no doubt flagged some posts/threads as wrong. I suspect some or all of these requests to have removed have not been acted upon in the manner you wished. Are you wanting more people to join you in your cause and thus force the issue based on numbers - bearing in mind it then isn't democratic as you are changing things based on a minority view or for the moderators to be more aligned with your view?

Since when has that ever stopped certain people on here voicing their own opinion as fact and that of the majority

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Probably not but then I wouldn't look at that.

I would look at laws around showing sexual content to minors. The site has images of a sexual nature and nudity and does nothing to prevent access to minors. In fact you only need to be 16 or over to join this website. I believe UK Law states you have to be over 18 (a number of 'adult sites' have a age registration page or disclaimer stating that some content is intended for over 18s and the user has to agree that they are before they can enter ). That's what I'd be looking at. I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

Thats a fair point, if true. If the law states that the content that moderators allow in threads like "Girls in" isn't suitable for people under 18, then they should probably change their moderation policy or up the minimum age. I don't think it is though.

notsoblue

clarkey cat wrote:

Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless

I'd imagine there's quite a few over 18 who find it pretty tedious too.

Don't censor me, bro.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

Hmmm, I think the discourse on this forum is pretty adult/mature without swearwords and dirty pictures. We have threads with pagecounts in the double figures about tax, politics, mortgages and having babies with random references to swinging and places like TG dotted around. Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless by or oblivious to most of the adult/mature content on here :P

I don't disagree and I'm now posting more out of curiousity than trying to make a point. Much like my OP. I also freely admit that when I made this thread I didn't truly expect the impact of the "Girls in.." thread to go in this direction. I can't ignore a perspective I agree with, I don't think that female users here should be marginalised in their feelings about this and I do consider the spin off threads and some of the pictures a 'bit much'and in bad taste. That isn't to say that I'd think the same on mofo....forums or the like.

I agree that the content on the entire website is more for adults. Maybe they should change it so that you need to be 18 to join (that almost sets a standard of what you can expect - casual racism, sexual comments, swearing etc). Maybe they should simply ask for the sexual images and chauvinism to stop (crudcatcher is bad). But I think we can all agree that the two pictures (girl on toilet, girl in doggy position) is a little much.

Also, I can't stop thinking about the comericial interests. Imagine, I'm female and I read an issue of cycling plus and think about taking up cycling. I go through the forums land upon crudcatcher or cake stop and am hit with 'Todays red head' or 'girls in knitwear'.

sketchley

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

No "full frontal" nudity has been posted,although the odd nip slipped

MonkeyMonster

clarkey cat wrote:

Anyone under 18 is likely to be either bored sh*tless

I'd imagine there's quite a few over 18 who find it pretty tedious too.

The under 18's are all off fapping or schlucking to the girls in ... threads

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

There is a no nudity policy isn't there? There is here anyway.

viewtopic.php?f=10007&t=12753642

@DDD I mentioned this earlier could you come up with you idea for a new acceptable which we can then talk about and even apply to existing threads / pictures / comments to see what would and would not be allowed under it?

Probably start off with this:

velocestrapture wrote:

I have previously asked the mods if they would amend their posting guidance to include a prohibition on sexist and disabilist comments as well as racist and homophobic, but got no response. I suppose they have to do a balancing act in terms of attracting advertising revenue between making this site more female-friendly, and keeping the rather more juvenile posters who can't have fun on a cycling forum without looking at semi-naked women every day.