www.talkcyprus.org

[respiridus]

Quote: Really common sense shoould tell you that any image that may cause offense or be distressing or distasteful to others, is better linked to than embedded.

But then, according to a certain member of this forum, common sense is something I lack. ;-) :lol:

[city]

What is your point respi? You turned the pic into a link and all was /is fine.
What are you trying to say here?

[respiridus]

city wrote: What is your point respi? You turned the pic into a link and all was /is fine.
What are you trying to say here?

I wasn't talking about you.

[city]

respiridus wrote: city wrote: What is your point respi? You turned the pic into a link and all was /is fine.
What are you trying to say here?

I wasn't talking about you.

I know and thats not what my post was about. I was trying to figure what you wanted to say. Are you ok with the suggested rule, do you agree or disagree, have any criticism any input...... :?

[respiridus]

No, I was only joking.

As for my opinion, I believe there are several kinds of nude, apart from pornographic nude. These include artistic nudes, medical images, photos of nudists, etc. I don't think that those can do much harm or that they would affect someone's feelings. After all, we see them all the time in "K" and "12" rated TV shows, like news bulletins, and documentaries.

[erolz]

respiridus wrote: As for my opinion, I believe there are several kinds of nude, apart from pornographic nude. These include artistic nudes, medical images, photos of nudists, etc. I don't think that those can do much harm or that they would affect someone's feelings. After all, we see them all the time in "K" and "12" rated TV shows, like news bulletins, and documentaries.

There are several kinds of nudes, but a link with a description will ALWAYS give any member a choice of viewing it or not where as an embedded image NEVER gives that user such choice. Choice is good :)

[respiridus]

I have no problem with that, if that's how some of our members feel. :-)

[cypezokyli]

giving the link, its a good way out.

i agree to that as well. thus anyone who wants to see it, has the choise. good compromise, dont u think :wink:

[Crash Test Dummy]

depurple wrote: Boys I have also Deleted the Barbi Twins at Ayia Napa and I hope it didn't offended the 25 curious people who viewed the photo

its actually only 15 people because Bro probably looked at it about a dozen times :lol: :lol:

[Bullika]

Crash Test Dummy wrote: depurple wrote: Boys I have also Deleted the Barbi Twins at Ayia Napa and I hope it didn't offended the 25 curious people who viewed the photo

its actually only 15 people because Bro probably looked at it about a dozen times :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: And so did I.

[Bullika]

I agree that we should provide links to photos in future so as to give people a choice. This is a sensible idea and I will be the first to implement it even without the rule in place.

However I am compelled to ask, what about the dirty talk in messages people have posted so far? myself included. Surely this is in breach of the new rules too. Surely this is "no-choice".

Lastly, I will ask Erol and City (and others) to exempt existing posts in his new form of popular forum legislation. Simply because it would be far too time cosuming and arduous for me to check and modify over 1730 posts. I work 45 hours a week (not including other commitments) and I simply do not have the time to do this.

Erol can you kindly provide a commencement date for when this rule comes into effect state once and for all that we are not expected to modify existing posts for the reasons I have outlined.

[Bullika]

cypezokyli wrote: ok. this is serious imo.
up to now i never discussed any mods or admins actions. i appreciate their work, and they offer quite a lot to keep this forum going. above all erol, who at times he has to /and has proven to be quite capable.
i will respect the new rules, even though i have my reservetions.
in any case, i dont post pictures, so in a way it doesnt really affect me, but this is a kind of a question on ethics.
its like EU, what kind of EU do we really want?
want kind of a cyp solution do we want?
and
what kind of forum do we really want?

i believe, in the political discusions the rules are kind of more clear. dont get personal , dont insult others. and these are absolutely necessary imo.

if we take tufans thread, about anostos polemistis. to be honest i found it funny and so did a number of forum members (even mods). on principle i believe it was a right decision. in practise , i believe that in a couple of days, it would just be forced to non-existance, by a bulk of new themes. its like our priests when they disagree with a new liberal book, they go in the streets protesting, and in effect achieving to give more publicity to a book that most probably doesnt even worth it.

when it comes to the photo. ok, i agree that it is difficult to draw the line between on what is erotic - and what is porn. and because it is difficult i trust you to draw the line. i think discussing where the line is, it makes no sence.( in any case, porn pictures are out of the question.) so long it doesnt become a common practise, i believe it is ok.

Quote: They may strike some as unecessary or heavy handed, but this site SHOULD be useable by people of any age imo - even as a resource perhaps to be used in schools and the like.
the argument about people of any age. i dont know at what age kids or teenagers, are online. and i dont know at what age they are searching for a cyprus forum. and i believe if they can find a cyprus forum, they can also find naked women on line. therefore, i dont believe that someone will use this forum with purpose to see nude pictures. there are millions of them on the net. they are everyday on tv... and at least when i was 15 i knew where i could find the necessary magazines :wink: not to mention, that this is the same with girls, and these teenage-magazins they buy.
anyway lets not get into the society right now. my point is that, i dont believe that a teenager would use this forum to find nude pictures when there is an abadunce of them out there.

i would also like to add a couple of more things on this argument of users of any age. how about our joke section? most them are not restricted to a "proper" level. most of them ARE about sex. using this argument then we would need to reconsider the jokes we share. i think that a number of them are not that appropriate for all ages.
that is why, i believe this serious. its not about the rules themselves. the rules are not important. its the arguments used that are important.

there is also, another reality. even though this forum has 200-300 users, if u take the first 20 active members then most probably u have an 80% of the total posts. i dont know how it is in other forums. at points this one gives me a family atmosphere - and to be honest i like it. thats why u can see threads, worried about brother, and wondering where mitatcyp is.
aristotel argued that each city should have a maximum of people. i dont know if this applies for a forum as well. usually a thread ends up to be a discussion between 2-3 people. and when it gets to ten people its impossible to follow anymore.
in any case, what i am trying to say here is that, he who posted that photo, has already 800 posts, and he knows that it will not insult any of the forum members. i believe that depurple wouldnt have posted such a photo, if he knew that it would insult some forum member.
BUT, if any forum member felt uncomfortable with the photo, or insulted in any way, my above argument does not hold.

Quote: Naked pictures on the site are just not necessary.
this argument i find more proper to be honest. as i said we dont use the forum to enjoy naked pictures. its not sth that we need. since it is not neccessary, and as we can see from the replies of depurple and bullika...the message is already through. and thats whats important i believe.
i believe what should be achieved is already achieved. there is no need for a rule, when the members themselves understood the point :wink:
i dont believe that this forum will turn to be bounded by conservative rules. i think the admin hasnt prove to be concervative up to now :wink: its just that in principle, if we restrict not-proper photos, we will restrict not-proper discussions. and that i wouldnt like to see to be honest.

it got kind of too long, i am sorry.
in any case, the rules that will be decided should be respected.

you raised some very good points.

[erolz]

Bullika wrote: However I am compelled to ask, what about the dirty talk in messages people have posted so far? myself included. Surely this is in breach of the new rules too. Surely this is "no-choice".

It is much more complicated and less clear cut, deciding if what people say is 'dirty talk' or not. For the moment I am looking to get in place agreed guidlines / rules for the use of embedded pictures in posts and ppictures in forum albums.

Bullika wrote:
Lastly, I will ask Erol and City (and others) to exempt existing posts in his new form of popular forum legislation. Simply because it would be far too time cosuming and arduous for me to check and modify over 1730 posts. I work 45 hours a week (not including other commitments) and I simply do not have the time to do this.

Erol can you kindly provide a commencement date for when this rule comes into effect state once and for all that we are not expected to modify existing posts for the reasons I have outlined.

Er I said early on in the thread the following, which hopefully answers these questions

erol wrote: At this time (if this happens) any _future_ posts that do not comply with the new rule will be quarantined. At this stage I am not proposing that all such historice posts be changed, as this is too much work

HOWEVER

pictures placed in users personal albums or the public albums WILL need to be removed.

Hopefully this is clearer now?

[Bullika]

oh yes i didnt see that, thank you

[magikthrill]

my chest is exposed does that mean my picture is unnecessary?

hehe j/k. i am 100% support of these rules (even though they are over a month old tee-hee)